Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Is it just luck?
Options
Comments
-
weldoninhio wrote: »Jesus, I shuddered there when I saw that. Hadn't thought of that video in a long time.
I found it worse than the 2 girls one..0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,108 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59037
It's backed by science, psychology, history and philosophy down the centuries.Sorry but I think that is plain nonsense obscured by lofty writing.
At no point did I argue that it was normal, so maybe dial back on the oh so typical current tragedy knee jerk hysterical projection right there. Never mind that I wasn't referencing that case at all. I purposely left it out when I quoted your post as I'm fully aware the old current tragedy blood is up at the moment. As night follows day to be forgotten soon enough. Until the next one. Thoughts and prayers etc. No? without turning to google, can you name the prick who butchered his wife and kids three years ago?We are not talking about a six year old here, we are talking about two teenagers. If your argument is that its normal for a 12 year old to not realise that bullying someone, nevermind raping and murdering them, is wrong then I'll bow out of the conversation here and now.
I'm not sure you're sure of the relevance of any of the points frankly. What if the six year old decided he was going to shoot someone with the gun he found? Similar has happened in the US(big shock), or is because they're six they couldn't have premeditated such an act?The six year old analogy is irrelevant, you are comparing an accident to a premeditated act. I'm not sure of the relevance of that particular point?
Another self indulgent you are so sure response. A series of actions doesn't always follow such a simplistic narrative. It's very comforting to think it does however. There are many examples in damn near everyone's life, particularly in childhood and adolescence where situations "got out of hand". Thankfully for the vast majority of us they didn't result in personal tragedies. Now unless you're Mystic Meg, neither of us know how exactly the narrative of that particular horror played out. It certainly didn't play out within that single day. Many steps happened before and during and the slightest change in the story could have, likely would have ended up with a different ending.A basic, animalistic response is irrelevant to conversations about premeditated actions.
Do you actually seek to reduce the chances of a similar horror happening again, or do you just want to rail on about how good and evil is simple and sure everyone knows this? Understanding how these things happen is more likely to stop them happening again.
Today there are parts of the world where child soldiers rape and slaughter enemies, often other children and to their group these things are encouraged, a blind eye is turned, at worst are seen as "necessary evils".You say right and wrong are "nebulous concepts that constantly shift through time and culture".
When was the last time that what these 2 boys did was not considered wrong?
YouRight and Wrong are simple concepts...to you thats a derogatory term, not for me. It doesnt matter what the concepts were in the middle ages any more than it matters what they are in the Serengeti. Here and now is what matters and to any non psychopath right and wrong are typically easy to distinguish.
country mile
point. But hey, if it makes you sleep better at night to think that no way would you ever do evil things no matter what then knock yourself out. But you could, indeed almost certainly would, or at best turn a blind eye to it depending on circumstances and culture and upbringing.
Put it this way; chances are you enjoy a bit of meat from time to time, wear leather and all that? Well to more extreme vegan folks you are participating in evil doing, the torture and killing of sentient creatures for your food pleasure. Crazy? Maybe, but fast forward fifty years and their philosophy could well be the mainstream viewpoint of what is "good" and what is "evil" and you would be seen as one of the latter. Enjoy your ham sandwich.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
The question isn't whether they watch things like 1 man 1 jar [hadn't heard of that one before]. The question is how do they react to watching things like that.0
-
"Down through the centuries"...what relevance does that have to today?It's backed by science, psychology, history and philosophy down the centuries.
The earth was believed to be flat and was orbited by the sun for longer than we know now that to be untrue. Does that previous "knowledge" have any bearing on science today?
Do I need to know his name or have ever heard about him to have an opinion on empathy and childrens knowledge of right from wrong?At no point did I argue that it was normal, so maybe dial back on the oh so typical current tragedy knee jerk hysterical projection right there. Never mind that I wasn't referencing that case at all. I purposely left it out when I quoted your post as I'm fully aware the old current tragedy blood is up at the moment. As night follows day to be forgotten soon enough. Until the next one. Thoughts and prayers etc. No? without turning to google, can you name the prick who butchered his wife and kids three years ago?
