Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2014 21:59:56 GMT -5
Interesting. So the more advanced countries...most likely the ones that would have the highest rate of violent movies watched, as well as violent gaming....have the lowest crime rate. Probably the highest rate of viewers of two and a half men as well . Is this accurate? I'm not sure that this is where Bert was going with this thread. One quick look at this map and anyone can see that there is no correlation between Two and a Half Men (or any other Hollywood produced material) and intentional homicide. (The darker the colour, the higher the homicide rate)
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 15, 2014 22:02:08 GMT -5
And you think violence is much more rare in the US than in the uncivilized world. Have you been listening to the news this past week? ? Listening to the news does not really reveal much. The telling information would be a violence rate report. If you are producing news you gather all the violence that happens all over the world and present it one clip after the other. From that POV it seems like the world if filled with violence.Really? based on what? Based on how civilized industrialized wealthy nations/societies behave themselves. Also, based on how the country lives up to its professed virtues. You can always be the best if you specialize in comparing yourself to the worst. Behaving on the lowest common denominator seems to be acceptable here most of the time.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 15, 2014 22:09:47 GMT -5
Interesting. So the more advanced countries...most likely the ones that would have the highest rate of violent movies watched, as well as violent gaming....have the lowest crime rate. Probably the highest rate of viewers of two and a half men as well . Is this accurate? I'm not sure that this is where Bert was going with this thread. Bert's following the tip of his nose. I got my statistics concerning the ratio of violence in the society to the level of watching violent movies and games. And I didn't quote data because I didn't record the specifics. And folks, what I learned was not about what countries were the most violent or least violent. It was a comparison of the rate of violence vs. the time spent watching violence in WESTERN INDUSTRIALIZED countries, and the US was at the bottom of the list. You can always be the better if you compare yourself to the less fortunate.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 15, 2014 22:11:48 GMT -5
Interesting. So the more advanced countries...most likely the ones that would have the highest rate of violent movies watched, as well as violent gaming....have the lowest crime rate. Probably the highest rate of viewers of two and a half men as well . Is this accurate? I'm not sure that this is where Bert was going with this thread. One quick look at this map and anyone can see that there is no correlation between Two and a Half Men (or any other Hollywood produced material) and intentional homicide. (The darker the colour, the higher the homicide rate) But that map happens to have nothing to do with violent video games.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2014 22:21:19 GMT -5
One quick look at this map and anyone can see that there is no correlation between Two and a Half Men (or any other Hollywood produced material) and intentional homicide. (The darker the colour, the higher the homicide rate) But that map happens to have nothing to do with violent video games. That's exactly the point!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 15, 2014 22:26:44 GMT -5
But that map happens to have nothing to do with violent video games. That's exactly the point! Does it have something to do with Two and a Half Men?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2014 23:58:18 GMT -5
That's exactly the point! Does it have something to do with Two and a Half Men? Absolutely nothing. Again, that's the point.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 16, 2014 0:19:19 GMT -5
Does it have something to do with Two and a Half Men? Absolutely nothing. Again, that's the point. Cool.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2014 9:07:12 GMT -5
As much as I agree with the findings of the survey I would hesitate to say war is in the past. Just look at China's growing assertiveness, and Russia trying to alter the borders of Europe. Tomorrow when most of the Islamic world is nuclear armed we will INEVITABLY see a whole new age of warfare - on a scale almost unimaginable, I fear.
Oh, and 3d printed guns have arrived. And soon the pharmaceutical industry's magnum opus - the "pleasure drug" which targets the pleasure centre of the brain, will be found. A "narcotic nightmare."
