Heartland

Badlander wrote:What in the name of the great Cthulhu can give you the urge to beat someone to death just because you don't like the way he/she looks ?

Apparently you've not studied U.S. history...

SINsister wrote:

Badlander wrote:What in the name of the great Cthulhu can give you the urge to beat someone to death just because you don't like the way he/she looks ?

Apparently you've not studied U.S. history...

..or european or asian or african..
Apes will be apes, wherever they are.

SINsister wrote:

Badlander wrote:What in the name of the great Cthulhu can give you the urge to beat someone to death just because you don't like the way he/she looks ?

Apparently you've not studied U.S. history...

... I mean, when there's no land and no natural resources to steal, and no one to reduce to slavery.

Whilst it may sound draconian, the only way to lower the levels of violence within todays society is by ensuring that the penalties for offences are sufficiently severe to deter anyone following that path. Whether people ascribe to a death penalty is not the issue, however a life sentence should mean the person's natural lifespan, and without having the benefits of an MP3 player, television in each cell and access to multigym and other facilities. If this were backed up with education programmes in schools to advise people from an early age what reasonable society expects as being acceptable behaviour, then perhaps we can turn the tide. I just hope we're not too late.

What do you expect of ignorant humans, though? Nature vs. nurture and all that crap; humans (mainly males) have gleefully destroyed anything they don't agree with and/or find threatening for millennia. No new tale to tell, sadly. I don't see how the horror will ever end. Look at the rest of the world, ffs...

Hmmm...I suppose one big step in the right direction would be to eradicate men altogether...

Badlander wrote:
... I mean, when there's no land and no natural resources to steal, and no one to reduce to slavery.

A part of the picture is a culture that glorifies narcissism (and I don't mean just the UK, I mean Western youth culture in general) combined with thuggish demeanor and a desire for honor that cannot be satisfied in a society that views honor and competition as somehow "wrong" and "backward." When you couple that with subculture tribalism and a society that has abdicated any role as a teacher of basic morality, well...this is what you get.

I am an old man.

Overall, humans are an incredibly stupid bunch. I'm just glad I'm not one of them.

Nixon wrote:Whilst it may sound draconian, the only way to lower the levels of violence within todays society is by ensuring that the penalties for offences are sufficiently severe to deter anyone following that path. Whether people ascribe to a death penalty is not the issue, however a life sentence should mean the person's natural lifespan, and without having the benefits of an MP3 player, television in each cell and access to multigym and other facilities. If this were backed up with education programmes in schools to advise people from an early age what reasonable society expects as being acceptable behaviour, then perhaps we can turn the tide. I just hope we're not too late.

But, but....that would violate their human rights! You monster!

A tragedy indeed.

But i maintain that such behaviour is unnatural, and fuelled solely by a social structure that is not natural. People are encouraged to be pretentious and doublefaced and have to get by in totally repressive conditions. It is not at all surprising that such conditions we have now create such sicknesses.

What comes to nature vs. nurture, i'd choose nature any day many times over nurture. Trouble is, people are now nutured by values and "entertainment" that are designed to do exactly this, mark my words, to turn people sick.

This old adage of blaming anything like this that happens on aggressive male behaviour is idiotic. i'd rather blame the need to divide people into groups and subcultures that are from pont one opposed to one another, combined with the sick social structure and social norms, that is a recipe for disaster.

The way people build up their identities now based on a group, as do the goffs, is sick.
And i'm in no way endorsing stopming on anyone's head when i say that goffs tend to go out of their way to look unnatural. i mean, i laugh at goffs cause i had to spend that much time on my apperance, well, i would not really call myself a decent human being, i'd call myself a pretentious c**t.

That said, i have to say the girl looked really sweet and though i can understand the effects of a destructive society on someone's mindset, it is hard to understand how utter the destruction of everything that is good in a person must be to be able to beat her up. It can not mean anything else but that the five unhappy criminals have never been in touch with anything decent and constructive, that i can say with certainty.

This is as a good a time as any to advertize humanity and i urge anyone who doesn't think that the problem is aggressive male behaviour only and has some inkling that perhaps there's something to what i say, to read Tolstoi's masterpiece on explaining such conditions, Resurrection. Though his viewpoint is christian, i don't see how anyone with a heart could disagree with much anything he says. It is as convincing as it is logical in its shewing how criminals are born.

itnAklipse wrote: That said, i have to say the girl looked really sweet and though i can understand the effects of a destructive society on someone's mindset, it is hard to understand how utter the destruction of everything that is good in a person must be to be able to beat her up.