Do you want to try and pull at some other unrelated heart strings or can we stick to the subject at hand?
They could have alright, but they are six so dont have the ability to comprehend the result of such actions. A teenager on the other hand...I'm not sure you're sure of the relevance of any of the points frankly. What if the six year old decided he was going to shoot someone with the gun he found? Similar has happened in the US(big shock), or is because they're six they couldn't have premeditated such an act?
Things getting out of hand are exactly what I was referring to when I posted about "basic, animalistic responses".Another self indulgent you are so sure response. A series of actions doesn't always follow such a simplistic narrative. It's very comforting to think it does however. There are many examples in damn near everyone's life, particularly in childhood and adolescence where situations "got out of hand". Thankfully for the vast majority of us they didn't result in personal tragedies. Now unless you're Mystic Meg, neither of us know how exactly the narrative of that particular horror played out. It certainly didn't play out within that single day. Many steps happened before and during and the slightest change in the story could have, likely would have ended up with a different ending.
Plotting to lure a victim to an abandoned house to enabled another to rape and murder her isnt something that "got out of hand".
Sorry, I must have missed the part where I gave ANY opinion on what is required to prevent or otherwise these from happening again. But fire away and argue with something thats in your head alone.
Do you actually seek to reduce the chances of a similar horror happening again, or do you just want to rail on about how good and evil is simple and sure everyone knows this? Understanding how these things happen is more likely to stop them happening again.
O...kay.Today there are parts of the world where child soldiers rape and slaughter enemies, often other children and to their group these things are encouraged, a blind eye is turned, at worst are seen as "necessary evils".
I'll await you next post where I'm sure you will enlighten us to the point of the above sentence. Try to keep it to, oh I dunno, 15 paragraphs and 22 historical references if you can.
YouYou
country mile
point. But hey, if it makes you sleep better at night to think that no way would you ever do evil things no matter what then knock yourself out. But you could, indeed almost certainly would, or at best turn a blind eye to it depending on circumstances and culture and upbringing.
country mile
reading comprehension.
The *ENTIRE* point of my post is not that people dont do evil, its that *MOST* people know they are doing evil but go ahead and do it anyway.Put it this way; chances are you enjoy a bit of meat from time to time, wear leather and all that? Well to more extreme vegan folks you are participating in evil doing, the torture and killing of sentient creatures for your food pleasure. Crazy? Maybe, but fast forward fifty years and their philosophy could well be the mainstream viewpoint of what is "good" and what is "evil" and you would be seen as one of the latter. Enjoy your ham sandwich.
Again with the unrelated points.
We are not discussing morals of the past or the future. We are discussing the morals and actions of here and now compared to what is considered normal by society now. We used to burn "witches" at the stake...we dont do it now. Thats insignificant when talking about the actions of some individuals today.
You are determined to moralise and enlighten us all with your fabulous prose on the highs and lows of morality in the middle ages when to be honest, they have no bearing on anything thats being discussed. But hey, if it makes you feel good and gets you some thanks, keep at it bud.0 -
Maybe they should screen kids for indications of sexual sadism disorder (which is distinct from enjoyment of consensual bdsm).
I'm sure there are ethical questions about tagging people before they do anything but there are also ethical questions about not preventing terrible things if you have the ability to prevent them.0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,108 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59037
For a start the flat earth thing is incorrect, though endlessly repeated. We've known the earth was a globe for millennia. But anyway, way to miss the bloody point. Again. But to make it easier for you to digest; It's backed by science, psychology and philosophy of today. Now. The present time. Wednesday the 19th of June, 2019."Down through the centuries"...what relevance does that have to today?
The earth was believed to be flat and was orbited by the sun for longer than we know now that to be untrue. Does that previous "knowledge" have any bearing on science today?
