Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
and you can't be serious about the condescending part right???
b/c you have NEVER been condescending on this board.
bahahahahahahaha
is this candid camera??
I don't see why you need to strawman (edit: and ad hom) any of my posts in this thread. I guess I should never engage any of your posts that I don't agree with.
and when have I touched on condescending in this thread? making jokes about people's music tastes, posting styles, or anything else is not at all relevant to me posting, completely in earnest, in a thread where I thought I could have an honest discussion with some people whose opinions I value.
so what are you saying i'm completely wrong about? that guys are more violent in general? b/c that IS true.
...
sorry, i admit its a generalization but they have those for a reason. men ARE more violent in general and they DO resort to violence more often than women.
...
but to say that men aren't more violent in general, just isn't true.
This is an inexplicable tragedy and I can't say anything that hasn't already been said. My heart goes out to the victims and one in particular, who I don't know but someone very close to me does. Thankfully, the guy was only wounded and will likely fully recover, I just wish the same could be said about everyone that was in that theater.
I came home from my trip in high spirits and this was a really sobering smack in the face. I woke up this morning to get a coffee and the paper, and staring me in the face was, once again, the f*cking douchey NY tabloids using a tragedy for their own agenda. Why can't people look at this for what it is (an incredibly tragic event) and not use it to further political or social agendas?
Anyone who thinks everyone should be armed, or nobody should be armed, are out of their minds. Anyone who thinks that this President, or that Congressman, or this Senator are more responsible than any past public servant is equally out of their minds. The answer is: there is no answer. People are sick and tragedies are unavoidable. If you outlaw guns, sick people will build bombs. If you outlaw every substance that could be used to create an explosive (a literal impossibility), it'll be something else.
The only real solution is for people not to ignore warning signs, but even that is iffy at best. But seeing the Daily News blame Obama, or the NY Post blame the NRA is just foolish. This is the fault of the gunman, and to force blame on others is just a way to avoid the real discussion, which is that there are people in dire need of help and those that are close to that person can't go through life with blinders on. Educate everyone, and you might have a chance.
I'm sure you could find a study somewhere that links a higher level if physical aggression in men. At least you could find studies showing this in make animals. Kind of a defending the territory/women type thing
Yes, you are right. But violence in today's context is usually counterproductive. Evolutionarily speaking we should be able to move past that. Intellectually any sensible person should be able to see that it is preferable to live in a peaceful society and world. We have the intellectual capability of doing so much. We can send people to the moon and explore Mars but we find it impossible to coexist peacefully with each other. It's not that we can't figure out how. It's that people don't actually want to. Despite the "shock" that people claim when something like this happens, we don't place a value on producing a peaceful society.
I think you are misrepresenting a couple of things. The way the world is set up certain people, demographics, and even nations are pushed towards violence based on the world societies construct for them. And I think you are strawmanning people's desires for less violence. Mentally stable people do not want to see murder.
What am I misrepresenting? You would think that no mentally stable person consciously wants to see murder. But if this were actually the case, if people actually valued human life and the concept of peace, don't you think that people would insist on a different way, a different government, and a different world? There are some populations who have no say in the governing bodies of their nation, but here in the United States we are the ones who vote people into office. If what we would like to believe is true actually was true, the majority of people would be absolutely OUTRAGED by war. They wouldn't keep voting for the same douchebags that perpetuate a cycle of aggression. (I also find it unlikely they would enjoy watching depictions of people getting blown to bits as a form of entertainment. Seems slightly incongruent to me, but what do I know). As it is, there is only a very small minority of people who actually staunchly support the sanctity of innocent human life. Ignorance, greed, and apathy are more responsible for the state of affairs than outright bloodthirst.
~All the accumulated knowledge, experience, and suffering of mankind is inside you. You must build a huge bonfire within you. Then you will become an individual. There is no other way.
~~~U.G. Krishnamurti
"I don't know whose water this is, but I'm drinkin it so F you."~~~Dale
"He is a wook in sheep's clothing."~~~Popsicle Sarah
"You know the feeling when you're in too deep, and when you make it out, the taste - so sweet." ~~DMB
I've grown up with and seen all manner of violence in movies, on TV, video games, etc, but I'm not desensitized to it when it's real. Whenever I've seen real violence with my own 2 eyes, on the internet (God knows I wished I hadn't clicked those links), News or what ever it's abso-fucking-lutely horrible every time. It disgusts me.
