Is it just luck?

mariaalice · 19-06-2019 12:20pm #1

Thinking about this.

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?

GreeBo · 19-06-2019 12:23pm

mariaalice wrote: »

Thinking about this.

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?

It's knowing right from wrong.

19-06-2019 12:23pm

I would place an emphasis on parenting. Scumbags emulate scumbags.

mariaalice · 19-06-2019 12:25pm

GreeBo wrote: »

It's knowing right from wrong.

Its not as simple as that drugs and underage drinking are illegal and teenagers still do it some come to harm and some don't there must be a reason.

bear1 · 19-06-2019 12:27pm

mariaalice wrote: »

Thinking about this.

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?

Horrendous violence porn?
Stupid mistakes, sexual risks and alcohol risks and drug abuse.
The post seems somewhat exaggerated.
I think many of us have seen beyond weird crap on the net.
Two girls one cup? One man one jar?
Rotten.com etc.
I'd say the reason why this is much more prevalent in our younger generation is because it's a form of experimenting.
When you're older you know what not to watch and what not to take or what your limit is but you'd need to experience to know what your limit is.
I wouldn't put it down to stupidity as most teens would be immature as default.

mariaalice · 19-06-2019 12:28pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I would place an emphasis on parenting. Scumbags emulate scumbags.

Nearly all teenagers experiment sexually and with alchole, some will add drugs, again some will come to no real harm with this behavior except making a fool of themselves and some will do serious damage to themselves.

bear1 · 19-06-2019 12:28pm

mariaalice wrote: »

Its not as simple as that drugs and underage drinking are illegal and teenagers still do it some come to harm and some don't there must be a reason.

Genetics, some can smoke until they reach their 80s without cancer.
Some don't smoke and die of cancer
Why?

....... · 19-06-2019 12:30pm

We are a product of both nature (our genes, our physical make up), our nurture (how we were brought up) and some luck.

Perhaps for some people the upbringing is enough to overcome problems in the brain that they were born with, in other cases they were born ok and the environment changed their brain chemistry to something disturbing.

I dont think there is a single formula.

We would all agree that there are abberant people like Ted Bundy or Boy A who take pleasure in someones elses suffering and death. But no one knows if Boy A was born that way, came to be that way from environment, or was just unlucky and had some combination of both.

Overall people are less violent than they used to be. But there will always be these outliers.

Snotty · 19-06-2019 12:31pm

So your question is, why are people different?

DEFTLEFTHAND · 19-06-2019 12:35pm

bear1 wrote: »

Genetics, some can smoke until they reach their 80s without cancer.
Some don't smoke and die of cancer
Why?

Only about a third of lifetime smokers contract a smoking related cancer anyway. They're more likely to die from stroke/heart attack.

Like you say genes do play a large part in cancer, you can live like monk but you can't change you're genetics. Some are just more predisposed to it than others.

mariaalice · 19-06-2019 12:35pm

I think luck is a large part of it, I did things as a teenager that were more stupit that anything else but was lucky it has little to no effect on my life.

banie01 · 19-06-2019 12:37pm

Can it not be all of the above as well as none?
The argument of nature versus nurture falls apart for me when I look at my own family circumstances and the range of adult outcomes that a broadly similar range of home life had.
Some were given more attention and care than others, because as chance would have it they needed more care/intervention.

My siblings range from college graduate, school drop out, career criminals, junkie, teenage single mother, widowed, student all different people and all on different spots of the nature Vs nurture spectrum.

Looking for a substantive causative factor in teen offending is barring sociopathic/psychopathic pathology a waste of time.

The "worst" of my siblings had substantial early intervention with support services, was amongst the very 1st in Ireland to be assessed for ADHD (Thanks to my mother's research and effort) was provided support and help from a young age to ensure the best possible outcome.
He is currently awaiting trial in the UK for a fairly serious crime, after that he will likely be extradited back to Ireland to face further and unrelated charges.
Violent and property related crimes.

I have another brother who had the misfortune to be led astray by the idiot above but who is now coming good.
In his mid 20's and hopefully can rebuild his life.

Do I blame their recidivism on "middle child syndrome"?
Because IMHO my parents spent so long trying their utmost to understand how after a few kids that were "normal" for want of a better phrase?
They suddenly had kids who from very young, were rebellious, and constantly pushing boundaries?
I have younger siblings who I honestly feel never got to know our parents because those parents spent all their energy trying to fix the different ones.
Seeking expert help, pushing for HSE( in the 1st instance so long ago it was Health Board assistance!)