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Apr 16, 2014 10:46:28 GMT -5
Early mankind suffered violent death for 15,000 per 100,000 population. Today, people suffer violent death for 30 per 100,000 population. Ancient societies had 524 war deaths per 100,000 population Germany and Russia in the 20th century had less than 145 war deaths per 100,000 population. The US in the 20th century had 5.7 war deaths per 100,000 population. Yet some people still try to emulate ancient societies and take their cues for right living from them. Brutish laws are celebrated and considered to be insight to "God's mind" in spite of the non-violent nature of Christ and the essence of his teachings. With the steady decline of personal violence and national conflicts, are we actually starting to learn something? Regarding the continuing current paranoia. In a TED talk by Pinker, one observer writes: "In the Q & A, one questioner noted that violence is clearly down, but fear of violence is still way up. Social psychologist Pinker observed that we base our fears irrationally on anecdotes instead of statistics---one terrorist attack here, one child abduction there. In a world of 7 billion what is the actual risk for any individual? It is approaching zero. That trend is so solid we can count on it and take it further still." It's a bit like informing yourself of the state of the world by watching Two and a Half Men. The facts are plain and clear. The population explosion of the last couple of centuries alone is proof of a greatly more habitable planet: more food and less violence. Why more food and less violence? In general, human ingenuity has born down on both problems and has come up with ways to dramatically change both. Mankind is finally starting to take rightful responsibility not just for themselves, but for the benefits their fellow human beings. Are the dangers all gone? No, but human conflict is changing and even the battlefields are changing. Instead of kings getting their subjects killed over the conquest of other nations, we are now battling non-violently over issues like carbon emissions. That alone indicates how much things have changed. Hasn't it been noticed that when a countable population explosion is at hand that there will be greater losses of the younger adults of that era due to wars and disasters? Look at WWII and Korean War and the baby b oomer population growth. I was just looking at some statistics about the US population growths and several of them indicate a steady growth since that baby boomer years.....but at the same time in this area, at least, I'm noticing families are made up of 3-4 children per man and wife or maybe mother and father. Of course, these familes this large usually are the demographics of multiple fathers and one mother or vice a versa. Case in point, a neighbor has a daughter who married a Mexican who married the white lady just to get to stay in the states and they had 3 daughters. or it is said that the 3 oldest children are his daughters. The youngest of those 3 doesn't show one speck of Mexican about her, she is as blond as they come even with blue eyes etc and blond straight hair whereas her two older sisters are more then noticeably Mexican by their features esp. the darker skin tones, curly reddish brown hair, the shorter nose, etc Plus this mother has had another girl by her live-in boyfriend who all the children call "daddy"...this little one is a very large boned child, and it's a shame she is a female for she's built just like her daddy, but she also is blond complected. n It's an impossibility for this "father" to deny that child, she even has started walking just like him! Sheesh! I wonder if they might not turn up with another before long, and I hope not...they can barely make it through a month and have food to eat...I have given them many food stuffs esp. at the end of the month. Ad I know they are not the only young family hurting...too many children, food prices are rising. BTW, a tip folks! I was talking with a fellow nurse the other day, his son is in the business of stocks and bonds, etc and he talks with main guys on Wallstreet everyday...and this guy on Wallsteet gave him a tip and told him a good short term investment for now is commodities since all foodstuffs are going up and on up. And of course, there is that risk that they might go so high and stall out, I suppose! ha ha
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Apr 16, 2014 10:56:14 GMT -5