What you see in movies or TV drama is make believe. What you just saw was special effects and camera work. It's not real. It's a story. Just about every story from the dawn of fiction contains some element of violence. If violence in entertainment perpetuated violence in real life we'd have never advanced beyond the dark ages. We'd probably be hiding in holes killing the first person we saw because they might kill us.
None of the mass murders I'm aware of that occurred had a video game or movie depicting them prior to their occurrence.
That's good that you, personally, do not think you are desensitized to real violence. However, there is a huge body of research that shows that media violence DOES result in desensitization and observational learning as well.
Research has found that the more time individuals spent watching violent media depictions, the less emotionally responsive they became to violent stimuli (e.g., Averill, Malstrom, Koriat, & Lazarus, 1972) and the less sympathy they showed for victims of violence in the real world (e.g., Mullin & Linz, 1995). Bartholow, Bushman, and Sestir (2006) used eventrelated brain potential data (ERPs) to compare responses by violent and nonviolent video game users to violent stimuli and relate them to subsequent aggressive responses in a laboratory task. Bartholow et al. found that the more violent games participants played habitually, the less brain activity they showed in response to violent pictures and the more aggressively they behaved in the subsequent task. In a series of studies with children age 5 to 12, Funk and colleagues demonstrated that habitual usage of violent video games was associated with reduced empathy with others in need of help (Funk, Baldacci, Pasold, & Baumgardner, 2004; Funk, Buchman, Jenks, & Bechtoldt, 2003).www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21186935
I'm not sure how many times I have to reiterate that I am not suggesting that media violence is the sole CAUSE of these events. I am simply making an observation about the type of environment our culture chooses to create and the demonstrated influence it has.
~All the accumulated knowledge, experience, and suffering of mankind is inside you. You must build a huge bonfire within you. Then you will become an individual. There is no other way.
~~~U.G. Krishnamurti
"I don't know whose water this is, but I'm drinkin it so F you."~~~Dale
"He is a wook in sheep's clothing."~~~Popsicle Sarah
"You know the feeling when you're in too deep, and when you make it out, the taste - so sweet." ~~DMB
As it is, there is only a very small minority of people who actually staunchly support the sanctity of innocent human life.
I feel this is a very general and unfair statement. I highly disagree that it is a "small minority" of the general public that staunchly support human life. I have yet to see a single person support what happened in Colorado, and I don't remember seeing any politicians (on either side of the aisle) celebrating soldiers being killed on foreign soil.
Ignorance, greed, and apathy are more responsible for the state of affairs than outright bloodthirst.
I think this is a very reasonable criticism & concern.
But you're taking an individual circumstance and trying to apply it to the state of the country. You really can't do that when one is the end result of decades of legislation and desensitization, while the other is the result of one person who was incredibly misguided and potentially sick as well.
One can't really reflect the other when they're so different, IMO.
As it is, there is only a very small minority of people who actually staunchly support the sanctity of innocent human life.
I feel this is a very general and unfair statement. I highly disagree that it is a "small minority" of the general public that staunchly support human life. I have yet to see a single person support what happened in Colorado, and I don't remember seeing any politicians (on either side of the aisle) celebrating soldiers being killed on foreign soil.
The irony. If those politicians and the people who voted them in staunchly supported the sanctity of human life, they wouldn't have sent those troops over there for a senseless war to begin with. And I've yet to hear more than about two people in my personal life lament the deaths and injuries of the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians that were killed in that war & in Afghanistan. Where is the outrage? Somehow they don't count because they're not from our country I suppose. Or maybe it's because it's not happening on our soil so we don't actually have to see it. That's where the ignorance and apathy factors in. Of course most people don't just outright condone murder.
But you're taking an individual circumstance and trying to apply it to the state of the country. You really can't do that when one is the end result of decades of legislation and desensitization, while the other is the result of one person who was incredibly misguided and potentially sick as well.
One can't really reflect the other when they're so different, IMO.