Some kids grow into bad people, it doesn't matter what interventions are made.
I don't know the pathology that causes it, but it is far more complex and nuanced than luck, environment or even a combination of those factors.

I'd love a behavioural, environmental and even genetic review of my family's little cohort of fúcked up...

I know it's a sample size of 1 family and 8 kids, but I am always astounded that those who had the most appropriate and professional intervention...
Grew to be professional vicious cúnts.

bear1 · 19-06-2019 12:39pm

mariaalice wrote: »

I think luck is a large part of it, I did things as a teenager that were more stupit that anything else but was lucky it has little to no effect on my life.

Depends, how did English classes go?

Elemonator · 19-06-2019 12:40pm

Read a fascinating case when I was studying genetics law. The research suggested that some individuals are genetically predisposed to aggressive behaviour. Always wondered just how much of an impact it would have when considered in the context of multiple factors such as environment. An appeal based on these genetics recently reduced a murder sentence in Italy.

For your own viewing, they are academic papers on the subject:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2987314/
https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi263
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3955018/

GreeBo · 19-06-2019 12:45pm

mariaalice wrote: »

Its not as simple as that drugs and underage drinking are illegal and teenagers still do it some come to harm and some don't there must be a reason.

It's still knowing right from wrong though.

You might know underage drinking is wrong but make the call that its not "wrong enough".

I think the two in the Kriegel case either couldnt tell or had no empathy to care about right from wrong.

....... · 19-06-2019 12:49pm

banie01 wrote: »

Can it not be all of the above as well as none?

Absolutely, there is no pattern.

I think its all of the above/some of the above/none of the above in various cases.

Rather than figure out what makes a person like Boy A (which seems impossible) I think it would be more useful to identify people like Boy A before they do the things they do.

fryup · 19-06-2019 12:55pm

there's always and always will be the "wild kids" out of control feral types...but the thing is there's a lot more temptation for bad behaviour in society nowadays what with hardcore porn, underage sex, drink drugs, online bullying...religion has also lost its influence on young people so its a case of.. couldn't care less two fingers to the world imo

....... · 19-06-2019 12:56pm

fryup wrote: »

there's always and always will be the "wild kids" out of control feral types...but the thing is there's a lot more temptation for bad behaviour in society nowadays what with hardcore porn, drugs, online bullying...religion has also lost its influence on young people so its a case of.. couldn't care less two fingers to the world

There were always the same temptations, its just its easier for people to access imagery these days.

And easier to stay anonymous.

But back in the day people used to send poison pen letters to bully victims.

19-06-2019 12:57pm

I think that ones DNA plays a big part. Some can have one drink and leave it at that. Their sibling might not be able to stop at one and drink themselves into oblivion. Same for illegal drugs.
The side affects of long term abuse of drink and/or drugs can have serious long term affects. This isn’t limited to any particular class. There are many cases of the upper class succumbing to tragic endings from such abuse.

banie01 · 19-06-2019 1:04pm

GreeBo wrote: »

It's still knowing right from wrong though.

You might know underage drinking is wrong but make the call that its not "wrong enough".

I think the two in the Kriegel case either couldnt tell or had no empathy to care about right from wrong.

This!

I only have the one kid and that's all there will be fruiting my loins.

But!
My aim as a parent has always been to instill a moral compass!
To teach the difference between right and wrong and ensure my child both understands that difference and the consequences of choosing wrong.

All I can do is my best to ensure that I give my child the tools and the framework of life experience to frame his tough choices against.
Then hope I did that job well enough that when the time comes he will make the right call.
It may not always be a good choice, but sometimes I think we have to settle for "least bad" and deal with the consequence.

Teaching our kids to actively avoid situations where "least bad" still involves harm to another...
That's where I hope whatever else I do as a parent, that I do that right.

fryup · 19-06-2019 1:07pm

....... wrote: »

There were always the same temptations, its just its easier for people to access imagery these days.

thats what i'm getting at

B_ecke_r · 19-06-2019 1:09pm

I watched plenty of violent movies when I was younger, I always remember knowing they were just movies though,

I don't think we will ever have the answer to this.

are people born evil?

Wibbs · 19-06-2019 1:13pm

GreeBo wrote: »

It's still knowing right from wrong though.

You might know underage drinking is wrong but make the call that its not "wrong enough".