And you think violence is much more rare in the US than in the uncivilized world. Have you been listening to the news this past week? ? This is one of the most violent societies on earth. What the rest of the world finds so entertaining is that Americans think movies are Bibles for lifestyle. I have been somewhat...just read about the 200 girls abducted in Nigeria by "heavily armed Boko Haram Islamists". There are suicide bombs seemingly every day in the middle east. We're getting lots of coverage in the U.S. about the 1 yr anniversary of the Boston Marathon bombing, because it's a relative rarity here for that type of thing. It seems in the U.S. if you stay out of the crowd that runs with gangs and/or druggies, you're pretty safe. Of course there are the whack jobs that like to shoot up public places, which is unfortunately becoming more common. But for the most part, people that wish to avoid danger in the U.S. can do so fairly easily. At least I don't recall ever feeling in real danger at any time in my life. Perhaps my use of "uncivilized" was wrong. But it seems to me that largescale violence is much more prevalent in what I would consider underdeveloped regions. Well, honestabe, we've noticed the "safest dwelling place" in this part of the US is right smack dab in the middle of where the druggies and other criminals so well live! The criminal minded people do not bother their neighbors because they don't want their neighbor's to become nosy into their business nor do they want their neighbors to feel insecure and threatened and call the police, etc. It is kind of very strange when we all of a sudden see an arrest report on the news or in the newspaper about the criminal being arrested and where he'd been living but not conducting his business at his living place. Now this would be druggies into the already made and packaged kind like RX drugs, etc....no one would dare try making illegal drugs too close to a neighbor! It kind of shakes us up, then we realize that in a sense until we get a "raid" on the local criminals we actually are safer then people who do not have said criminals living in their neighborhood. I've unwittingly found myself living in two different areas where criminals seem to end up for some reason and I had never had any reason to suspect them of illegal behaviours! The party goers and givers are my worst headaches here and we do have to call the police on them many nights, esp. weekend nights due to the fights and noise and drunkenness and none that are in that partying group are ever found to be the bigger criminal! And also we've noticed if the party goers increase in population, there is an exit of those who are arrested later on for major crimes! Go figure! I think it's because the police are always having to come out and stop the fights and get people into their own apartments. The owners send out warnngs every so often that all drinking alcolholic partiers must stay in their own apartments...otherwords they can't be in each others' apartments!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 16, 2014 11:52:27 GMT -5
Of course there are the whack jobs that like to shoot up public places, which is unfortunately becoming more common. Is it becoming more common or more widely known? 100 years ago the killings in CO would have been page 1 (probably below the fold) for a day or two. Today it is full day coverage for multiple days. And it is all happening in your living room. Does it help the people in PA to have three days of coverage of something that happened in CO?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2014 12:02:15 GMT -5
i'd say its just more widely known rather than common although mass killings/shootings are a newer phenomenon of the type we have now...
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 16, 2014 12:06:50 GMT -5
i'd say its just more widely known rather than common although mass killings/shootings are a newer phenomenon of the type we have now... With the exception of some of the weapons - are they?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 16, 2014 13:06:57 GMT -5
And you think violence is much more rare in the US than in the uncivilized world. Have you been listening to the news this past week? ? This is one of the most violent societies on earth. What the rest of the world finds so entertaining is that Americans think movies are Bibles for lifestyle. I have been somewhat...just read about the 200 girls abducted in Nigeria by "heavily armed Boko Haram Islamists". There are suicide bombs seemingly every day in the middle east. We're getting lots of coverage in the U.S. about the 1 yr anniversary of the Boston Marathon bombing, because it's a relative rarity here for that type of thing. It seems in the U.S. if you stay out of the crowd that runs with gangs and/or druggies, you're pretty safe. Of course there are the whack jobs that like to shoot up public places, which is unfortunately becoming more common. But for the most part, people that wish to avoid danger in the U.S. can do so fairly easily. At least I don't recall ever feeling in real danger at any time in my life. Perhaps my use of "uncivilized" was wrong. But it seems to me that largescale violence is much more prevalent in what I would consider underdeveloped regions. Stay on topic, now. This started out about violent movies causing people to be violent. It's not violent movies that cause 200 kidnappings and suicide bombings. And of course you don't fear violence in this country -- the whole system is rigged so that it mostly stays out of your neighborhood, except for the constant stream of mentally ill people who prefer to shoot up schools, theaters, army bases, at the rate of one incident every 10 days for the last 2 years. We've gotten so used to it that it's hardly news any more. I suspect that in this country the greatest contributor to violence is not the violent movies but the high rate of untreated mental illness and the national fascination with vigilante justice. I taught in a school for violent kids -- they normally have physically and psychologically violent home lives. And they don't talk about violent movies like the successful kids in other schools do -- they talk about beating up old people, stealing guns, holding up convenience stores, shooting police officers, and planning gang wars -- at ages 12 thru 15.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 16, 2014 13:16:48 GMT -5