I see how it could appear that way, but IMO it's really not that different. I'm not sure why killing innocent people is considered ok if it's sanctioned by the government, but is a incomprehesible tragedy in other circumstances. War is the foremost manifestation of violence in the world, and I usually happen to find it misguided and sick as well. To me senseless acts like this shooting are a microcosm of the lunacy that happens every day on a global scale.
~All the accumulated knowledge, experience, and suffering of mankind is inside you. You must build a huge bonfire within you. Then you will become an individual. There is no other way.
~~~U.G. Krishnamurti
"I don't know whose water this is, but I'm drinkin it so F you."~~~Dale
"He is a wook in sheep's clothing."~~~Popsicle Sarah
"You know the feeling when you're in too deep, and when you make it out, the taste - so sweet." ~~DMB
[M]en are nine to 10 times more likely to commit homicide and more likely to be its victims. The numbers are sobering when we look at young men. In the U.S., for example, young white males (between ages 14 and 24) represent only 6% of the population, yet commit almost 17% of the murders. For young black males, the numbers are even more alarming (1.2% of the population accounting for 27% of all homicides). Together, these two groups of young men make up just 7% of the population and 45% of the homicides. And, overall, 90% of all violent offenders are male, as are nearly 80% of the victims.
None of this means, as the scientists always caution, that testosterone is directly linked to romantic failure or violence. No study has found a simple correlation, for example, between testosterone levels and crime. But there may be a complex correlation. The male-prisoner study, for example, found no general above-normal testosterone levels among inmates. But murderers and armed robbers had higher testosterone levels than mere car thieves and burglars. Why is this not surprising? One of the most remarkable, but least commented on, social statistics available is the sex differential in crime. For decades, arrest rates have shown that an overwhelmingly disproportionate number of arrestees are male. Although the sex differential has narrowed since the chivalrous 1930's, when the male-female arrest ratio was 12 to 1, it remains almost 4 to 1, a close echo of the testosterone differential between men and women. In violent crime, men make up an even bigger proportion. In 1998, 89 percent of murders in the United States, for example, were committed by men. Of course, there's a nature-nurture issue here as well, and the fact that the sex differential in crime has decreased over this century suggests that environment has played a part. Yet despite the enormous social changes of the last century, the differential is still 4 to 1, which suggests that underlying attributes may also have a great deal to do with it.
[M]en are nine to 10 times more likely to commit homicide and more likely to be its victims. The numbers are sobering when we look at young men. In the U.S., for example, young white males (between ages 14 and 24) represent only 6% of the population, yet commit almost 17% of the murders. For young black males, the numbers are even more alarming (1.2% of the population accounting for 27% of all homicides). Together, these two groups of young men make up just 7% of the population and 45% of the homicides. And, overall, 90% of all violent offenders are male, as are nearly 80% of the victims.
None of this means, as the scientists always caution, that testosterone is directly linked to romantic failure or violence. No study has found a simple correlation, for example, between testosterone levels and crime. But there may be a complex correlation. The male-prisoner study, for example, found no general above-normal testosterone levels among inmates. But murderers and armed robbers had higher testosterone levels than mere car thieves and burglars. Why is this not surprising? One of the most remarkable, but least commented on, social statistics available is the sex differential in crime. For decades, arrest rates have shown that an overwhelmingly disproportionate number of arrestees are male. Although the sex differential has narrowed since the chivalrous 1930's, when the male-female arrest ratio was 12 to 1, it remains almost 4 to 1, a close echo of the testosterone differential between men and women. In violent crime, men make up an even bigger proportion. In 1998, 89 percent of murders in the United States, for example, were committed by men. Of course, there's a nature-nurture issue here as well, and the fact that the sex differential in crime has decreased over this century suggests that environment has played a part. Yet despite the enormous social changes of the last century, the differential is still 4 to 1, which suggests that underlying attributes may also have a great deal to do with it.
and sunfox 1) do you think war is never justified? and if the answer is no do you understand how some people may have believed that the wars we've been in the last 10 years may have been justified. and if the answer to that is yes, then i'd argue those people aren't necessarily evil or violent just misguided. which is what i feel 2) killing innocent people is never ok. government sanctioned murder doesn't really happen.
