Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This goes to a much deeper malais with society than just kids. Parental guidance isn't just a 9 to 5 job. There must be values taught to all these kids even more so now than generations ago.
In past generations you were in contact with all spectrums of the age grouping and met within all of those groups many people you instantly respected. You might not have liked most of them but you respected them. Todays youth are growing up with no break from their peer groups. They are in constant contact, willing or otherwise, with todays instant messaging and social networking sites. If one of them goes off the net, even for an instant, they come back on later to find they've been the subject of derision for their disrespect for their fellow posters.
What kind of world is that to live in? You must remain on the grid 24/7 lest you become the laggard, the cast-out, the social leper. When we were growing up; it was not unusual to be incommunicado for days at a time while you were otherwise occupied with going to camp, working part time at the soda fountain, vacationing with your parents. Not so today. Todays kids are constantly feeding off each other and totally absorbed with each other.
This has happened before in recent history in the Province of B.C. with a girl of east Indian ethnicity being found beaten and drowned under a bridge where kids hung out. Another girl and her boyfriend were summarily charged but it started with a beat down by no less than eight teens.
One can surmise by viewing pictures of that poor girl from that 1997 crime that she was desperately trying to "fit in" and the evil little ****s she encountered were simply using her for blood sport. There'd be no ability for her to have fought off eight of them and she would have willingly gone to the slaughter mistakenly thinking she was being "included".
See the problem is they are not. Its not likely or rational to believe all these people are statistical anomalies. The people are basically good mythology leads to this. Its even obvious here since I often receive intense hatred for my political beliefs which are provided with facts and arguments and falsifiable enough to go the route of proving me wrong. However hatred, demonetization and ostracization are preferred. The people in this forum really behave in similar ways. Of course they are shocked when their bullying is returned to them by exposing their lack of class and abject stupidity. It is in some ways a side effect of cyberspace which dehumanizes us so I can cut some slack. However there is a reason why education always included moral training , which seems to have been left behind with beliefs in theism.
This isn't about this incident. Its about us.
Evil probably runs on a spectrum, some are moreso than others. Some people are better in touch with right and wrong than others. Even if somebody knows right from wrong, but just doesn't care, that's a pretty bad person, in my book, even if they aren't a technical sociopath. I still don't know what exactly a sociopath is, even after reading about them. I have a difficult time understanding what one really is. However, I do believe lack of empathy, manipulation, control over another, maliciousness and viciousness are all attributes, and that's the type of behavior that Amanda Todd's tormentors exhibited. Even if those are just tendencies, I think her tormentors and others like them need to repeatedly be let known something is VERY wrong with their behavior.
I agree with you that some people here, on this forum, demonstrate similar behavior, especially when they disagree with somebody politically. And I mean they have similar behavior, but maybe not necessarily as severe on the spectrum as Amanda Todd's tormentors. One thing that concerns me, in this very thread, is that so many people are suggesting Amanda, a 15 year old child, was supposed to just "take it" and "handle it". What's troubling is those commenter's lack of empathy and understanding Amanda's point of view. She was merely a child and had been enduring torture for a long time. Seriously, how is a CHILD supposed to handle that? Do those posters not remember being a child? Do they not have memories? Do they not understand the difference between a child and adult? Do they not realize that to a child, their school is their entire community and entire world outsider their family? We were all once children, so I don't see how others think this girl should have handled her torture like an adult, which requires more years of life experience and maturity. Even young adults would be troubled to have gone through what Amanda did.
About "moral training" being included with education - I agree with you there too. It sounds odd, but something I've noticed is that I think there is a an equivalent of "nouveau riche" as it relates to the newly monied that relates to the newly educated. Judging from what you said, I would imagine you know exactly what I mean and I think you are describing the same phenomenon.
As for electronic gadgetry being dehumanizing, I don't disagree with you, but I really hate the idea of giving people slack.
And the solution? Pass more laws and regulations, put more people in jail?
Emulate the methods of all the repressive regimes in the world and practice brainwashing starting in kinder?
And when this totally politically correct society comes up against another country that treats political correctness and turn the other cheek mentality as a weakness, a plum ripe to be picked?
