Why is our society so bad? Or is it just me?

[INoKnowNames]

Now with Mod Approval! :smallsmile:

A few days ago, I was at College, when I was approached on campus by a man, claiming that he ran out of gas and doesn't have any money, and has a daughter at home that he needed to get to.

My first thoughts were to be defensive, and ready myself in case I was dealing with someone who could potentially be dangerous. I dismissed him (honestly not having any money on my person at the moment*), and continued to my car.

I felt kinda bad when I sat down and started thinking about it. I could potentially go get money and bring it back to him. Or if he's got enough gas to make it to a gas station*, I could follow him and pay for some gas. Heck, if he doesn't have enough, I could take him with me to one and bring him back, if I wanted to be a good samaritan.

Yet, 2 of the above 3 options could end up with me becoming yet another statistic on the local death toll if I was dealing with a psychopath, and there's always the chance that I was. Even at best, he could be lying, and simply trying to take advantage of people's generosity for a few bucks.

Am I paranoid in this? Or is the world such a crapsack place that my paranoia is somewhat justified? I try not to think about the bad stuff too much, which is why my other thread was created... maybe it is just me...

*in the end, I did manage to find a 10 dollar gas card I recieved from a friend for my birthday, once I made it to my car, so I did go back and give it to him. He thanked me and said he could make it to the nearest station with it.*

[Tebryn]

Well, the easy answer is because it's not. Aspects of it, fringe elements are but over all we live in one of the safest times in all of human history. Do you think we've got it worse than when people were dying of the Black Plague? Or do you think our society is worse off than...feudalism? It's merely...dark tinted glasses where the current generation view their time as the worst. Their society as the worst.

[Reluctance]

Assuming he was a scoundrel, the question becomes "why do so many scoundrels think it's profitable to try and exploit others' better natures, given the world is such a crapsack?" Mulling over that should tell you a lot about human nature.

[Lentrax]

Well , I am biased in this matter, but I need to put my bit in here.

If this is one of the 'safest times' in our society, why would an innocent ten year old boy, be beaten nearly every day by his classmates, in front of at least ten or twenty witnesses, and the adults merely shrug it off?

If this is one of the 'safest times' in our society , why do kids show up at school with assault rifles and shotguns? Why has it taken over 15 years for people to realize there are serious issues at play here.

If this is one of the 'safest times' in our society, why are some of the cults most dedicated to violence against our common man still allowed to thrive?

It seems INoKnowNames isn't the only one who needs to think about human nature.

[Juggling Goth]

Well, the easy answer is because it's not. Aspects of it, fringe elements are but over all we live in one of the safest times in all of human history. Do you think we've got it worse than when people were dying of the Black Plague? Or do you think our society is worse off than...feudalism? It's merely...dark tinted glasses where the current generation view their time as the worst. Their society as the worst.

I tend to agree. I mean, I studied British social history, and the thing I picked up from it is that there's always a moral panic going on, and it's rarely about what it thinks it's about. I mean, for about twenty years in the eighteenth century, gin-drinking was going to cause the downfall of civilisation. Not drinking in general: specifically, gin. A hundred years later it was blood sports among the working classes and the need for 'rational' recreation. A hundred years after that it was the sexual, economic and political implications of women in the workplace. There's always a moral panic, and it's always a symptom of wider anxiety about ongoing social change.

This isn't to blame the OP for being cautious. Sadly, yeah, you often do have to weigh up whether you want to risk being a good samaritan. But I think it was pretty much always that way.

[Yora]

Every society ever was bad. No society ever was all bad.

I think it mostly depends on how much the society in your location matches your personal views.

[Prime32]

If this is one of the 'safest times' in our society, why would an innocent ten year old boy, be beaten nearly every day by his classmates, in front of at least ten or twenty witnesses, and the adults merely shrug it off?Because the adults used to join in. Or worse.


If this is one of the 'safest times' in our society, why are some of the cults most dedicated to violence against our common man still allowed to thrive?You mean like the Aztecs? :smalltongue:

[Maryring]

Our society is not so bad. You just need to be better at filtering out the relatively few substracters and see that most people are not made with a desire to abuse trust or harm others. In your specific instance, the end result is that either you gave ten dollars to a guy who really doesn't need it... or you might just have saved the day for the guy and daughter.

You can't know for sure what intentions those you meet have. You can't ever be certain if they mean you well. But few, very very few are dangerous psychopaths out to hurt you, or lazy slobs out to bum free cash out of you. Not saying that you should be naive or blindly trust everyone or everything, but do try to think better of your fellow men and women. We all sorely need it anyway.