The irony. If those politicians and the people who voted them in staunchly supported the sanctity of human life, they wouldn't have sent those troops over there for a senseless war to begin with. And I've yet to hear more than about two people in my personal life lament the deaths and injuries of the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians that were killed in that war & in Afghanistan. Where is the outrage? Somehow they don't count because they're not from our country I suppose. Or maybe it's because it's not happening on our soil so we don't actually have to see it. That's where the ignorance and apathy factors in. Of course most people don't just outright condone murder.
I feel like you have a combative tone in this post, if so, I'm not trying to upset you, I'm just responding to keep a dialogue going.
That being said....because you only know a few people who lament the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians, that means it's like that everywhere? There was an anti-war demonstration in the park by my office yesterday. Maybe it's where you live that is willfully ignorant to the subject, but that doesn't mean it applies to everywhere else.
I feel like you're faulting civilians with no control over this for what happened. The general public doesn't know what their elected officials will vote for once they're in office. To say the general public is responsible for civilian deaths overseas because they voted for someone? Come on, that's a stretch that I have a hard time accepting. And I don't know what they could do in terms of activism. You can protest, but the military branch (once it is released into a region) doesn't answer to us. If you hate certain politicians for letting people go to war, or countries to kill civilians (and you are being unfair by giving the US sole responsibility in this regard, most civilian deaths are the cause of the regimes we are warring with), then your only course of action is to vote them out of office.
I see how it could appear that way, but IMO it's really not that different. I'm not sure why killing innocent people is considered ok if it's sanctioned by the government, but is a incomprehesible tragedy in other circumstances. War is the foremost manifestation of violence in the world, and I usually happen to find it misguided and sick as well. To me senseless acts like this shooting are a microcosm of the lunacy that happens every day on a global scale.
Again, who is accepting civilians being killed anywhere? I never said anyone being killed is okay. Is a guy going into a movie theater and killing a dozen people incomprehensibly tragic? Yes. Indisputably yes. Is a family sitting in their home being blown up and losing family members to a senseless, cowardly act just as tragic? Yes.
But your stance that an act of a single person is comparable to the act of thousands and thousands of people from multiple countries, regions, walks of life, etc. is just not reasonable. I'm not defending either act, for the record, I'm just saying that it's almost unfair to the victims of the shooting tragedy to use it to propel into a discussion about America's crimes against humanity in the Middle East or other regions.
I think you're getting into an entirely different discussion.
And, just to play devil's advocate, do you think anyone in the Middle East cares about the tragedy in Colorado? I'd be surprised if most people even knew about it.
I feel like you're faulting civilians with no control over this for what happened. The general public doesn't know what their elected officials will vote for once they're in office. To say the general public is responsible for civilian deaths overseas because they voted for someone? Come on, that's a stretch that I have a hard time accepting. And I don't know what they could do in terms of activism. You can protest, but the military branch (once it is released into a region) doesn't answer to us. If you hate certain politicians for letting people go to war, or countries to kill civilians (and you are being unfair by giving the US sole responsibility in this regard, most civilian deaths are the cause of the regimes we are warring with), then your only course of action is to vote them out of office.
The U.S. government is, in theory, for the people and by the people. So yes, if you vote for one of the two major political parties, I do think that you share a portion of responsibility for what our government does. Most candidates for public office that emphasize (actual) peace and nonviolence as international strategies run in marginal, alternative parties and are usually laughed at. If people REALLY wanted something different than what is happening in relation to this topic, they would INSIST on alternatives. As it stands, the people doing that are a small minority, which was my original statement. I respect that you don't agree, and that's fine. As long as people feel like they aren't responsible, nothing will change.
Again, who is accepting civilians being killed anywhere? I never said anyone being killed is okay. Is a guy going into a movie theater and killing a dozen people incomprehensibly tragic? Yes. Indisputably yes. Is a family sitting in their home being blown up and losing family members to a senseless, cowardly act just as tragic? Yes.
But your stance that an act of a single person is comparable to the act of thousands and thousands of people from multiple countries, regions, walks of life, etc. is just not reasonable. I'm not defending either act, for the record, I'm just saying that it's almost unfair to the victims of the shooting tragedy to use it to propel into a discussion about America's crimes against humanity in the Middle East or other regions.