But I still say it's better to have fake violence glorified rather than real violence glorified, as war seemed to be in the past (and may still be, in parts of the world). And in this country we don't have systematic violence against entire races of people, who we deem only worthy to be our slaves. That only happened back in the "good ol' days", when a man's word meant something, back before society went to hell in a handbasket. With that kind of view of this society, you need to get out of your comfortably protected community and find out how races of people are treated. So now that you think there is no racial strife, you think the country has gone to hell in a handbasket? What about the good old days do you miss?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 16, 2014 13:22:16 GMT -5
Of course there are the whack jobs that like to shoot up public places, which is unfortunately becoming more common. Is it becoming more common or more widely known? 100 years ago the killings in CO would have been page 1 (probably below the fold) for a day or two. Today it is full day coverage for multiple days. And it is all happening in your living room. Does it help the people in PA to have three days of coverage of something that happened in CO? They only had 2 days to talk about it. The wacko in Kansas City went trying to shoot Jews -- missed and killed 3 Gentiles. NEXT!!! It might take a week, though.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 16, 2014 13:23:16 GMT -5
i'd say its just more widely known rather than common although mass killings/shootings are a newer phenomenon of the type we have now... And in the old days they didn't have violent movies to incite them, either. Methinks it's a cultural thing.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 16, 2014 13:25:42 GMT -5
Is it becoming more common or more widely known? 100 years ago the killings in CO would have been page 1 (probably below the fold) for a day or two. Today it is full day coverage for multiple days. And it is all happening in your living room. Does it help the people in PA to have three days of coverage of something that happened in CO? Good question. I would say more common to some degree. Wasn't Columbine one of the first big ones that we heard about? Or maybe just that I remember hearing about. So I think the media was on high alert after that, but it didn't seem as common until the last 5 years or so. No numbers at all, just what it feels like to me. Before instant media: May 18, 1927 : In the deadliest mass school murder in United States history, former school board member Andrew Kehoe set off three bombs in Bath Township, Michigan killing 45 people and wounding 58. Kehoe killed himself and the superintendent by blowing up his own vehicle.
Sadly, there are far too many examples.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 16, 2014 13:27:14 GMT -5
Is it becoming more common or more widely known? 100 years ago the killings in CO would have been page 1 (probably below the fold) for a day or two. Today it is full day coverage for multiple days. And it is all happening in your living room. Does it help the people in PA to have three days of coverage of something that happened in CO? Good question. I would say more common to some degree. Wasn't Columbine one of the first big ones that we heard about? Or maybe just that I remember hearing about. So I think the media was on high alert after that, but it didn't seem as common until the last 5 years or so. No numbers at all, just what it feels like to me. But it is definitely more wide known, which I think contributes to the frequency. Some mentally deranged kid that hates his life can become the top story in the country and everyone will know his name if he kills a bunch of random people. After the kindergarten shootings, news stations loved putting "MASSACRE IN NEWTON" in big, blood-colored letters as the lead-in to every story about it. That sickened me, having the media trump it up like it was some fictional CSI show. There was a week a while back that had like 3-4 public shootings in it. Do we think that is a coincidence, or messed-up people saying "hey, that's how I can become famous!" and copying each other? John Wayne Gacey. The Hillside Strangler. The Boston Strangler. The Green River killer. Same old game. Just easier now -- you don't even have to get near your victims, just stand back and play with your automatic "deer hunting rifle".