And your point being? If she would have been an ugly fat goth it would've been ok to beat her up to death?
Reconsider your prejudices, silly boy, or did "the entertainment industry" made you say that?

itnAklipse wrote:This old adage of blaming anything like this that happens on aggressive male behaviour is idiotic. i'd rather blame the need to divide people into groups and subcultures that are from pont one opposed to one another, combined with the sick social structure and social norms, that is a recipe for disaster.

..."the sick social structure and social norms" having been a classically male creation since time immemorial, of course. Because classically, in most human societies, women have had little social power at all. Most of these societal ills can be blamed on the males in each respective society. Women haven't been the ones to wage war, or to rape, pillage, plunder, or anything else of the sort. Of course, there are exceptions - but they *are* the exceptions, rather than the rule. How many all-female societies can you name, throughout history, dei? How many ancient or modern societies can you bring forth as evidence of women's true monetary, political, and/or social clout? The planet's still in the effing Stone Age when it comes to the rights of females around the world...

SINsister wrote:..."the sick social structure and social norms" having been a classically male creation since time immemorial, of course. Because classically, in most human societies, women have had little social power at all. Most of these societal ills can be blamed on the males in each respective society. Women haven't been the ones to wage war, or to rape, pillage, plunder, or anything else of the sort. Of course, there are exceptions - but they *are* the exceptions, rather than the rule.

Funnily enough I watched a documentary about Catherine the Great last week...

Sinnie also wrote:How many all-female societies can you name, throughout history?

www.amazon.com

Sinnie again wrote:How many ancient or modern societies can you bring forth as evidence of women's true monetary, political, and/or social clout?

Ask Boudicca or Thatcher.

Finally, Sinnie wrote:The planet's still in the effing Stone Age when it comes to the rights of females around the world...

There are QUEENS of the Stone Age!

IZ.

SINsister wrote: ..."the sick social structure and social norms" having been a classically male creation since time immemorial, of course. Because classically, in most human societies, women have had little social power at all. Most of these societal ills can be blamed on the males in each respective society. Women haven't been the ones to wage war, or to rape, pillage, plunder, or anything else of the sort. Of course, there are exceptions - but they *are* the exceptions, rather than the rule. How many all-female societies can you name, throughout history, dei? How many ancient or modern societies can you bring forth as evidence of women's true monetary, political, and/or social clout? The planet's still in the effing Stone Age when it comes to the rights of females around the world...

Isn't the real question whether or not the male/female issue is the root of the problem or a distraction from addressing the problem? I'm inclined to think that saying "oh, it's all male aggression, those knuckle dragging apes" rather misses the point--after all, there are men all over the world who aren't violent, just as there are women who are violent. Aberrations in either group shouldn't be taken as exemplary for either group. A more fruitful question might be "what is wrong with British or Western society in the 21st century that this behavior occurs? Is it an aberration?" Society is a fait accompli, blaming men or women for a social structure is rather nonsensical, since they are merely one factor among many in the development of society. The question is, why did these people think violence was acceptable? Why did they not think ahead? Why do they lack foresight? Are they naturally brutish, or did something make them into brutes? In either case, what is to be done about it? These are more fruitful questions.

sultan2075 wrote:A part of the picture is a culture that glorifies narcissism (and I don't mean just the UK, I mean Western youth culture in general)...

It's not just the "youth" culture that's at fault, though, it's this mentality itself. Narcissism, a false and bloated sense of entitlement, an utter lack of respect for others (including their person and property), a complete lack of remorse, a refusal to accept responsibility for one's actions, etc., etc., ad nauseam. All of these are anti-social traits - i.e., the same ones (in)famously demonstrated by serial killers and mass murderers...

SINsister wrote:

sultan2075 wrote:A part of the picture is a culture that glorifies narcissism (and I don't mean just the UK, I mean Western youth culture in general)...

It's not just the "youth" culture that's at fault, though, it's this mentality itself. Narcissism, a false and bloated sense of entitlement, an utter lack of respect for others (including their person and property), a complete lack of remorse, a refusal to accept responsibility for one's actions, etc., etc., ad nauseam. All of these are anti-social traits - i.e., the same ones (in)famously demonstrated by serial killers and mass murderers...

