What Prompts Violence In Society?

[tsugomaru]

Who knows. I don't have the mindset of a violent person so I cannot tell you how one would think.

~Tsugomaru

[devonin]

Actually Shasta, I think you'll find that people in general, but that kind of person specifically is incredibly good at justification. Some of the worst villainous types in history very firmly believed that they were doing the right and good thing. Look at the entire concept of religious zealotry. Anyone caught up in that is almost certain to believe that they are doing the right thing.

[ShastaTwist]

I meant that they'd be able to justify it to another person who does not hold the same view as them.

The guy from Virginia Tech, for example, may feel that his decision to kill all those people was right, but if he tried to justify it to say, you or me, I think he would be quite hard put to get us to say, "Ah, I see."

[Go_Oilers_Go]

If you guys are trying to simplify it down to the fact that we let instinct take over then doesn't that hypothetically make us no worse than barbarians if we let instinct take over reason?

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by Go_Oilers_Go

If you guys are trying to simplify it down to the fact that we let instinct take over then doesn't that hypothetically make us no worse than barbarians if we let instinct take over reason?

There is a point when one can subconsciously decide something to the effect of "Screw it, I'm not going to bother trying to deal with this anymore" and just let certain instincts or "programming" take over. Violence is actually probably the prime example, because being able to restrain yourself is the reason, and losing control and going Rambo on people is the instinct. Now, of course there is still some reasoning involved while going Rambo, particularly towards how to effectively achieve your violent goal, but the instinct to eliminate what is perceived as a threat is in control.

[ShastaTwist]

Lol, Rambo.

Also, no. I think that we are much more civilized than barbarians due to modernization and our heightened intelligences. We don't go to war with every neighboring nomadic group and stick their heads on spears and eat their flesh.

At least that I know of.

[Go_Oilers_Go]

Originally Posted by ShastaTwist

Lol, Rambo.

Also, no. I think that we are much more civilized than barbarians due to modernization and our heightened intelligences. We don't go to war with every neighboring nomadic group and stick their heads on spears and eat their flesh.

At least that I know of.

USA vs Mexico, anyone?

[ShastaTwist]

I'm going to eat your flesh.

[tsugomaru]

Originally Posted by ShastaTwist

I think he would be quite hard put to get us to say, "Ah, I see."

This is the main problem. This is precisely what I mean when I say society can be so unforgiving. It really isn't our fault that we can't see it from his point of view because in truth, we really can't. Most of us here cannot say we've stood in his position and understand what his feelings were. We can discuss about his environment, but in the end, it's all still speculation.

It's difficult to understand a violent man because who gets to justify his feelings? Is it the violent man? Or is it us, who found some obscure reason to justify our part of the problem?

~Tsugomaru

[ShastaTwist]

Well, he killed himself so...

[ShAiOnEi]

METAL!

[Coolgamer]

Society creates its own problems. If a kid shoots up his school, then more often then not you are going to learn that he was bullied, if not abused. The school caste system of jocks and preps as dominant over the loners, the goths, the nerds, etc. creates a overwhelming feeling of injustice.

When the school fails to address these issues because they don't want to punish the star football player or the parents are socially known, then the problem gets more complex.

Then when the student who gets bullied is told to shut up and fit into the norm of society, well... you do the math.

Violent videos games, violent music, violent movies, none of these really factor in. The VC Tech shooter was not a gamer.

Restricting access to guns only solves part of the problem. The real problem is society as a whole, which has failed to demand a change rather then playing the everlasting blame game.

I have more thoughts on this, as I've studied Columbine... have three CD-ROMS of evidence, in fact... but it's late so that will do for now.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by ShastaTwist

I meant that they'd be able to justify it to another person who does not hold the same view as them.

The guy from Virginia Tech, for example, may feel that his decision to kill all those people was right, but if he tried to justify it to say, you or me, I think he would be quite hard put to get us to say, "Ah, I see."

This stems, as noted above, as much from our refusal to consider his viewpoint as anything else. Not that we're necessarily obliged to consider his viewpoint, since we consider that viewpoint to be insane, and thus irrational.

We're basically saying "Your viewpoint cannot be justified because we think your viewpoint is not justifiable." Given that, of course there is no way they could convince us that their view is correct. We've already concluded "Any attempt to justify murder will automatically fail" So their attempt to justify murder...well...there you go.

Originally Posted by Go_oilers_go

If you guys are trying to simplify it down to the fact that we let instinct take over then doesn't that hypothetically make us no worse than barbarians if we let instinct take over reason?

