8 teens arrested in beating of Lakeland girl

gompertz wrote:

<quoted text>
Nowhere did I say that human nature changed because of Christianity. This is what I wrote: "With the coming of Christianity that kind of behavior ceased to be acceptable, and those feelings were banished from consciousness. Banished but not extinguished. The enjoyment of violence...is still part of our psychology..." So, if I assert that violence is still part of our psychology, am I not saying that human nature is still violent? When you say that people have to justify their wickedness by appealing to the Bible (or the Koran, or Marx) you are preaching to the choir . Some of our noblest aspirations seem to have their origins in attempts to justify and sanitize violence. Wars to end all wars, wars to convert people to the "true faith," wars to bring the blessings of civilization to "primitive" tribes,
are indicative of man's ability to devise excuses.
However, what changed was that society no longer approved of people acting like the Vikings of old, who could swing their axes and swords and murder and maim at will. New pretexts had to be invented, and mitigated forms of violence (like sports) were devised. At least this had the advantage of removing the violence from the sphere of everyday life, and projecting it into the sphere of entertainment. In America, even war became a form of entertainment, since it was projected onto a TV screen in sanitized form, with the more disturbing images of destruction and death removed by the censors. Now, it seems the younger generation has reinstated violence as a fact of life in a very direct way, thanks to the Internet and the video camera. That is what we have been opining about for over a year on this thread. The masks have come off, the violent soul has been exposed in all its harshness, and the unadorned brutality of the Viking with his destructiveness is winning approval among many of the young. What does this reveal about the future of civilization?

icu wrote:

What a bunch of SICKOS!!! I don't stop by here very often but I honestly can't believe after all this time you are still conjecturing about a girl fight that happened 1 3/4 yrs. ago.
What does this say about yourselves? With all the really horrific incidents that have happened in our world during this time why waste your time and conjectures on this. You're no closer to the truth anyway.
It amazes me that the majority, or all of you, now writing are men. What does this say about yourselves
Now you can all get on your high horses and start attacking for the next day or two. That should keep you busy and give you something productive to do!
Is your attacking really any different that the anger show by the so called "8"?

icu wrote:

What a bunch of SICKOS!!! I don't stop by here very often but I honestly can't believe after all this time you are still conjecturing about a girl fight that happened 1 3/4 yrs. ago.
What does this say about yourselves? With all the really horrific incidents that have happened in our world during this time why waste your time and conjectures on this. You're no closer to the truth anyway.
It amazes me that the majority, or all of you, now writing are men. What does this say about yourselves
Now you can all get on your high horses and start attacking for the next day or two. That should keep you busy and give you something productive to do!
Is your attacking really any different that the anger show by the so called "8"?

gompertz wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, since I have so much time on my hands, I might as well respond to this. I get the impression that you conflated the contributions of numerous bloggers to make some questionable generalizations. However, since you did refer to "all of you" I will assume that you are including me. If you actually read my blogs you would see that I spend very little time conjecturing about the event in question. I use the topic as a springboard for discussing many of the "horrific incidents" you allude to. Several of us who post here have provided links to incidents of violence that have just recently occurred.
For over a year, many of us have discussed the escalating violence and debated the reasons and sought possible solutions, both here and on other blogs. I have expanded the search for causes to a consideration of recent research in neurophysiology. I have posted links to articles dealing with, e.g., Antonio Damasio's book, "Descartes' Error." I have referred to the work of the psychologist Mary Pipher, author of the best-selling "reviving Ophelia." Are you acquainted with these writers? Neuroscience, linguistics, psychology, philosophy, all contribute to our understanding of the social forces at work that contribute to the proliferation of violence. We might even add the contributions of Marxists and postmodernists if we are careful about using these sources. Yes, there is much work to be done in the search for solutions, and this blog plays only an infinitesimal part in that search-but it does make a contribution. Each of the bloggers here has a different approach to the problem, but I am impressed with the sincerity and openness with which discussions are conducted here-which is why I continue to blog here, rather than on the threads devoted to more specific questions of politics and religion. If you haven't already done so, check out some of these discussions and see how quickly the degenerate into name-calling and irrelevance. It is precisely the lack of anger and invective here that I find so congenial.
Now, as for those writing here being men, well, golly gee, I don't know...what do you think it means?

Robert Stevens wrote:

<quoted text>
Gompertz i do find this funny, because in my opiniuon, overall we give them the best chance to give thier points, at the same time we don't over patronise. Which IMO, could have disasterist results.

gompertz wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, indeed. As for ICU's statement that we are no closer to the truth...There are many versions of "what really happened" but what is important is what happens in the future.

gompertz wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, indeed. As for ICU's statement that we are no closer to the truth...There are many versions of "what really happened" but what is important is what happens in the future.

Robert Stevens wrote:

<quoted text>
OK Gompertz, I have read, fairly well learned your philosphy, I do respect the teaching of Budhism. But remember when I asked a monk, his answer to this question, "If the problem is acknowledged is it good enough?" his answer was, "No, you have to solve the problem." So now I ask why argue, when in the 70s Jewish Americans were adressed with the problems of Nazis wanting to come to a small Illinois town loaded with Hallocaust surviviors , and have a parade and speaches. Jewish people's responce was a gathering of the toughest street fighters they could find. The nazi's then beged to march in Chicago instead. The Jewish Americans made the right call, sometimes the the negative is called for.

gompertz wrote:

<quoted text>
If you read my comments on the Audio Terrorism thread, you see I advised using Eastern philosophy as a method of combatting disruptive forces in the Lakeland community. I explained that eastern philosophy is much more than an intellectual system, but a holistic method that includes physical self-defense (and that includes all the techniques of The Art of War). A community of martial artists trained in methods of spirituality is not out of reach, if people are determined to make it happen.

Robert Stevens wrote:

I am suprised I havn't thought about this until now. Is it possible that the adult that supplied achohal to the barn fire was a rich person, that has bought the silence of this case? It'd just be a matter of paying 4 parties. Schumaker, Ashley, Murphy and Lindsay. The court tok care of the rest. From there he'd just have to pay them for media silence.

GregS wrote:

As for the person who advocates that Victoria deserved to get beat up because she was voluble, I disagree. If we were to apply that tactic to everyone who says something we don't like, it gives the green light to people more powerful than us to have us killed for saying stuff they don't like.
I'd rather resort to violence over stuff that really matters, like money, resources, self defense, not intangibles like who say what. If someone said something bad about you behind your back then they probably aren't a friend, and there are non violent actions which could be taken in response, and if those actions aren't enough you can sue for defamation of character.
It's a sign of a puerile mind to resort to violence over words and or a dirty look.

observer wrote:

Reading the attacks online I have against Victoria Lindsay. I agree with Robert Stevens opinion that it is the boys from the barnfire making most of the bad mouthing comments. However, I doubt very, very much, that there was a payoff for media cooperation as well as the participants.