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 16, 2014 13:46:23 GMT -5
i'd say its just more widely known rather than common although mass killings/shootings are a newer phenomenon of the type we have now... And in the old days they didn't have violent movies to incite them, either. Methinks it's a cultural thing. I think it's a human thing: September 2004 - Beslan school hostage crisis with least 386 dead, including 31 hostage takers, over 700 injured. A group of pro-Chechen armed rebels took more than 1,200 school children and adults hostage at School Number One in Beslan, North Ossetia. After three days gunfire broke out between Russian security forces and hostage-takers.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 16, 2014 13:48:30 GMT -5
Wasn't Columbine one of the first big ones that we heard about? Or maybe just that I remember hearing about. Depends what you were listening to.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 16, 2014 13:48:32 GMT -5
With that kind of view of this society, you need to get out of your comfortably protected community and find out how races of people are treated. So now that you think there is no racial strife, you think the country has gone to hell in a handbasket? What about the good old days do you miss? I live on the outskirts of a metropolitan area, work at a place that employs Asians, Russians, and African-Americans. They are all treated equally. I'm know there are racist people out there, but you do you honestly think there is anything in the U.S. currently that rivals the widespread atrocity of the slave era? My last line was sarcasm, trying to sound like old-timers do when they reminisce about the good ol' days and how everything is so bad these days. Sorry, mixing legitimate opinions with sarcasm (particularly in writing) can be tough to decipher. I suspected that was sarcasm. And yes, I also have worked in places where WASP was the minority and there was no "visible" discrimination. (I was cozy with the minorities so I felt compelled to insert "visible"). I, and everyone else there, worked there because we had a profession in common, and we'd have been fired for practicing discrimination, as did happen to one immigrant professional appropriately. But there is systematic racial discrimination practiced in this country, and it is being worked back into the legal system as surely as Jim Crow followed the freeing of slaves. And real slavery is alive and well in this country -- not visible, mind you, but laws don't change people's beliefs, laws only make them hide them if they can.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2014 14:07:13 GMT -5
I have been somewhat...just read about the 200 girls abducted in Nigeria by "heavily armed Boko Haram Islamists". There are suicide bombs seemingly every day in the middle east. We're getting lots of coverage in the U.S. about the 1 yr anniversary of the Boston Marathon bombing, because it's a relative rarity here for that type of thing. It seems in the U.S. if you stay out of the crowd that runs with gangs and/or druggies, you're pretty safe. Of course there are the whack jobs that like to shoot up public places, which is unfortunately becoming more common. But for the most part, people that wish to avoid danger in the U.S. can do so fairly easily. At least I don't recall ever feeling in real danger at any time in my life. Perhaps my use of "uncivilized" was wrong. But it seems to me that largescale violence is much more prevalent in what I would consider underdeveloped regions. Stay on topic, now. This started out about violent movies causing people to be violent. It's not violent movies that cause 200 kidnappings and suicide bombings. And of course you don't fear violence in this country -- the whole system is rigged so that it mostly stays out of your neighborhood, except for the constant stream of mentally ill people who prefer to shoot up schools, theaters, army bases, at the rate of one incident every 10 days for the last 2 years. We've gotten so used to it that it's hardly news any more. I suspect that in this country the greatest contributor to violence is not the violent movies but the high rate of untreated mental illness and the national fascination with vigilante justice. I taught in a school for violent kids -- they normally have physically and psychologically violent home lives. And they don't talk about violent movies like the successful kids in other schools do -- they talk about beating up old people, stealing guns, holding up convenience stores, shooting police officers, and planning gang wars -- at ages 12 thru 15. Right on about the untreated mental illnesses. It's the failure of the US health care system to look after people with mental illnesses that has led to the highest incarceration rates in the world, and significantly higher violence rates compared to developed countries with universal health care. In US, mentally illness sufferers are often poor because of their illness, and because of their poverty, they aren't being treated, and because of their untreated illness, violence ensues, then they are dealt with as criminals and thrown into jail. It's a chain of events that starts with a failed health care system. In the US, the answer is for people to find God whereas in other developed countries people just find a doctor.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 16, 2014 17:08:42 GMT -5
Bob: "Stay on topic, now. This started out about violent movies causing people to be violent. It's not violent movies that cause 200 kidnappings and suicide bombings" _____________________________________________________________________________ I was making a point regarding your statement of "And you think violence is much more rare in the US than in the uncivilized world. Have you been listening to the news this past week? ? " I consider Nigeria less civilized/developed than the US (though perhaps that is incorrect). Certainly Iraq/Afghanistan/other suicide bombing hotbeds are less civilized. So I think I was staying on topic. I do agree mental illness is the huge problem. Mentally stable people don't generally commit random acts of violence. Not sure why the "Quote" button didn't want to work for this post. Yes, I know the point you were trying to make. I thought you meant it to be about violent-movie like violence, which has nothing to do with politically motivated violence anywhere. Though we do have our own political violence. In the past week the "heavily armed" Tea Party faced off with the US Government -- in our county, and guess who won. $10 million tax dollars the government can't collect.
|
|