[Tragic_Comedian]

It's just you. And me. And the rest of us.

[THAC0]

People who think society today is that bad either have a very fluffy idea of what historical societies are like and/or are not taking into account media 'splosion of events.

[Tebryn]

Well , I am biased in this matter, but I need to put my bit in here.

If this is one of the 'safest times' in our society, why would an innocent ten year old boy, be beaten nearly every day by his classmates, in front of at least ten or twenty witnesses, and the adults merely shrug it off?

If this is one of the 'safest times' in our society , why do kids show up at school with assault rifles and shotguns? Why has it taken over 15 years for people to realize there are serious issues at play here.

If this is one of the 'safest times' in our society, why are some of the cults most dedicated to violence against our common man still allowed to thrive?

It seems INoKnowNames isn't the only one who needs to think about human nature.


Because the adults used to join in. Or worse.

You mean like the Aztecs? :smalltongue:


People who think society today is that bad either have a very fluffy idea of what historical societies are like and/or are not taking into account media 'splosion of events.

How about the above? I didn't say it was -THE- safest time. I said it was -one- of the safest times in human history. I didn't say bad things didn't happen but as been pointed out we're not sacrificing people in numbers that their blood clogs the streets. We're not dealing with a pandemic that's wiping out a quarter of the worlds population. We're not embroiled in a world war where 3 million lives were lost.

Humans can be nasty, brutish and cruel sure. But we're not living in the wild here. All the sounds you hear in the forest are animals desperately trying to get laid. They're cold, almost always near starving, infested with parasites and one step away from biting the proverbial biscuit. And we used to be in that same situation a long time ago. But we're not now. Are you telling me the times we live in are worse than when we first crawled out of the African Plains? Or the Crusades? Or even World War Two?

We've seen in the last century alone a massive upsurge in the condition of living. Sure it's not world wide. There are places were the above is happening. But we work to stop those things now because we've got the means. We're not perfect. Far from it. But to insinuate that we're somehow worse off then when we were living in tents, huddled and starving and fighting one another for scraps of food is a total lack of perspective.

[Karoht]

The distrust of others is as systemic as the greed of others.

Because others have a motive to do bad things to other people in order to:
1-Survive
or
2-Get Ahead

And we all know it.
If someone is doing something nice for another person, some people will immediately wonder why the person is doing something nice, and what they are really gaining from it.
If someone is asking for help, we wonder if it is a scam, we wonder if it is money being spent on vices as opposed to genuine need, we wonder if we can better spend that money elsewhere ourselves.

The rest of my thoughts on the matter all dance entirely too close to the line of politics (maybe not over the line, but I'm not risking it), so I'll stop it there.

[Othesemo]

Because nothing can be both good and unexceptional.

[Karoht]

No matter how bad our society is today, I look at some of the freedoms that I know I have, that others have, which I am 100% aware that I would not have had before, and I do sincerely feel better. If but for a moment.

It's not as bad as we think it is, but the problems of today are remarkably ever-present. Bad news sells, good news tends to be ignored. Heck, people don't even recognize one another for doing great things these days.

I know a girl who spends 30 hours a week down at a homeless shelter serving food, and even the other volunteers aren't really friends. Never mind the people who use the shelter. Some of them have mental problems and poor socialization, she has thick skin. But when the other volunteers treat each other like dirt? Man. That's cold.

The focus on the negative is what gets people down. Not to say the problems don't exist, but people can identify what is wrong with something without being completely negative or emotionally negative about the issue.

[SamBurke]

Here's the thing: people are either basically evil, or basically good.

Basically Evil: Yeaaaah... you aren't screwed, per se, but you're dealing with a world whose morals are based solely on society. That is actually enough to keep most people in line, but sociopaths, psychopaths, and others who have the clinical problem of not caring about other people aren't going to listen. Likelihood of this man being a problem, I'd say about 10%. People, even in an evil world, are still going to appear "nice" some of the time, because of societal constraints, so you're probably safe anyway.

If you're not, then you're prepared. You'll have a weapon (even a car wrench is enough to deter most crimes) or some other backup (cellphones and dogs scare criminals to death), so you've got good chances.

If mankind is Basically Good: then you're fairly OK. There are bad eggs, but much fewer than before. Most likely, this guy is just in a crap situation, and he trusts people enough to look to others for help.

So, choose one or the other. *Most likely* you're ok. Nevertheless, maintaining preparedness is absolutely a good thing.

[junglesteve]

Well , I am biased in this matter, but I need to put my bit in here.