Or they are just adolescent children. In very basic brain and neural development terms, as kids our amygdala is what's more in control, the more emotional, "animal", risk taking part of the brain. The frontal cortex is where we make considered rational decisions and that is still forming at that age and doesn't fully form until late teens and things like environmental stress and things like drugs can delay that further(with some it never fully kicks in). So as adults with fully formed brains and minds we can find it hard to judge the minds of children. We have learned not to as most judicial systems in the world have different "ages of reason" going on. A six year old who finds a gun and shoots and kills someone will not be regarded the same way as a 30 year old who does. Adolescents tend to live in the middle ground legally(though places like America that can vary, especially if said adolescent is poor and/or Black).

Sure "right" and "wrong" come into it and that's a comforting if simple response, but they are quite nebulous concepts that constantly shift through time and culture. Very few things we consider today as purely wrong or right have always been considered that way. If you were born and bred in Ancient Rome you would almost certainly not see slavery as a moral wrong. Indeed consider Christianity and its holy books, not a peep about it, yet Jesus and the early church leaders and writers would have been surrounded by it. One of the popes whose name escapes sent the first official missionary(Augustine) to England because the story he goes he saw two Anglo kids in a slave market in Rome and made a lame joke about how like angels they looked and they should be converted. No comment about freeing them and the head of the church was pursuing a slave market. Infanticide was barely frowned upon in certain cultures, usually with some age limit like their first birthday. Rape and murder have regularly been state and culturally sanctioned. Same goes for underage sexual relations, drug taking etc. That list is a long one and depending on time and culture and circumstance our moral compass has many "true norths".

bear1 · 19-06-2019 1:43pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Or they are just adolescent children. In very basic brain and neural development terms, as kids our amygdala is what's more in control, the more emotional, "animal", risk taking part of the brain. The frontal cortex is where we make considered rational decisions and that is still forming at that age and doesn't fully form until late teens and things like environmental stress and things like drugs can delay that further(with some it never fully kicks in). So as adults with fully formed brains and minds we can find it hard to judge the minds of children. We have learned not to as most judicial systems in the world have different "ages of reason" going on. A six year old who finds a gun and shoots and kills someone will not be regarded the same way as a 30 year old who does. Adolescents tend to live in the middle ground legally(though places like America that can vary, especially if said adolescent is poor and/or Black).

Sure "right" and "wrong" come into it and that's a comforting if simple response, but they are quite nebulous concepts that constantly shift through time and culture. Very few things we consider today as purely wrong or right have always been considered that way. If you were born and bred in Ancient Rome you would almost certainly not see slavery as a moral wrong. Indeed consider Christianity and its holy books, not a peep about it, yet Jesus and the early church leaders and writers would have been surrounded by it. One of the popes whose name escapes sent the first official missionary(Augustine) to England because the story he goes he saw two Anglo kids in a slave market in Rome and made a lame joke about how like angels they looked and they should be converted. No comment about freeing them and the head of the church was pursuing a slave market. Infanticide was barely frowned upon in certain cultures, usually with some age limit like their first birthday. Rape and murder have regularly been state and culturally sanctioned. Same goes for underage sexual relations, drug taking etc. That list is a long one and depending on time and culture and circumstance our moral compass has many "true norths".

*Drops the mic*

Wibbs · 19-06-2019 1:47pm

rossie1977 · 19-06-2019 1:52pm

Excuses are always going to be sought. It was rock/metal music, it was violent movies, it was violent video games, it was pro wrestling, it was porn.

weldoninhio · 19-06-2019 1:53pm

bear1 wrote: »

Horrendous violence porn?
Stupid mistakes, sexual risks and alcohol risks and drug abuse.
The post seems somewhat exaggerated.
I think many of us have seen beyond weird crap on the net.
Two girls one cup? One man one jar?
Rotten.com etc.
I'd say the reason why this is much more prevalent in our younger generation is because it's a form of experimenting.
When you're older you know what not to watch and what not to take or what your limit is but you'd need to experience to know what your limit is.
I wouldn't put it down to stupidity as most teens would be immature as default.

Jesus, I shuddered there when I saw that. Hadn't thought of that video in a long time.

Harry Palmr · 19-06-2019 2:00pm

Children who have also led absolutely mainstream, "boring" lives can and will commit dreadful crimes at some point in their lives.

There is no 'marker' and no two criminal or transgressive acts are the same. So attempting to put people in boxes of behavior or familial/social environment and extrapolate future actions is a fools game.

No doubt we're going to have a passing moral panic about porn and phones, yet the crime we're all talking about is incredibly rare and the origins of it are not yet uncovered.

s7ryf3925pivug · 19-06-2019 2:03pm

well luck's a factor if you have unprotected sex with strangers and dont't have serious consequences for example.

A little bad luck can help too, like getting in enough trouble for something to make you cop on.