I think you're getting into an entirely different discussion.
It's not really a different discussion. My perspective on it is that senseless violence runs rampant in the world, from the top level down. Doesn't matter if it's a random person in a theater or this: www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/afghans-riot-over-airstrike-atrocity-1681070.html. I just wish people payed as much attention to the insidious violence that happens every day with our implicit consent as they do to a tragic and sensationalist event like this. If people did then things could change. I don't see why that is unfair to the victims of this tragedy. We should grieve senseless violence wherever and however it happens. We should do whatever we can to teach our children empathy and respect for life, not desensitize them to it. We may not have been able to prevent this, but there are equally horrific things happening that we can prevent. Why don't we? I think I've said enough so I'm bowing out of this discussion.
~All the accumulated knowledge, experience, and suffering of mankind is inside you. You must build a huge bonfire within you. Then you will become an individual. There is no other way.
~~~U.G. Krishnamurti
"I don't know whose water this is, but I'm drinkin it so F you."~~~Dale
"He is a wook in sheep's clothing."~~~Popsicle Sarah
"You know the feeling when you're in too deep, and when you make it out, the taste - so sweet." ~~DMB
The U.S. government is, in theory, for the people and by the people. So yes, if you vote for one of the two major political parties, I do think that you share a portion of responsibility for what our government does. Most candidates for public office that emphasize (actual) peace and nonviolence as international strategies run in marginal, alternative parties and are usually laughed at. If people REALLY wanted something different than what is happening in relation to this topic, they would INSIST on alternatives. As it stands, the people doing that are a small minority, which was my original statement. I respect that you don't agree, and that's fine. As long as people feel like they aren't responsible, nothing will change.
I'm sorry, but I am not responsible for people being killed in Afghanistan, regardless of who I voted for. I really can't see how that's a reasonable thing to assert. I voted for a guy in my local county legislature based on his ideas (which were very good), but he turned out to be a pedophile. That doesn't mean I encourage people to be pedophiles. What happens after someone is elected is out of our hands. You try to make an educated guess, but it's still a guess and that guy still has free reign to vote as he pleases once elected. To try and put blame on the public for its elected officials is unfair.
It's not really a different discussion. My perspective on it is that senseless violence runs rampant in the world, from the top level down. Doesn't matter if it's a random person in a theater or this: www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/afghans-riot-over-airstrike-atrocity-1681070.html. I just wish people payed as much attention to the insidious violence that happens every day with our implicit consent as they do to a tragic and sensationalist event like this. If people did then things could change. I don't see why that is unfair to the victims of this tragedy. We should grieve senseless violence wherever and however it happens. We should do whatever we can to teach our children empathy and respect for life, not desensitize them to it. We may not have been able to prevent this, but there are equally horrific things happening that we can prevent. Why don't we? I think I've said enough so I'm bowing out of this discussion.
Again, to say me voting for someone is akin to my giving "implied consent" to their dropping bombs on civilians is just simply not true.
Sensationalist? I understand your displeasure at how American media covers these events, but don't take it out on innocent folks just because you're angry. That's unfair and disrespectful to the victims.
And I hate to be a downer, but if you always grieved senseless violence "wherever it happen[ed]" you would never stop. There are 7 billion people in this world and at any given time there is something tragic happening, somewhere. You can't fault people for not weeping whenever someone dies, regardless of who the person who passed away is, it's just not a realistic goal.
Should people be more aware of what is happening abroad? Yes. And I agree that the people who can lead this charge are parents molding their children's mind. Unfortunately, there are a lot of blissfully ignorant people in this country so even that has almost no chance of happening, at least not quickly.
We don't live in a Utopic society, expecting people to just all come together and love one another isn't going to happen (although I agree that I wish it would). People have been fighting since the dawn of time, and before that, even. Fighting and senseless death will never end, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't hope for people to be kind to one another on a personal level. It also doesn't mean we shouldn't mourn or show empathy to the tragedy in Colorado just because there was a tragedy somewhere else.
Edit: I also want to say I appreciate you remaining calm throughout this discussion. It's not easy to keep your cool when discussing something you have strong feelings on. In the end, I just think we're searching for answers that aren't there and that's the most frustrating part.