Do you believe you have the same complex understanding of morality as an adult that you had at 14? Though I'm beginning to think this may not be the question for you... If you reckon so, have an oul read of this scientific research. It's from 2013, so maybe a bit in the past for you. The relevant part is this:They could have alright, but they are six so dont have the ability to comprehend the result of such actions. A teenager on the other hand...
New findings in developmental psychology and neuroscience reveal that a fundamental reorganization of the brain takes place in adolescence. In postnatal brain development, the maximum density of gray matter is reached first in the primary sensorimotor cortex, and the prefrontal cortex matures last. Subcortical brain areas, especially the limbic system and the reward system, develop earlier, so that there is an imbalance during adolescence between the more mature subcortical areas and less mature prefrontal areas. This may account for typical adolescent behavior patterns, including risk-taking.
Translation: adolescent brains and minds are not the same as adults and risk taking and decision making are not fully developed. You seem to have difficulties understanding the nuances and relativistic nature of morality as an adult and you think your teenage mind would fare better?
I answered your question directly and in one sentence. I can't help it if this doesn't sink in.O...kay.
I'll await you next post where I'm sure you will enlighten us to the point of the above sentence. Try to keep it to, oh I dunno, 15 paragraphs and 22 historical references if you can.
I'm trying to get you actually start to think beyond the bloody obvious and your cock sure comfort zone. Clearly in vain.Again with the unrelated points.
We are not discussing morals of the past or the future. We are discussing the morals and actions of here and now compared to what is considered normal by society now. We used to burn "witches" at the stake...we dont do it now. Thats insignificant when talking about the actions of some individuals today.
You are determined to moralise and enlighten us all with your fabulous prose on the highs and lows of morality in the middle ages when to be honest, they have no bearing on anything thats being discussed.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
Sorry but I think that is plain nonsense obscured by lofty writing.
We are not talking about a six year old here, we are talking about two teenagers. If your argument is that its normal for a 12 year old to not realise that bullying someone, nevermind raping and murdering them, is wrong then I'll bow out of the conversation here and now. The six year old analogy is irrelevant, you are comparing an accident to a premeditated act. I'm not sure of the relevance of that particular point?
A basic, animalistic response is irrelevant to conversations about premeditated actions.
You say right and wrong are "nebulous concepts that constantly shift through time and culture".
When was the last time that what these 2 boys did was not considered wrong?
Right and Wrong are simple concepts...to you thats a derogatory term, not for me. It doesnt matter what the concepts were in the middle ages any more than it matters what they are in the Serengeti. Here and now is what matters and to any non psychopath right and wrong are typically easy to distinguish.
A psychopath knows the difference between right and wrong. They just don't care.0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,108 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59037
I'm not even sure they do know the difference Prof. If you read interviews with the psychos in gaol and the like they seem to have their own definitions and pretty clear ones they seem to be, to them. I remember reading of one loon who murdered a few people which didn't seem to trouble him beyond what he thought the interviewer wanted to hear, but he was extremely sensitive to the suffering of animals(unusual in the breed as that's usually where they start, by hurting animals). That was his "line". They seem to be missing mirror neurones and empathy and sympathy so any moral compass is entirely intellectual and easily discarded. Completely incurable too. Therapy almost always makes them worse, more manipulative. They're basically not fully human. They may be born that way from what I gather the current theory holds that they have the potential from birth, but for the majority something in the environment triggers it fully. Not all are criminals either. The traits have been found in otherwise "normal" people. They can often be successful individuals in business and the like. Might be why the traits have survived in our genes for so long?Professor Moriarty wrote: »A psychopath knows the difference between right and wrong. They just don't care.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
I'm not even sure they do know the difference Prof. If you read interviews with the psychos in gaol and the like they seem to have their own definitions and pretty clear ones they seem to be, to them. I remember reading of one loon who murdered a few people which didn't seem to trouble him beyond what he thought the interviewer wanted to hear, but he was extremely sensitive to the suffering of animals(unusual in the breed as that's usually where they start, by hurting animals). That was his "line". They seem to be missing mirror neurones and empathy and sympathy so any moral compass is entirely intellectual and easily discarded. Completely incurable too. Therapy almost always makes them worse, more manipulative. They're basically not fully human. They may be born that way from what I gather the current theory holds that they have the potential from birth, but for the majority something in the environment triggers it fully. Not all are criminals either. The traits have been found in otherwise "normal" people. They can often be successful individuals in business and the like. Might be why the traits have survived in our genes for so long?
