• 59 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Posted by Maddman60620 (118 posts) -

Sorry I know this was suppose to be a serious thread but.......

#52 Posted by magicwalnuts (86 posts) -

The op's post feels borderline troll, and what could have been an excellent discussion is instead filled with standard disrespectful internet bullshit. And you say you're a grad student studying theology? You probably feel like the odd person out of your peers because you went into your education with a political agenda.

#53 Edited by Jesus_Phish (677 posts) -

I'm not saying something might not have broken them. I don't know what kind of family they come from. Maybe they're both beaten and abused regularly as children. Some people are just messed up.

Venables and Thompson - murdered a child when they were 10. Both came from decent backgrounds. They gave no reason as to why the murdered their victim. It appears they just wanted to do it.

Mary Bell - murdered two boys when she was 11. She came from a broken home.

In 2009, two boys were found with critical wounds, one of them stabbed multiple times. Their attackers were a pair of brothers aged 12 and 10. Because their names are withheld it's unknown what sort of home or what reason they had for attacking the boys other than their own amusement.

In 1993 an 13 year old named Eric Smith murdered a four year old. Eric was bullied at school and had been diagnosed with a disorder from a younger age.

Notice how most of those examples pre-date the widespread use of the internet. In the case of Venables and Thompson a national paper tried to blame it on the "video nasty" series, but there was no evidence that either of the murderers had ever watched any of those.

Hell, the guy who murdered John Lennon was a massive John Lennon fan, who became upset at Lennon over the "We're bigger than Jesus" quote.

They (the two girls) are ultimately responsible. If they exhibited signs of being a danger to other people then their parents and teachers share that responsibility if they didn't act upon it. Some people are just born mentally ill. They'll find something to be a focal point of their actions. It's been that way throughout history. In a few years time when something else comes along, someone will blame their actions on it, just like these little girls did with Slenderman. Had it not been Slenderman, it would've just been a random act.

#54 Edited by MonkeyKing1969 (2677 posts) -

Kids have been killing other kids for centuries. With criminal justice it is hard to say what trends are because precise police investigation, scientific evidence inspection and record keeping are very new concepts.

Do more children commit murder now than in 1814 or 1914? It is hard to say because we are relying on what amounts to less than 200 years of investigation, evidence inspection and record keeping. We are not even talking about scientific investigation, collection of evidence or record keeping we are just talking about communities listing any more than "here is the count of the people we think were murdered fished out of the Thames river this year."

If you asked me if I wanted to walk in the worst part of London in 1814, 1914 or 2014 I'd choose NOW for sure.

Here is an interesting article about a historical study of homicide in cities.

"....the homicide rate in medieval England was on average 10 times that of 20th century England. A study of the university town of Oxford in the 1340's showed an extraordinarily high annual rate of about 110 per 100,000 people. Studies of London in the first half of the 14th century determined a homicide rate of 36 to 52 per 100,000 people per year."

#55 Edited by Humanity (9049 posts) -

@video_game_king said:

@humanity said:

I don't think my statement of "parents should pay closer attention to what their kids are doing" is really that far fetched or requires any sort of hard evidence

Ah, but it does. The comparative in your statement begs the question, "Compared to what?" And if I might reach further, your conclusion is ultimately flimsy. One incident that might very well have slipped under the parents' watch is no case that they are not paying attention to what their children do (as many a parent of small children can attest), nor is it a case for greater trends about parental inattention.

If we narrow our point of view to that of a pinhole and block out any sort of common sense or reason, then yes your not-argument sort of almost holds some weight. BUT - if at any point in time we start to even edge towards the assumption that these 'queries' were made by an actual adult then the illusion is instantly shattered. Further more, if I can expand on the matter of how a discussion functions in real life, usually people afford one another the common curtesy of presenting their own viewpoints on a topic rather than simply criticizing someone elses opinions as 'wrong' without adding anything from oneself. With that I will cut my ties with this thread as I really don't wish to continue this silly back and forth on a topic that quite frankly doesn't have a right or wrong answer.

#56 Edited by Little_Socrates (5675 posts) -

@video_game_king said:

@humanity said:

I don't think my statement of "parents should pay closer attention to what their kids are doing" is really that far fetched or requires any sort of hard evidence

Ah, but it does. The comparative in your statement begs the question, "Compared to what?" And if I might reach further, your conclusion is ultimately flimsy. One incident that might very well have slipped under the parents' watch is no case that they are not paying attention to what their children do (as many a parent of small children can attest), nor is it a case for greater trends about parental inattention.

Here's the sitch, though; one detailed account claims the murder had been plotted for months. Which means one of two things:

1) These girls are sociopaths and their visible mental states were not affected by supposed stalking by a mythical creature and plotting murder of a peer.

2) Their parents are inattentive and did not properly respond to children suffering from dementia, hallucinations, or warped thinking.

#57 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -
#58 Posted by Jayzilla (2559 posts) -
#59 Posted by dudeglove (7740 posts) -

@humanity said:

I think parents need to pay closer attention to their kids these days.

Compared to when?

Y'know, that fictional time in the 1950s post-WW2 when you could buy a two-storey house, a family with 2.4 kids, and two cars and the groceries ALL FOR A DOLLAR.

#60 Posted by LucassoTheGreat (38 posts) -

@demoskinos: You are absolutely correct. We're in one of the most peaceful times in human history, right now. The problem lies in the 24 hour news cycle and the instant accessibility of the internet.

#61 Posted by Demoskinos (14751 posts) -

@lucassothegreat: The 24 hour news cycle is just awful awful garbage. Its hours and hours about how can you discuss the same two bullet points of information over six hours while speculating with absolute nonsense.