If this is one of the 'safest times' in our society, why would an innocent ten year old boy, be beaten nearly every day by his classmates, in front of at least ten or twenty witnesses, and the adults merely shrug it off?

If this is one of the 'safest times' in our society , why do kids show up at school with assault rifles and shotguns? Why has it taken over 15 years for people to realize there are serious issues at play here.

If this is one of the 'safest times' in our society, why are some of the cults most dedicated to violence against our common man still allowed to thrive?

It seems INoKnowNames isn't the only one who needs to think about human nature.

If by 'cults' you're referring to religions then I'd like to say that is because we're not hypocrites. Oppressing someones right to worship and believe whatever nonsense they want would bring us down to their level.

Honestly with how huge our populations are the main reason there are so many *******s is just because THERE CAN BE. Anonymity is a bitch and we're reaping it in. We were made to exploit weaknesses; we're predators. It's just nature that we would exploit any and all opportunities to get a leg up or something for nothing.

[Bill Murphy]

Every society ever was bad. No society ever was all bad.

I think it mostly depends on how much the society in your location matches your personal views.

Very well said! :smallbiggrin:

[Lateral]

Here's the thing: people are either basically evil, or basically good.

They really aren't. People aren't 'basically good' or 'basically evil.' Sure, there are people who screw up, and there are people who do horrible things, but it's not because they're "just evil." There's always a reason for it, even if that reason is because they're psychotic.

[Tebryn]

They really aren't. People aren't 'basically good' or 'basically evil.' Sure, there are people who screw up, and there are people who do horrible things, but it's not because they're "just evil." There's always a reason for it, even if that reason is because they're psychotic.

I think most people would actually be hard pressed on what Evil actually is. Let alone people being "Basically" it.

[Karoht]

Is this about to start the Human Nature Debate?
AKA Nature VS Nurture?

*busts out some popcorn, rumages for some sources to cite*

[Eldonauran]

I'd be defensive as well.

I trust strangers about as far as I could pick them up and throw them. However, if someone genuinely asked me for help, they will receive whatever help I can offer.

[Othesemo]

I'd be defensive as well.

I trust strangers about as far as I could pick them up and throw them. However, if someone genuinely asked me for help, they will receive whatever help I can offer.

That you are correct in so doing is cause for sorrow in and of itself.

[Knaight]

No matter how bad our society is today, I look at some of the freedoms that I know I have, that others have, which I am 100% aware that I would not have had before, and I do sincerely feel better. If but for a moment.

And on top of this, there's the matter of safety. There are still places where people are in danger of some warlike group coming along and murdering everyone, but that there are places where this isn't really a risk puts modernity well above most periods of history. Similarly, in richer parts of the world there are things like access to clean water and herd immunity to a whole host of diseases, and even in poorer parts of the world smallpox is gone and polio is fading fast. The chance of suddenly dying to violence or disease is much lower now that it ever has been on a global scale, and generally speaking the same is true about personal freedom.

[Eldonauran]

That you are correct in so doing is cause for sorrow in and of itself.

:smallsigh: Aye. Tis the reason I live in a small town. I already know everyone. I could never be comfortable living in a city. Too many people, too much to watch out for and not enough faith in humanity to prevent me from having a heart attack from the stress of constant guard.

Unlike most people I know, I don't believe everyone is basically good. I don't believe everyone is basically evil. However, I do believe that everyone is basically out for themselves unless I've seen otherwise. Those that manage to rise above the rest, well, I consider them friends.

[Tvtyrant]

And on top of this, there's the matter of safety. There are still places where people are in danger of some warlike group coming along and murdering everyone, but that there are places where this isn't really a risk puts modernity well above most periods of history. Similarly, in richer parts of the world there are things like access to clean water and herd immunity to a whole host of diseases, and even in poorer parts of the world smallpox is gone and polio is fading fast. The chance of suddenly dying to violence or disease is much lower now that it ever has been on a global scale, and generally speaking the same is true about personal freedom.

I don't know, those first few thousand years after the invention of fire when nothing was aware of us and we could simply move away from people we didn't like must have been pretty awesome :smalltongue:

This comment is almost entirely facetious.

[Logic]

I think part of it is media saturation.

I really hate to be a bean counter in this, but per capita, I think we do live in the safest time period, ever. Yes, we have problems that no previous society had to think about, but those events are very seldom.

[Lentrax]

Are you telling me the times we live in are worse than when we first crawled out of the African Plains? Or the Crusades? Or even World War Two?