As a historical aside, the term Barbarian comes from the Greek Barbaros, and basically meant "Anybody who doesn't speak Greek" so termed because to the Greeks, the languages of nothern europe sounded like animals going "Bar Bar Bar." However, using the current definition of Barbarism, if you wanted to forward the claim that when humans give over reason for instinct, we become nasty and violent, you wouldn't be alone. Instinctual humanity as "Nasty, Brutish and Short" has a pretty long history of being supported in some branches of philosophy.

Originally Posted by ShastaTwist

Also, no. I think that we are much more civilized than barbarians due to modernization and our heightened intelligences. We don't go to war with every neighboring nomadic group and stick their heads on spears and eat their flesh.

At least that I know of.

The term "More civilized than barbarians" is one that doesn't make that much sense, since the Greeks applied it to everyone who didn't speak Greek, including some pretty advanced and peaceful peoples, but anyway...if our advancement and intelligence and modernization has done anything, it has been to make us more warlike, and prone to violence.

The weight of international opinion stops most nations from invading others, but bear in mind that pretty much the entire world is divided up between nations now, whereas at the time you're thinking, large areas were uninhabited, or only very loosely inhabited compared to the available resources. We don't go to war with neighbouring nomadic groups because we don't neighbour any nomadic groups, not because we've become enlightened and peaceful.

Originally Posted by Go_Oilers_Go

USA vs Mexico, anyone?

Pancho Villa would kick you for that.

Originally Posted by ShastaTwist

I'm going to eat your flesh.

Shasta, you know I love you, but there's a zombie thread in chit-chat...

Originally Posted by Tsugomaru

This is the main problem. This is precisely what I mean when I say society can be so unforgiving. It really isn't our fault that we can't see it from his point of view because in truth, we really can't. Most of us here cannot say we've stood in his position and understand what his feelings were. We can discuss about his environment, but in the end, it's all still speculation.

It's difficult to understand a violent man because who gets to justify his feelings? Is it the violent man? Or is it us, who found some obscure reason to justify our part of the problem?

Our society and culture are predicated on the idea of rights extending only as far as they don't infringe the rights of others. We zealously protect personal property, we punish people for taking things that don't belong to them, in many parts of the world we kill people who take lives. Given this predeliction for protecting the rights of the individual, and our generally common consent to support those protections, -should- we try to see their perspective?

By any reasonable standard, someone who shows enough disregard for the rights and protections of those around them should be entitled to an equal degree of disregard. The moral justification for the Death Penalty is that once you've taken a life, you are no longer part of the society that protects people from losing their life. This is why executions are not murder (This is up for debate, but that's how the logic goes) and why not only is it difficult to try and let such offenders justify themselves, but why it is difficult to convince people that they should even consider it.

[ShastaTwist]

Originally Posted by devonin

Shasta, you know I love you, but there's a zombie thread in chit-chat...

Flesh. >:[

I think I had a point but I forgot...

I was using the term "barbarian" in the sense of how most people define them today. And my nomadic tribe reference was pretty much a metaphor so that I could apply ancient history to present happenings.

I'm tired.

[tsugomaru]

It doesn't matter how many ways you look at it, the criminal isn't the only person at fault. Video games and other factors may slightly contribute to the problem, but they aren't the sole contributers.

~Tsugomaru

[devonin]

But you fall into a trap there. If we grant that there's only as much blame to be spread around as there is blame for the act, who gets how much, and how responsible should people be for their contributions?

If this particular offender did what they did primarily because of one person bullying them earlier, is that bully responsible in any way for the later actions? Should they be held responsible? What if the person was impressionable enough to be influenced by violent media, is the media actually to blame? Should there be repurcussions for them?

[tsugomaru]

Well, one things for sure, we shouldn't try to blame video games or any one cause entirely when there are clearly so many other factors to consider.

~Tsugomaru

[devonin]

But here's the question: Unless our goal is to remove guilt from the offender, should we blame -anything- other than the offender?

[tsugomaru]

Nah. The offender always plays a role in the violence he committed.

Everyone shares a part of the blame to a certain extent and it'd be bigoted to blame only one person or thing.

~Tsugomaru

[Go_Oilers_Go]

It's my personal opinion that murder is unjustifiable - this stems from my Christian beliefs, however. But when you guys look at the V Tech shooting... I'm sure that the people that the student killed were all killed at random. Thus, it was a random killing spree (although it may have been prompted by bullying). So this makes it difficult to see things from the murderer's point of view. However, if revenge is involved in the murderer's motives - as in he wants to kill people who have wronged him - then it is at least partially understandable as to why he did what he did.