Desensitisation....

think its all reletive (i know i spelt that wrong )

i generally get a bit "bothered" for want of a better word by nasty acts on animals like that swan... however, on the scale of things - people being blown up all over the world, dying of starvation and all, its easy to kinda go, "ah could be worse" coz generally, it could be. Doesn't excuse the bad behaviour or make it ok.... just people have had worse happen, like people here may have had family in 9/11 or in that spain blast or something.. so its all perspective.

think we need to start be proper strict on criminals. cells with just a matress, think thai prisons.. adopt that. They wont be so quick to return. 150 in a cell for 20 and all that. (dont start about their rights....:mad:)

I'm pretty emotionless as things go tbh. I'd say I'm almost completely desensitised to visual imagery. I know what I've no desire to watch - girls and cups and so forth - but I wouldn't get upset or sick or angry if I didn watch them. My other half, on the other hand would be pretty extreme. She couldn't look at the TV last night when Total Recall was on and Richter shot the rat. It's not even remotely gruesome.

The only things that can "get to me" though tend to be stories of severe drawn-out viciousness - stories of people having been randomly abducted and tortured for a prolonged period, for example. Similar stories about animals (cats and dogs in particular) have the same effect. It's anger more than sadness - a wish to find the perpetrators and stamp on their face until their skull collapses.

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Any time I hear about cruelty to animals, I am absolutely ****ing disgusted, but I'm definitely an animal lover, in my life I've had a dog, a snake and a hamster. You make a very real connection with them, you love them as if they were part of your family, and if someone is indifferent to an animal's suffering then it's likely they never made an emotional connection the same way that I, or other people have.

I think the main issue in regards to animal suffering (or at least it is for me), is that you know they're intelligent and are aware of what's happening and are aware of their suffering, however they are innocent participants and are unable to understand, *why* they're being tortured.

This is probably why it upsets me to hear of innocent people being subjected to horrific experiences (such as that couple who were attacked/raped by 15-year-old scumbags up the mountains), but I'm indifferent to the suffering of less innocent people, such as scumbags shooting eachother or stabbing eachother.

For the most part, you are able to avoid being in situations where you would suffer, so it's when the suffering is completely unavoidable, an, "It could happen to anyone" situation, that I think it upsets me most. I wouldn't feel as much sympathy for a captured soldier for example (no offence Mairt), because they put themselves in that situation knowing that the outcome was possible - i.e. they're not an innocent participant.

Ozziej wrote: »

Lets worry about people before we worry about animals. There is enough cruelty to children and women across the world to worry about first.

Studies have shown that murderers and other sociopaths start out their lives by torturing small animals for pleasure.
Respect for animals and respect for humans aren't mutually exclusive. If we teach children respect for animals, they're less likely to develop social problems and turn into scumbags.

Personally I feel less sorry for humans than I do for animals, probably because of the "innocent participant" thing I explain above. Anthropomorphism doesn't come into it, primarily because animals by and large do display traits with which humans can empathise. The article you cite lists Anthropodenial as a foil to this idea - that some people refuse to acknowledge common traits - i.e. to say, "Ah they're just an animal".

For me I am pretty desensitised until anything to someone close to me. In my life I have had two members of my family die and when I heard the news on both occassions I was pretty much unaffected. However when it came to the funerals and the fact that they were gone became real I cried like a little girl.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Cruelty to animals and paedophilia seem to be the most emotive topics on here, and I don't really understand why, a mixture of cuteness and perceived innocence I'd imagine.

seamus wrote: »

I think the main issue in regards to animal suffering (or at least it is for me), is that you know they're intelligent and are aware of what's happening and are aware of their suffering, however they are innocent participants and are unable to understand, *why* they're being tortured.

This is probably why it upsets me to hear of innocent people being subjected to horrific experiences (such as that couple who were attacked/raped by 15-year-old scumbags up the mountains), but I'm indifferent to the suffering of less innocent people, such as scumbags shooting eachother or stabbing eachother.

Interesting that you use the word "perceived" innocence there JC. Children are innocents essentially and most of the time animals and adult victims are too in the type of stories posted here on AH. That's the key issue as seamus says, their ability to understand the fact that they are suffering without any comprehension of why and without a fair chance to defend themselves. Also, when it comes to paedophilia we're talking about sex abuse during childhood which has long term mental health implications.

Am I desensitised? Yes, to an extent. Certainly, I'm never part of the "string them up" brigade, even if I feel that when reading a lot of these stories; violence, or the expression of the desire to commit it, only begets more of the same.

Some stories really disgust me though and I find myself shocked to be shocked sometimes. One, was of a child who had her therapy dog's head cut off and mailed to her. Another was of a three year old who had been left by it's carers to starve to death in a room above their head.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I actually read stories/articles on Crime Library quite often and find them fascinating in a twisted way. I wonder, if it is true that one gets more sensitive as they get older, will having read all those gruesome stories will come back to haunt me.....

Possibly! If I remember correctly people like psychiatrists, psychologist etc., people who spend their lives listening to people unburden their traumas are far more likely to have breakdowns later in life. You can only repress for so long before it catches up on you.

Essentially, I don't think age has as much to do with it as does accumulation of particular types of experience. People who are subjected to a traumatic experience for instance would become more empathic, I think. They can then relate to other's trauma and understand how difficult it is to overcome.

However, I do think age plays a part at particular times. You're what, 19? 20? At that age you're still forming your opinions on the world and, I'm guessing, probably at a stage in your life where you're free to indulge in intellectualism without the uncomfortable intrusion of reality on a daily basis. That's not a judgement statement by the way, lots of people, including me probably, did this too, and it's, at worst, unharmful to do so. This is probably why texts such as Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, and concepts like objectivism, are popular with people at this age but less popular with the same people a few years later.

Karl Hungus wrote: »

I think people are too worried about desensitisation, when I don't even think it works like that. I think people gain empathy as they experience life, and that doesn't really wear down by media or anything else.

Desensitisation gets blown out of proportion certainly. Watching serial killer films won't make me a serial killer. However, I think there's a subtle, unmeasurable effect on peoples behaviour and attitudes when exposed to things like this. They don't change radically but they're a little less polite, a little less patient when exposed to constant and uncompromising images of violence.

There's a great video of Mr. Rogers speaking to the US Senate about this. Check it out. www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXEuEUQIP3Q

Ozziej wrote: »

It also raises the question how young people are supposed to have normal sexual scripts after watching endless hardcore porn during their development stage. I pity what the next generation of young girls will have to do to keep the sexually deviant young men satisfied.

Yeah. Agree totally with that.