I didn't say we were worse off. But we aren't really that much better. We solve our problems, but they just get replaced by something new. I met an eightteen year old girl who didn't know how to address an envelope or tie a shoe. But she got into her brand new Pontiac, blared some kind of pop music, and started texting as she drove off.

I watched three people get into a collision at a stop light because they didn't want to wait two minutes for the light to change. We may have come far in the last three hundred years, but it seems that in the last ten we have taken quite a few large steps back as well.

I never said we were worse. Just not better.

Oh and Prime32? I wouldn't laugh about that. Speaking as that ten year old boy, I can say that while they didn't join in, they did not do a thing to stop it.


All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

[Lord Raziere]

Our society is not bad.

individual acts of stupidity do not translate to wider societal problems.

furthermore, the evidence presented is biased towards your own experiences Lentrax. they are not are good grounds to judge all of humanity upon.

furthermore, our current civilization is far more populous, producing far greater things than anything before it and is actually starting to solve the more basic problems and starting to encounter more advanced ones. furthermore, we have more knowledge than ever before. more people working towards a better tomorrow than ever before- I mean just look at all the charities, foundations and whatever else out there trying to make corner or another of the world a bit brighter. those didn't exist 100 years ago.

sure, society also produces ignorance, extremism, wildly flaring emotions, bias, propaganda an various other problems from its abundant complexity, but that only means they are new problems replacing the old. it means that we have to focus on solving those problems next.

furthermore, humanity tends to have innate desire to fix all its problems with a snap of its fingers, and when it can't, feels as if its incapable to solve them at all, when really change takes a long time to take hold, and even then, change can be scary and, unpredictable and often full of obstacles, even when its a change we desire.

so do not worry. I find that wondering how we possibly have come so far, yet still seem so backwards is pretty normal for the more thoughtful part of humanity. I wonder that myself sometimes. but alas, we must always have hope. otherwise we have nothing.

[Avilan the Grey]

This is the safest time in the history of the world.

The biggest reason for the fear that runs rampant in a lot of societies are the news. They love to report about things that makes you scared, because it sells. Even more than sex.

[Lentrax]

Well , I am biased in this matter, but I need to put my bit in here.



furthermore, the evidence presented is biased towards your own experiences Lentrax. they are not are good grounds to judge all of humanity upon.


I already knew I was biased. However, I don't these kinds of experiences are unique to me. As I say, I do not believe we are worse off as a whole.

Just not all that much better.

[Tebryn]

I didn't say we were worse off. But we aren't really that much better. We solve our problems, but they just get replaced by something new. I met an eightteen year old girl who didn't know how to address an envelope or tie a shoe. But she got into her brand new Pontiac, blared some kind of pop music, and started texting as she drove off.

I watched three people get into a collision at a stop light because they didn't want to wait two minutes for the light to change. We may have come far in the last three hundred years, but it seems that in the last ten we have taken quite a few large steps back as well.

I never said we were worse. Just not better.

Oh and Prime32? I wouldn't laugh about that. Speaking as that ten year old boy, I can say that while they didn't join in, they did not do a thing to stop it.

Ya...it is a perspective thing.

[Aragehaor]

Well , I am biased in this matter, but I need to put my bit in here.

If this is one of the 'safest times' in our society, why would an innocent ten year old boy, be beaten nearly every day by his classmates, in front of at least ten or twenty witnesses, and the adults merely shrug it off?

If this is one of the 'safest times' in our society , why do kids show up at school with assault rifles and shotguns? Why has it taken over 15 years for people to realize there are serious issues at play here.

If this is one of the 'safest times' in our society, why are some of the cults most dedicated to violence against our common man still allowed to thrive?

It seems INoKnowNames isn't the only one who needs to think about human nature.If this isnt the 'safest time' in our society, What exactly was?

There will always be problems, there can never be a period in our society where we are completely safe - such an ideal would be impossible without nearly all freedoms being taken from the population as a whole. There will always be those who cause pain, those who dedicate themselves to 'violence against the common man'.

And yet, there will also always be those who help without reason, who intervene to save a stranger, who donate their own wealth to help those less fortunate and more.


I didn't say we were worse off. But we aren't really that much better. We solve our problems, but they just get replaced by something new. I met an eightteen year old girl who didn't know how to address an envelope or tie a shoe. But she got into her brand new Pontiac, blared some kind of pop music, and started texting as she drove off.

I watched three people get into a collision at a stop light because they didn't want to wait two minutes for the light to change. We may have come far in the last three hundred years, but it seems that in the last ten we have taken quite a few large steps back as well.