They do know the difference example paper here. Like sociopaths, they can easily get along in society by mimicking the behaviour of 'normal' people especially mimicking empathy. While they cognitively navigate their way around society they become acutely aware of society's norms, including right and wrong. This allows them to be highly manipulative. A core distinguishing feature (as in Narcissism) is a lack of empathy. In a psychopath, this is allied to deep-seated rage. Incidentally, sociopathic tendencies are thought to derive from nurture whereas psychopathic tendencies are thought to be nature.0 -
Professor Moriarty wrote: »A psychopath knows the difference between right and wrong. They just don't care.
Indeed some of them, which is why I also said
"The *ENTIRE* point of my post is not that people dont do evil, its that *MOST* people know they are doing evil but go ahead and do it anyway"
But if you have no empathy then does right and wrong in relation to others have context?0 -
Advertisement
-
For a start the flat earth thing is incorrect, though endlessly repeated. We've known the earth was a globe for millennia. But anyway, way to miss the bloody point. Again. But to make it easier for you to digest; It's backed by science, psychology and philosophy of today. Now. The present time. Wednesday the 19th of June, 2019.
Do you believe you have the same complex understanding of morality as an adult that you had at 14? Though I'm beginning to think this may not be the question for you... If you reckon so, have an oul read of this scientific research. It's from 2013, so maybe a bit in the past for you. The relevant part is this:
New findings in developmental psychology and neuroscience reveal that a fundamental reorganization of the brain takes place in adolescence. In postnatal brain development, the maximum density of gray matter is reached first in the primary sensorimotor cortex, and the prefrontal cortex matures last. Subcortical brain areas, especially the limbic system and the reward system, develop earlier, so that there is an imbalance during adolescence between the more mature subcortical areas and less mature prefrontal areas. This may account for typical adolescent behavior patterns, including risk-taking.
Translation: adolescent brains and minds are not the same as adults and risk taking and decision making are not fully developed. You seem to have difficulties understanding the nuances and relativistic nature of morality as an adult and you think your teenage mind would fare better?
I answered your question directly and in one sentence. I can't help it if this doesn't sink in.
I'm trying to get you actually start to think beyond the bloody obvious and your cock sure comfort zone. Clearly in vain.
What "it" has been backed by science?
I'm not sure you have made a point in your posts yet?
Unless you are referring to morals change....and if so I'm not sure, cock or otherwise, of the relevance to the question raised in this OP.0 -
Correct but the problem as I see it is no one corrects the young anymore,most parents are manby Pamby ( don't you dare criticise my darling)ie I pointed out to a group of young teens to " lads bring ye're rubbish away with ye pls,as I'm fed up brushing up yere rubbish outside my gaff" went down a treat basically told to F off,and one of the little darlings mammy's are the balls off me a while latermariaalice wrote: »0 -
Indeed some of them, which is why I also said
"The *ENTIRE* point of my post is not that people dont do evil, its that *MOST* people know they are doing evil but go ahead and do it anyway"
But if you have no empathy then does right and wrong in relation to others have context?
To be clear, I'm not talking about any specific individual/s. Just theoretically. The vast majority of people know the difference between right and wrong. Where, for instance, psychopaths differ is that they have no emotional reaction to doing wrong. Guilt is an alien feeling for them.