Yes, they are. And our culture promotes them, unfortunately.

sultan2075 wrote:

SINsister wrote: ..."the sick social structure and social norms" having been a classically male creation since time immemorial, of course. Because classically, in most human societies, women have had little social power at all. Most of these societal ills can be blamed on the males in each respective society. Women haven't been the ones to wage war, or to rape, pillage, plunder, or anything else of the sort. Of course, there are exceptions - but they *are* the exceptions, rather than the rule. How many all-female societies can you name, throughout history, dei? How many ancient or modern societies can you bring forth as evidence of women's true monetary, political, and/or social clout? The planet's still in the effing Stone Age when it comes to the rights of females around the world...

Isn't the real question whether or not the male/female issue is the root of the problem or a distraction from addressing the problem? I'm inclined to think that saying "oh, it's all male aggression, those knuckle dragging apes" rather misses the point--after all, there are men all over the world who aren't violent, just as there are women who are violent. Aberrations in either group shouldn't be taken as exemplary for either group. A more fruitful question might be "what is wrong with British or Western society in the 21st century that this behavior occurs? Is it an aberration?" Society is a fait accompli, blaming men or women for a social structure is rather nonsensical, since they are merely one factor among many in the development of society. The question is, why did these people think violence was acceptable? Why did they not think ahead? Why do they lack foresight? Are they naturally brutish, or did something make them into brutes? In either case, what is to be done about it? These are more fruitful questions.

Aberrations? British and Western society? Hmm... What about the brutality and violence against women that's been part of Muslim, Indian, and other Asian societies for millennia? How about female genital mutilation and the raping of women and girls by tribal elders *and* Uzi-toting warlords in Africa? This stuff's not new, it's not isolated, and these cultures have found these practices acceptable for quite awhile. The male-dominated and male-instigated culture of aggression and violence still pervades most societies on the planet.

Izzy HaveMercy wrote:

SINsister wrote:..."the sick social structure and social norms" having been a classically male creation since time immemorial, of course. Because classically, in most human societies, women have had little social power at all. Most of these societal ills can be blamed on the males in each respective society. Women haven't been the ones to wage war, or to rape, pillage, plunder, or anything else of the sort. Of course, there are exceptions - but they *are* the exceptions, rather than the rule.

Funnily enough I watched a documentary about Catherine the Great last week...

Sinnie also wrote:How many all-female societies can you name, throughout history?

www.amazon.com

Sinnie again wrote:How many ancient or modern societies can you bring forth as evidence of women's true monetary, political, and/or social clout?

Ask Boudicca or Thatcher.

Finally, Sinnie wrote:The planet's still in the effing Stone Age when it comes to the rights of females around the world...

There are QUEENS of the Stone Age!

IZ.

-Exceptions, as mentioned above.

-*I* know these things.

-Is your name "dei"?

SINsister wrote:
-Is your name "dei"?

'Deus' more likely And I left his name out

IZ.

Nixon wrote:Whilst it may sound draconian, the only way to lower the levels of violence within todays society is by ensuring that the penalties for offences are sufficiently severe to deter anyone following that path.

Nah... In fact most studies demonstrate that the severity of the penalty is not taken into account by the perpetrator. What can make you think twice on the other hand is the conviction that you're going to get caught. When most civil and and criminal offences are left unsolved (iirc, in France only 40% of such offences are solved), and you're sure you can get away with what you've done, the severity of the penalties doesn't really matter.
Getting tough on crime is pretty pointless. Sure it will reassure the conservatives bourgeoisie, but it won't really protect people.

Izzy HaveMercy wrote:

SINsister wrote:
-Is your name "dei"?

'Deus' more likely

Who?

sultan2075 wrote:The question is, why did these people think violence was acceptable? Why did they not think ahead? Why do they lack foresight? Are they naturally brutish, or did something make them into brutes?

Errrm ... is "drink" a simplistic answer?

I'm sure there's a statistic around somewhere that would make my point for me...

SINsister wrote:

sultan2075 wrote:

SINsister wrote: ..."the sick social structure and social norms" having been a classically male creation since time immemorial, of course. Because classically, in most human societies, women have had little social power at all. Most of these societal ills can be blamed on the males in each respective society. Women haven't been the ones to wage war, or to rape, pillage, plunder, or anything else of the sort. Of course, there are exceptions - but they *are* the exceptions, rather than the rule. How many all-female societies can you name, throughout history, dei? How many ancient or modern societies can you bring forth as evidence of women's true monetary, political, and/or social clout? The planet's still in the effing Stone Age when it comes to the rights of females around the world...

