This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Does the Internet Create Lynch Mobs?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
asakawa
Kids are usually quite gentle and innocent unless they are taught impatience and hostility. Kids need to have those voids of morality filled, and truly, the ARE filled, like it or not, at a very early age. Teach a child the ways of the Lord and he will not depart from them in his old age. I forget where exactly that is from, but it's in Proverbs.
I disagree with this. There's no evidence to show young people are gentle and innocent unless taught different. The Lord of the Flies is a work of fiction but there's truth in it. What we saw in this video was the themes of Lord of the Flies playing out in real life. This behaviour isn't taught, it's innate, tribal and animalistic.
I'm quite sure that their behaviour results from bad parenting but these weren't innocent empty vessels that have been filled with hate, I see still empty vessels who are devoid of any nurturing at all just being swept up in brutal mob mentality.
I also, of course, disagree that a religion is required for moral development but that probably goes without saying.
Post by
Aimsyr
To quote another person from another forum:
A man was arrested for getting into a protracted shootout with police on a dense residential street, and another was arrested for raping a nine-month-old baby.
From the same general area in New York. Each of those people have received fewer threats than the children in the video.
That's how it's always been with the internet, though - some bad things receive insane exposure while other equally horrible events receive almost none. It's pretty sad.
Not sure if I'd call those equally horrible, those two things are kinda worse than this is.
As for the punishment of these kids - as Magician said, being a little $!&* isn't against the law and thus it's up to the parents and the school to handle punishment.
Sadly, as an article I read mentioned, they really did not break any law. Being a little $!&* isn't against the law..., so the punishment is now left up to the parents, and the school.
They need tough love, but not violence or hate.
Agree on the though love (they really need some discipline) and agree that actually physically harming them is not the right answer. But on the hate part........... as I said, reap what you sow.
If they don't want to be hated, how about treating others more nicely?
I agree on all of the above. What those children need is to be disciplined, however harming them physically will probably just make them worse.
I don't agree with the fact we should be sympathetic towards them, as rankkorr said they ought to treat others more nicely if they don't want to be hated in turn. While going so far as to threaten them
is
going a bit too far in my opinion, who is ultimately to blame for that? They are.
Edit: I also disagree that religion is necessary for moral development, though I do agree that in some cases it can help. For the most part I feel moral development is up to the parents of the individual and the individual themself.
Post by
Lombax
The internet doesn't create lynchmobs, it creates mad bro circlejerks.
Post by
OverZealous
To quote another person from another forum:
A man was arrested for getting into a protracted shootout with police on a dense residential street, and another was arrested for raping a nine-month-old baby.
From the same general area in New York. Each of those people have received fewer threats than the children in the video.
That's how it's always been with the internet, though - some bad things receive insane exposure while other equally horrible events receive almost none. It's pretty sad.
Not sure if I'd call those equally horrible, those two things are kinda worse than this is.
You misunderstand me; I was not referring to these three different events specifically, but rather events in general. A double murder in Iran could potentially receive ten times the attention a mass murder of 100+ in Syria receives, for example, but it
could
also end up being the other way around. The point is that which event receives attention is dependant on a lot of factors aside from how horrible said act/event is.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Kids are usually quite gentle and innocent unless they are taught impatience and hostility. Kids need to have those voids of morality filled, and truly, the ARE filled, like it or not, at a very early age. Teach a child the ways of the Lord and he will not depart from them in his old age. I forget where exactly that is from, but it's in Proverbs.
I disagree with this. There's no evidence to show young people are gentle and innocent unless taught different. The Lord of the Flies is a work of fiction but there's truth in it. What we saw in this video was the themes of Lord of the Flies playing out in real life. This behaviour isn't taught, it's innate, tribal and animalistic.
I'm quite sure that their behaviour results from bad parenting but these weren't innocent empty vessels that have been filled with hate, I see still empty vessels who are devoid of any nurturing at all just being swept up in brutal mob mentality.
I also, of course, disagree that a religion is required for moral development but that probably goes without saying.
Lord of the Flies was about kids that had already grown some. They weren't toddlers.
But, I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying that children will default to "good". I'm saying that when children are "bad" that that is usually taught to them by someone close to them. Kids will grow up imitating those around them. Certainly kids can grow their own direction, but most have morality demonstrated.