So let's say you react negatively to something and insult someone. Soon you will feel bad - maybe sad or anxious. You will also associate this feeling with your behaviour and think that you did something wrong, i.e. you hurt someone. You may then apologise because it is against your subconscious belief system to hurt other people and so you apologise to alleviate the guilty feelings and thoughts generated by your subconscious belief.
The psychopath has no feeling of guilt. They consciously know that something is wrong, e.g. insulting people, but it has the same emotional impact as knowing that Peru is in South America. It's just a fact. They simply don't care.0 -
The things you've mentioned are common with adults to. There is a line that you can't cross and I think no matter how many times you tell people. They'll cross the line.0
-
freshpopcorn wrote: »The things you've mentioned are common with adults to. There is a line that you can't cross and I think no matter how many times you tell people. They'll cross the line.
Actually, all of what I'm saying pertains to adults. Children wouldn't be given such a diagnosis though there are diagnoses such as ODD that have some similar traits.0 -
Professor Moriarty wrote: »To be clear, I'm not talking about any specific individual/s. Just theoretically. The vast majority of people know the difference between right and wrong. Where, for instance, psychopaths differ is that they have no emotional reaction to doing wrong. Guilt is an alien feeling for them.
So let's say you react negatively to something and insult someone. Soon you will feel bad - maybe sad or anxious. You will also associate this feeling with your behaviour and think that you did something wrong, i.e. you hurt someone. You may then apologise because it is against your subconscious belief system to hurt other people and so you apologise to alleviate the guilty feelings and thoughts generated by your subconscious belief.
The psychopath has no feeling of guilt. They consciously know that something is wrong, e.g. insulting people, but it has the same emotional impact as knowing that Peru is in South America. It's just a fact. They simply don't care.
You'll come across a lot of psychopaths in spiritual groups and yoga class.
They're called spiritual narcissists, absolute psychopaths...
Zero empathy and compassion for their wrongs because when they do their mantra and meditation whatever actions they carry out throughout the day was the will of the universe, therefore must be good...
I knew of a guy who was a street angel and house devil,he warped and manipulated his partner so badly she ended up in the nuthouse, I asked him why was he suck a p rick to her, it is what it is, my higher power willed it...
12 step programmes encourage people to become numb to others too, because you're the most important person in the world....
Christian pastor's and priest's are another type of psychopath too.0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,108 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59037
Christ all bloody mighty, would ever try reading FFS. It's like engaging with a human migraine generator.What "it" has been backed by science?
I'm not sure you have made a point in your posts yet?
Unless you are referring to morals change....and if so I'm not sure, cock or otherwise, of the relevance to the question raised in this OP.
OK I'll give it one last hold the phones Hail Mary try. For my sins. The OP's question:mariaalice wrote: »How come some teenagers can watch horrendous violence porn, make stupit mistakes, do risky things sexually and with alcohol and or drugs do risky things in general because of immaturity or plain stupidity and never come to serious harm, them grow up go to college or get a job or both laugh at their teenage selves and basically become normal adults.
Verse those that don't and end up making a mess of things.
Is it, environment, parenting, personality, intellegence or is it just luck?
The human brain is not fully formed until after adolescence. Children and teens are more likely to engage in risky and reactive and (self)destructive behaviour, some more than others. As their mind matures and experience and socialisation grows they do this less and less(though some environmental factors like drug use can slow this maturation) and the majority suffer no lasting damage to themselves or to others.
The finger painting version: Kids and teens can do daft shit, but most grow out of it.
As for the recent tragedy, I specifically avoided it, specifically didn't quote that part of the post where you brought it up. Because I knew as night follows day the short term memory, high dramatics that follows in the wake of such tragedies always brings out the simplistic black and white stuff. And night indeed followed day.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
Per capita, we are probably the least violent generation since homo sapiens came into existence, especially in the developed nations which have most access to technology and the internet (and even including the USA and their crazy weapon laws).0
Advertisement