Isn't the real question whether or not the male/female issue is the root of the problem or a distraction from addressing the problem? I'm inclined to think that saying "oh, it's all male aggression, those knuckle dragging apes" rather misses the point--after all, there are men all over the world who aren't violent, just as there are women who are violent. Aberrations in either group shouldn't be taken as exemplary for either group. A more fruitful question might be "what is wrong with British or Western society in the 21st century that this behavior occurs? Is it an aberration?" Society is a fait accompli, blaming men or women for a social structure is rather nonsensical, since they are merely one factor among many in the development of society. The question is, why did these people think violence was acceptable? Why did they not think ahead? Why do they lack foresight? Are they naturally brutish, or did something make them into brutes? In either case, what is to be done about it? These are more fruitful questions.

Aberrations? British and Western society? Hmm... What about the brutality and violence against women that's been part of Muslim, Indian, and other Asian societies for millennia? How about female genital mutilation and the raping of women and girls by tribal elders *and* Uzi-toting warlords in Africa? This stuff's not new, it's not isolated, and these cultures have found these practices acceptable for quite awhile. The male-dominated and male-instigated culture of aggression and violence still pervades most societies on the planet.

Whoa....I think you misunderstood me. I'm not saying violence against women is an aberration across the board or some shocking new development in the world, there are plenty of frankly, barbaric cultures in the world--as Aristotle says, you will know the true barbarian by how they treat the women among them. I'm not denying that. I meant "is it an aberration in Britishsociety or Western culture." I was in no way trying to suggest anything otherwise. If it's an aberration in British/Western culture--and I'd say it is today--then thinking about the issue needs to move beyond the question of whether it is something natural to men to the question of what society is doing or not doing to promote this sort of behavior.

sultan2075 wrote:If it's an aberration in British/Western culture--and I'd say it is today--then thinking about the issue needs to move beyond the question of whether it is something natural to men to the question of what society is doing or not doing to promote this sort of behavior.

From a logical standpoint, any human behavior that threatens a harmonious and functioning environment should be considered "aberrant" - yet especially over here, "society" (I'm loathe to use that word to describe it) seems to have come to accept some level of regular violence as normal. It's just another high school/fast-food joint/college campus shooting, after all, you know? There's a requisite wringing of hands when these monstrous events occur, but then they're quickly forgotten in light of Paris Hilton's or some sports star's latest brush with law enforcement, or any other utterly-trivial and wholly-mindless diversion from the profoundly grave situation at hand. Talk about a confederacy of dunces...

SINsister wrote:

sultan2075 wrote:If it's an aberration in British/Western culture--and I'd say it is today--then thinking about the issue needs to move beyond the question of whether it is something natural to men to the question of what society is doing or not doing to promote this sort of behavior.

From a logical standpoint, any human behavior that threatens a harmonious and functioning environment should be considered "aberrant" - yet especially over here, "society" (I'm loathe to use that word to describe it) seems to have come to accept some level of regular violence as normal. It's just another high school/fast-food joint/college campus shooting, after all, you know? There's a requisite wringing of hands when these monstrous events occur, but then they're quickly forgotten in light of Paris Hilton's or some sports star's latest brush with law enforcement, or any other utterly-trivial and wholly-mindless diversion from the profoundly grave situation at hand. Talk about a confederacy of dunces...

I meant aberration in the sense of a statistical aberration, i.e., it's not very common. As for your other comments, yes, I think that what you're describing is the result of the loss of a sense of community identity. We increasingly become isolated egos, communicating with each other indirectly, etc, etc, etc. We cease to see other human beings as anything other than other isolated egos, so really, who gives a damn what happens to them? We disconnect ourselves from community, and then we act surprised when people with no sense of community beyond their tribe (goth, punk, chav,* etc) start preying on non-members. I think this is the logical result of group identity politics pushed to an extreme.






*What, exactly, is a "chav"? I gather it's some sort low-class white British wannabe gangster. Is that correct?

Syberberg wrote:

boudicca wrote:I wouldn't be at all surprised if those who define themselves as goffix were less likely to commit a violent crime than average...

Quite right, back when I was living in the Northeast, the 2 clubs I frequented, Blazes, in Middlesborough, and The Gemini, in Hartlepool, the bouncers enjoyed the "alternative" nights as there was never any trouble. Except from random trendies who arrived with the specific purpose of causing trouble.

Wasn't Blazes on a Saturday? I remember there was another Middlesbrough club night, but I can't remember the name of it! It were House music downstairs and metal-goth-indie upstairs.