I never said we were worse. Just not better.

Oh and Prime32? I wouldn't laugh about that. Speaking as that ten year old boy, I can say that while they didn't join in, they did not do a thing to stop it.You think society as a whole hasn't improved because new problems arise? Then i am sorry to say - you will never be pleased. there will never be such a day.

There has - and always will be people who act without thought, with impatience and stupidity. Do you honestly think that means society hasn't improved? Because there exists individuals such as you listed as examples?

I would very much like to know the 'large steps back' you think we have taken.


I already knew I was biased. However, I don't these kinds of experiences are unique to me. As I say, I do not believe we are worse off as a whole.

Just not all that much better.To be completely accurate, you apparently believe we are no better then when we were for multiple examples: actively endorsing slavery and conquered entire civilizations for no better reason then 'We are more civilized' As evidenced by this quote:


We may have come far in the last three hundred years, but it seems that in the last ten we have taken quite a few large steps back as well.

I never said we were worse. Just not better.
and implied by all your responses in this thread.


If you honestly don't mean that, and instead are trying to convey a different message - then i would request you clarify for me. As it sounds like your ignoring nearly every societal change or trivializing them to the point where 'Some people are stupid or cruel.' is anywhere close to equivalent

[Helanna]

Ok, ok, first off: Everyone read this. {link removed} It might make you smile, at least.

Secondly, I've been considering making a thread to collect good stories like those - of people helping each other and doing good things for the sake of it.

Why? Because I realized how depressing my routine is. First, I work at the service desk in a store. I'm constantly on the lookout for people trying to scam us, and thus I see scams and theft in everything. Not to mention so many people are just plain rude. Honestly, not a whole lot of them are, most are just indifferent, but it's the rude people that stand out in my mind. So that's one problem - bad news sticks out.

Second, I get home and I visit, in order, notalwaysright.com, about stupid customers, notalwaysworking.com, about stupid employees, regretsy.com, about stupid people in general, and a site I can't name because it deals with religious issues, but trust me it does not fill me with hope for humanity. Then I usually watch The Daily Show, about politics, which are always depressing. These sites are certainly entertaining, which is the second problem, but don't do much to raise my mood.

So I decided to try focusing on the positive. For example, in the 2 years I've been working the desk, only once or twice have I seen somebody retrieve a lost wallet (which happens several times a week) and complain that their cash was stolen. This evening when I got out, I started my car and immediately stopped it because I realized I forgot to check the coolant level (it has a leak) and a nearby guy immediately offered help and advice. When I was paying my tuition and told the woman it was late because I had to wait to get my paycheck, she waived my $75 late fee.

I also try to make a positive change, small though my influence is. I donate blood when I can. This morning I installed AdBlock Chrome and donated to the creator, because I'd be lying if I tried to tell myself I couldn't afford 5 measly dollars. If I think a customer is honest, I'll try my best to help them even if it involves bending rules. I don't underestimate the power of simply being nice - I can't tell you how often my foul mood is turned around by a customer who is simply nice to me. I can't sit here and complain about how awful everyone else is if I'm not personally trying to do at least a little.

So . . . yeah, like some others have said, society's really not all that bad. A lot of people are kind of stupid, in my opinion, but not bad.

[Karoht]

Ok, ok, first off: Everyone read this. {link removed} It might make you smile, at least.

Secondly, I've been considering making a thread to collect good stories like those - of people helping each other and doing good things for the sake of it.

Why? Because I realized how depressing my routine is. First, I work at the service desk in a store. I'm constantly on the lookout for people trying to scam us, and thus I see scams and theft in everything. Not to mention so many people are just plain rude. Honestly, not a whole lot of them are, most are just indifferent, but it's the rude people that stand out in my mind. So that's one problem - bad news sticks out.

Second, I get home and I visit, in order, notalwaysright.com, about stupid customers, notalwaysworking.com, about stupid employees, regretsy.com, about stupid people in general, and a site I can't name because it deals with religious issues, but trust me it does not fill me with hope for humanity. Then I usually watch The Daily Show, about politics, which are always depressing. These sites are certainly entertaining, which is the second problem, but don't do much to raise my mood.

So I decided to try focusing on the positive. For example, in the 2 years I've been working the desk, only once or twice have I seen somebody retrieve a lost wallet (which happens several times a week) and complain that their cash was stolen. This evening when I got out, I started my car and immediately stopped it because I realized I forgot to check the coolant level (it has a leak) and a nearby guy immediately offered help and advice. When I was paying my tuition and told the woman it was late because I had to wait to get my paycheck, she waived my $75 late fee.