James Brown · 19-06-2019 2:05pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I would place an emphasis on parenting. Scumbags emulate scumbags.

Yep, everyone I knew like that came from same. You get the odd wild kid from a decent home but they generally aren't violent or criminal.
Environment, not just at home and socio-economics play a major role.

GreeBo · 19-06-2019 2:13pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Or they are just adolescent children. In very basic brain and neural development terms, as kids our amygdala is what's more in control, the more emotional, "animal", risk taking part of the brain. The frontal cortex is where we make considered rational decisions and that is still forming at that age and doesn't fully form until late teens and things like environmental stress and things like drugs can delay that further(with some it never fully kicks in). So as adults with fully formed brains and minds we can find it hard to judge the minds of children. We have learned not to as most judicial systems in the world have different "ages of reason" going on. A six year old who finds a gun and shoots and kills someone will not be regarded the same way as a 30 year old who does. Adolescents tend to live in the middle ground legally(though places like America that can vary, especially if said adolescent is poor and/or Black).

Sure "right" and "wrong" come into it and that's a comforting if simple response, but they are quite nebulous concepts that constantly shift through time and culture. Very few things we consider today as purely wrong or right have always been considered that way. If you were born and bred in Ancient Rome you would almost certainly not see slavery as a moral wrong. Indeed consider Christianity and its holy books, not a peep about it, yet Jesus and the early church leaders and writers would have been surrounded by it. One of the popes whose name escapes sent the first official missionary(Augustine) to England because the story he goes he saw two Anglo kids in a slave market in Rome and made a lame joke about how like angels they looked and they should be converted. No comment about freeing them and the head of the church was pursuing a slave market. Infanticide was barely frowned upon in certain cultures, usually with some age limit like their first birthday. Rape and murder have regularly been state and culturally sanctioned. Same goes for underage sexual relations, drug taking etc. That list is a long one and depending on time and culture and circumstance our moral compass has many "true norths".

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.

bear1 · 19-06-2019 2:42pm

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..

Wibbs · 19-06-2019 2:53pm

GreeBo wrote: »

Sorry but I think that is plain nonsense obscured by lofty writing.

It's backed by science, psychology, history and philosophy down the centuries.

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.

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?

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?

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?

A basic, animalistic response is irrelevant to conversations about premeditated actions.

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.

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.

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?

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".

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.

You

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.

s7ryf3925pivug · 19-06-2019 3:19pm

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.

GreeBo · 19-06-2019 4:01pm

Wibbs wrote: »

It's backed by science, psychology, history and philosophy down the centuries.

"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?

Wibbs wrote: »

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 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?
Do you want to try and pull at some other unrelated heart strings or can we stick to the subject at hand?

Wibbs wrote: »

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?

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...

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

Things getting out of hand are exactly what I was referring to when I posted about "basic, animalistic responses".
Plotting to lure a victim to an abandoned house to enabled another to rape and murder her isnt something that "got out of hand".

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

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.

Wibbs wrote: »

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".

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.

Wibbs wrote: »

You
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.

You

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.

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

s7ryf3925pivug · 19-06-2019 4:47pm

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.

Wibbs · 19-06-2019 5:04pm

GreeBo wrote: »

"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?

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.

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...

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?

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 answered your question directly and in one sentence. I can't help it if this doesn't sink in.

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.

I'm trying to get you actually start to think beyond the bloody obvious and your cock sure comfort zone. Clearly in vain.

Professor Moriarty · 19-06-2019 5:09pm

GreeBo wrote: »

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.

Wibbs · 19-06-2019 5:27pm

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

A psychopath knows the difference between right and wrong. They just don't care.

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 · 19-06-2019 5:40pm

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

GreeBo · 19-06-2019 6:38pm

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?

GreeBo · 19-06-2019 6:41pm

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

corks finest · 19-06-2019 6:48pm

mariaalice wrote: »

GreeBo wrote: »

It's knowing right from wrong.

Its not as simple as that drugs and underage drinking are illegal and teenagers still do it some come to harm and some don't there must be a reason.

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 later

Professor Moriarty · 19-06-2019 6:50pm

GreeBo wrote: »

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.

freshpopcorn · 19-06-2019 7:08pm

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.

Professor Moriarty · 19-06-2019 7:14pm

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.

Hedgelayer · 19-06-2019 7:27pm

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.

Wibbs · 19-06-2019 8:31pm

GreeBo wrote: »

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.

Christ all bloody mighty, would ever try reading FFS. It's like engaging with a human migraine generator.

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.

astrofool · 19-06-2019 9:27pm

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).

Is it just luck?

Comments