As for needing religion to be moral, I think without an objective measure of morality, kids will learn that subjective morals are ok. If they learn that, then subjectivity will be the definition of right and wrong for them. All religion is, is a "set of beliefs and/or traditions". If you don't teach kids to believe anything at all, then I'm quite sure they will believe anything at all, even the most heinous stuff.
Post by
Lombax
If you don't teach kids to believe anything at all, then I'm quite sure they will believe anything at all, even the most heinous stuff.
No. I was never thought to believe in any religion/fairytale. Do I believe in what ever I get told? No. DO I believe in anything odd? No.
Everyone I know whom was raised in a highly agnostic or atheistic manner has turned out to being able to use some form of critical thinking. All of them has a sense of morality.
I consider the bible to be mostly heinous and filled with illogical bull %^&*, it's not a good book to use for teaching kids morality. There are a lot of better books to teach morality from.
Post by
asakawa
If you don't teach kids to believe anything at all, then I'm quite sure they will believe anything at all, even the most heinous stuff.
This is demonstrably untrue. Though I wonder why is lack of religion synonymous with believing nothing at all? I believe in no religion because I see no divinity in any of them but I believe in all sorts of things including a very clear view of what is right and what is wrong.(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##
Post by
MyTie
-I'm going to try out this new posting style, where I disregard people who are disrespectful to the point of being asses. If I were to have posted something like that, aimed at someone on this forum, I would be banned for at least 24 hours. Why not tone down your rhetoric to the point of not being so harsh, and I'd be happy to have this conversation with you....but I believe in all sorts of things including a very clear view of what is right and what is wrong.
This is what I'm talking about asakawa. This is good. This is what is needed. Perhaps you and I disagree on what is the best measure of right and wrong to teach kids, but I think we agree that right and wrong must be taught. To take it a step further, I believe that an objective measure of right and wrong must be taught. That is our point of disagreement.
Post by
asakawa
Well, we could possibly even reach agreement that and objective measure is good but my measure would probably revolve tightly around the idea of causing as little suffering to oneself and others as possible while maximising the happiness of oneself and one's kin. (This isn't a line I've given great thought to, it's a bit off the cuff so please don't think of it as a manifesto to be deconstructed).
Post by
MyTie
Well, we could possibly even reach agreement that and objective measure is good but my measure would probably revolve tightly around the idea of causing as little suffering to oneself and others as possible while maximising the happiness of oneself and one's kin. (This isn't a line I've given great thought to, it's a bit off the cuff so please don't think of it as a manifesto to be deconstructed).
I think you and I hold a lot in common. I think this conversation would be quite personal, and slightly off topic. If you want to continue it, email me. =)
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
You just earned yourself a report little mister.
You just earned yourself a sig line, little mister.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
OverZealous
What MyTie is saying, I think, is that more often than not your views are so radically different from everyone elses that it becomes quite the event when you agree with someone's viewpoints. It may have been intended to be offensive, but I don't think it has to be. That said, it may be an unnecessary thing to say.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Magician22773
My guess is, with behavior this bad, that the parents are probably not much better than the kids, so I doubt they are going to have much to worry about there.
I actually wanted to redact this statement, at least in the case of one
parent.
But Klein was moved by the gesture of one boy’s father, Robert Helm, who showed up at her doorstep to apologize and then received a hug from the bus monitor.
When she referred to the boy, Helm said, “There’s no excuse,” and he proceeded to apologize some more.
I also have to say, now seeing now the story is playing out, that while I don't agree that threats are a good way to handle a situation, in this case, it may have had a positive impact. Since it has not resulted in any actual violence (and I pray it does not), it may have not been all bad. I think these kids have gotten "a taste of their own medicine", and it may turn out to be enough to make them, and others, think twice about their actions. The question is now that the point has been made, and it appears that apoligies and punishments are comming, will the threats and harrasmant stop. If it does, than it may have been a good way to show them how it feels. If it doesn't, than it will soon cross over to being no better than what the boys did.
Post by
asakawa
I've removed some off topic posts. I agree that a couple of the things said about Soldrethar were uncalled for. Let's not repeat that sort of comment and also try to stay on topic.
Thanks.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.