I also try to make a positive change, small though my influence is. I donate blood when I can. This morning I installed AdBlock Chrome and donated to the creator, because I'd be lying if I tried to tell myself I couldn't afford 5 measly dollars. If I think a customer is honest, I'll try my best to help them even if it involves bending rules. I don't underestimate the power of simply being nice - I can't tell you how often my foul mood is turned around by a customer who is simply nice to me. I can't sit here and complain about how awful everyone else is if I'm not personally trying to do at least a little.

So . . . yeah, like some others have said, society's really not all that bad. A lot of people are kind of stupid, in my opinion, but not bad.

Why I don't work at the bank anymore.

1-At one point, we were robbed. The robber came to me. I was always told to just give them whatever they asked for, get them out, and not worry about the money.
So I did exactly that. The guy demanded 10 grand, I gave him 10 grand. 100 x 100 dollar bills.
I didn't directly catch flack for it, but when a police detective was assigned to evaluate our security, he didn't exactly do a good job of being discrete about his criticism of my actions.
And then the company completely smack-talked about 'the guy who gave out 10 grand to a robber'

2-I helped a lot of people at the bank. I typically waved a lot of fees like overdraft fees and such, because they were caused by really simple little mistakes, or in some cases they were our own fault. It happens.
So on a monday morning, I helped a little old lady in exactly this manner. She'd lost about 300 bucks in fees, and it wasn't really her fault. I did about 2 hours of work getting approval to wave the fees, I must have pleaded her case about 12 times. Eventually, we got it done. She was so happy. "Bless you" this and "you are such a wonderful nice man" that. Not bad for a Monday.
Tuesday she comes in. Incredibly angry. Asking for me. She then proceeds to scream at me for about a good 15 minutes. I won't go into detail regarding the things she called me.
So I finally find out what exactly the problem was. She said there was less money in the account than there should be. She then accused me personally of stealing it, followed by calling the entire organization a bunch of thieves.
So I look up what happened. And I go through every transaction one at a time, verifying that she in fact did make those purchases/withdrawls. We get to the last one, she's verified that she did in fact spend every penny.
"So... what is missing then?" I ask.
"About 15 dollars and 42 cents" she replies. (Number is made up, but you get the idea)
"So, that 15 dollars and 42 cents you spent at Wal-Mart yesterday, you did that transaction right?" I ask.
"Oh. That must be it then. Oh well, thats all I needed. Cheerio." And toddles off.
Moral of the story? I was called a thief over a trivial sum of money, after I personally refunded her about 5 times as much the day before.

So I quit.
But, that's how I avoid getting too down on the world. I don't work in places like that, I avoid those kinds of stress where possible. I give people the benefit of the doubt. That's about all one can do really these days.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Locked for review and probably permanently. Please remember that real world politics and religion are inappropriate topics for this forum, even when they intersect acceptable topics. That includes linking as well as posting.

[Zeb The Troll]

Troll Patrol: Okay, I'm reopening the topic. As Roland mentioned, please bear in mind the inappropriate topics in the Rules of Posting.

[Deepbluediver]

If this is one of the 'safest times' in our society, why would an innocent ten year old boy, be beaten nearly every day by his classmates, in front of at least ten or twenty witnesses, and the adults merely shrug it off?

If this is one of the 'safest times' in our society , why do kids show up at school with assault rifles and shotguns? Why has it taken over 15 years for people to realize there are serious issues at play here.

If this is one of the 'safest times' in our society, why are some of the cults most dedicated to violence against our common man still allowed to thrive?

It seems INoKnowNames isn't the only one who needs to think about human nature.
The short answer to the question of "is this the safest time in our history?" is "yes".

If you look at it long (http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/23/us/historical-study-of-homicide-and-cities-surprises-the-experts.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm) term (http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/06/long-term-trend-in-homicide-rates.html), over the last several centuries people have become noticeably less kill-happy.

(there's two seperate links there, check them both out)

I think that the bad type of incidents just stick out in our mind much more than the good. Whether this is genetic, societal, or simply coicedence I can't even hazard a guess.

Edit: The links talk about general scientific-studies, not real world incidents or specific anecdotes, so I think they are ok. If they aren't, please let me know so I can avoid this mistake in the future.