What happens then?
We sue them in World Court?
Okay.
First, take a deep breath and chill with the rhetoric.
Now, let's put two things in perspective here. First of all, this happened in Canada. Not the United States, but Canada. So relax; no bald eagles were harmed when the poor girl took her own life and the people who drove her to do it are safe and sound, high-fiving one another while saying, "we taught her, eh?" up in the Great White North. A victory for Randian social libertarianism in Canada? I know it's hard to belive...
Generally speaking, as soon as I hear someone bemoan "political correctness," I shudder, becuase they tend to be the most xenophobic and spiteful people I meet with any frequency. Ironically, I am extremely politically incorrect and no, I don't believe that everyone should be forced into a big hugtime circle around an incompetent person who happens to be of any particular race or disability through no fault of their own or anyone else's to feel better about being a totally incompetent failure, or to rally around an intolerant religious community (whatever that religion may be), or anything like that.
What I do believe is that there were pornographic photos of a teenaged girl that were being used as blackmail towards that girl to get more pictures out of her, and then were circulated amongst her peers online with the implicit intent of causing her emotional distress.
Are you opposed to child porn laws? Is that an issue of "political correctness" or is child pornography just plain wrong?
This specific case wasn't about passing new laws to make nerdy kids with crappy parents feel empowered to sue other kids who call them "nerds." This case was about a complete and total failure of existing international laws protecting a girl who was, indeed, a victim of a group of severely malicious and sociopathic aggressors. Should her parents have pulled the plug on the internet for her? Yes. Should the person who kept porn of her and circulated it to other minors be punished? Absolutely.
Moreover, back to your lamentations of this intolerably politically correct society being able to hold its own in a fight against a group of close-minded, misogynistic, paleo-conservative aggressors... well, ask Afghanistan how that worked out.
Thank you for keeping the salient points clear. Let's not forget 5-1 or 20-1 attack.
While I respect the guys' point of view on this thread, the OP a combat vet from Vietnam ( thank you for your service ) is comparing himself to a petite little girl. Of course him and I can handle it easier we are guys who have been in fights she hasn't. We know how to take the attack to attackers. How many teen girls have that life experience. None
And that's what I find to be so shocking about this thread: at what point did shrugging your shoulders and going "heh, well, you should have learned to fight!" at the suicide of a teenaged girl become "manly?"
I'm not making excuses for anyone. I'm trying to explain why it occurs. You wish to believe that the reasons are unimportant. I disagree.
If I were to explain that I think many violent offenders harm others because they themselves were abused, would you argue that I'm "making excuses" for trying to identify why they behave in destructive ways?
I don't care - it's a choice.
The poster and others choose to live their lives that way.
What about those who grew up in the same type of environment yet choose to behave differently?
It's all about choices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Homogenizer
You're right; sorry about that. I thought you were responding to something else because I didn't fully read the quote you had posted.
In response to the post that I had misread: I don't care about it; I think you're drawing a petty distinction, and I'm not interested in arguing it.
It wasn't petty. It was a clear distinction.
You just don't want to back up your statements.
It wasn't petty. It was a clear distinction.
You just don't want to back up your statements.
It's true that I don't want to back up my statement, but only because I really don't care. I perceive your point to be an invitation to me to engage in an exchange over the definition of dependence, but why would I do that? You're attempting to throw people engaged in commerce into the same pool as people dependent on the state for work or people dependent on welfare. In my opinion, you're so far off the reservation that there's no benefit to me to discuss it with you.
A good discussion takes energy. I don't want to waste mine.
It's true that I don't want to back up my statement, but only because I really don't care. I perceive your point to be an invitation to me to engage in an exchange over the definition of dependence, but why would I do that? You're attempting to throw people engaged in commerce into the same pool as people dependent on the state for work or people dependent on welfare. In my opinion, you're so far off the reservation that there's no benefit to me to discuss it with you.
A good discussion takes energy. I don't want to waste mine.
Take it as a win if you like.
You can't back up your words.
Very simple.
Everyone is dependent; everyone is interdependent.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