[Knaight]

To be completely accurate, you apparently believe we are no better then when we were for multiple examples: actively endorsing slavery and conquered entire civilizations for no better reason then 'We are more civilized' As evidenced by this quote:

You might want to throw in a bit about the perception of justice as "getting one's family to murder the family of those who wronged you", causing wars to legally import drugs to another country against their wishes for luxury goods, the rampant death due to diseases that vaccines and hygiene have either fully or nearly dealt with (smallpox, polio), or drastically reduced the incidence of. We've got a long way to go as a species, but we've also put a lot of distance behind us.

[ForzaFiori]

Sadly, while yea, we live in the safest time ever, in one of the best societies yet probably, but that's kinda like saying that raw onions taste better than **** sometimes. Yea, we're safer than we were in the Crusades, but there were still nearly 15,000 people murder in the US in '09, and something like 15-20% of all women on college campus' have been raped or sexually molested. 5+ children a DAY in the US die from child abuse (the highest of any industrial nation). ~3% of the US population at any given point is in jail or in some form of probation. Yea, things are better, but I wouldn't say that they're exactly "good", unless your just really lucky that you and your loved ones have never been one of these people. Then it's just less bad, because at least the dude that screwed you might get punished, or if your in jail you might not get beat by the guards or put to death for insignificant stuff.

*Those numbers were gotten from whichever US government site popped up when I googled the statistic.

[Tyndmyr]

A lot of it's media. They over-report on unusual events because that's what people want to hear about. The batman killer? Such events are vanishingly rare statistically speaking, and the actual risk of actually being in such an event is...ludicrous. But, after it happened, people were all in a hubbub about going to the theater. People focus on the unusual.

So, nobody reports on the time you help a dude out, and absolutely nothing bad happens. I've given hitch-hikers a lift, donated money to someone hard up, etc. It happens. Sure, I'm wary about it, and won't go into just any situation, and frequently am extremely skeptical about people asking for money...but sometimes people just genuinely got in a jam.

Violent crime rates and such are actually decreasing on the whole. Old things like starvation no longer really exist in modern society. We have all manner of awesome toys that didn't exist a generation ago. Society gets better all the time, but we still complain about how bad it is, and talk about how it used to be better. Humans are funny that way.

[Joran]

Am I paranoid in this? Or is the world such a crapsack place that my paranoia is somewhat justified? I try not to think about the bad stuff too much, which is why my other thread was created... maybe it is just me...

*in the end, I did manage to find a 10 dollar gas card I recieved from a friend for my birthday, once I made it to my car, so I did go back and give it to him. He thanked me and said he could make it to the nearest station with it.*

I don't know. Honestly, I don't. I face a moral dilemma everytime I'm approached by a homeless panhandler. I could give him the money, so he could continue his lifestyle, but that money is probably better spent on a charity that gives homeless people permanent help in the form of health care, living arrangements, job training, etc. In the case of foreign travel into poorer countries, it's 100 times worse where there's literally a press of people begging for money.

My parents have tried to teach me not to give strangers money. I remember when I was young and I was leaving a convention center that a person approached us, told a story about how he needed to get to some place, and asked for bus fare. I reached into my bag, grabbed my wallet, and handed him a $5. My parents afterwards scolded me for showing him where my wallet was and handing him the money. They thought he was a thief or a con man and he was spinning a yarn to gain sympathy and money. To this day, I don't know.

I'm pretty proud about the one time I gave a man a ride from the Greyhound bus. I was picking up my brother at a Greyhound bus stop at 11 PM. The man walked over to the bus stop and found out that the last bus had already left, so he was stuck. So he saw me and my brother walking back to my car and asked if he could hitch a ride. The man looked like a gang member from central casting; hair tied in a bandana, muscle shirt, jeans, heck, he had a blind eye! I asked him where he was going and figure it was easily on the way back home, so I said sure. I won't lie, the entire ride there I was looking in my rearview mirror to make sure he wasn't pulling a gun or a knife and was nervous the entire way down, but I dropped him off at a gas station and went my way home.

Of course, my parents were annoyed that I'd give a stranger a ride, but I felt good about it.

[lt_murgen]

A good chunk of it is media. The crusades were absolutely brutal, but the few survivors who spent months wandering back to their villages in France didn’t share many details. The Napoleonic wars horrific. Newspapers carried reports to those that could read days, maybe months later. But it wasn’t until the U.S. Civil war, with telegraph and photography, that the brutality started combining with immediacy. News came by telegraph, and within a few days pictures of the carnage were on the front page. And Media as a capitalist juggernaut was born.
Then radio and television. Now I don’t even need literate people. Information can get out and be understood by the youngest of people. TV gave us one hour of national and local news a night, and you need stories to fill that time. Then came the 1-hour new shows like 60 minutes and 20/20. Even more demand for compelling stories filled with sex and violence to attract viewership, rating, and high-paying advertisers. Then came the herlad of the new age- CNN. Now, you need to fill 24 HOURS with stories. Step up to the internet age with its massive demand for everything salacious.

Bad things happen. They always have happened. Volcanos erupt, tsunamis kill hundreds, fires and plagues sweep through the countryside. All that has happened is that human progress has moved us from being exposed to the events in our community to events all over the globe. Instead of being told something, or reading something, or listening to something being described, we now experience it visually, and immediately. Our perception has changed.

[Tyndmyr]

I don't know. Honestly, I don't. I face a moral dilemma everytime I'm approached by a homeless panhandler. I could give him the money, so he could continue his lifestyle, but that money is probably better spent on a charity that gives homeless people permanent help in the form of health care, living arrangements, job training, etc. In the case of foreign travel into poorer countries, it's 100 times worse where there's literally a press of people begging for money.

Well, there's no answer that's 100% right. But what I do is...I tend to visit certain places pretty routinely. If there's a guy who always sits on that corner doing the "need money" shtick, I know about it. There's one guy who's been doing this for years, and he's got a new book every day, chilling out there, reading fiction...isn't even dressed that badly. I don't give him money.

But if there's someone in trouble and out of place somewhere that I go...I'll notice that and help them out. The kid that's lost, the guy with a flat tire, whatever. I don't want to support laziness, but I don't mind fixing a problem at hand. When in a strange place, though, it's nearly impossible to tell the difference. So, when I'm a tourist, I don't give out any money. I have no way to know who the scammers are from the genuinely needy.

Charity's are always good tho. There's a local children's hospital that I figure I can always give to and know the money's going somewhere useful.

[Karoht]

@Giving Money
If it is a stranger on the street, I usually ask them if they are interested in a job, and if so, the kind of work I've been seeing in the want ads. But I give them the money first so they know that my advice comes without strings or judgement.

I read a book years ago, about how hard it is to get a job when you are homeless. There are a lot of barriers to entry that people completely underestimate when they yell "get a job you lazy bum" at a homeless person.

Spoilered for Length:

You don't have access to some pretty basic things which make the hiring process easier. ID and Social Security Card? Due to the lack of access to records, some people can't get their own ID (they don't have any major documents to support who they claim to be), and without ID you can't get your Social Security Card issued to you. And since you can't be employed without a Social Security Number for the company to send your tax documents to, they will just pick someone with that information at hand and ready to go. Also, good luck getting a bank account without ID. Good luck getting your paycheque cashed without ID.
There's Temp employment that pays cash daily. However, to get the cash, you still need to provide ID and such.

Resumes? No one accepts a hand-written resume these days. Thankfully some of the homeless shelters put people in touch with employment agencies who will draft and print a resume for someone.

You don't have a phone number for people to contact you and get you an interview, so unless they do interviews on the spot, you are probably out of luck. Yes, one could list the number of the homeless shelter you are at, but some companies are... rather rude we will say... and refuse to callback if the number is a homeless shelter. But good luck proving that as it would be a form of discrimination.

But lets say that a homeless person does get a job. Wonder of wonders!
First, we have wardrobe and cleanliness. Kind of hard to have clean clothes without access to laundry facilities. Yes, the homeless shelters are very good about helping with this sort of thing. Same with showers. But let's say that this person who was hired isn't able to go to the shelters anymore? Well, that will become a problem quickly.
Then there is transportation. What if the job is on the opposite side of town from the shelter? Sure, there's the bus, and some shelters offer some basic shuttle services, but not all of them can. The Temp job places typically provide transporation, which is good, but not in all cases.
At the end of the day, again, assuming that the person isn't staying at the shelter, after a long hard day, where do they rest? Rest is important to human beings, and without proper rest we don't function well. So of course, after a few days of working and being not properly rested, something inevitably goes wrong, and boom, the company replaces the worker. On top of that the worker may be in fact working hungry, dehydrated, sick, may have an undiagnosed health condition, etc, all impairing their ability to work.

The deck is stacked against a homeless and unemployed person getting a job and holding it. There is opportunity, no question. But I'm not all that surprised after a few attempts and some of them give up.

[Balain]

This reminds me of psyc class. There was one study done in the 80's I think it was. They got 2 people and were told one would be a student the other would be the teacher. The teacher would ask the student questions, every time the student got the question wrong the teacher would have to turn this dial to give the student a shock. Each time adding 5 more volts (or some increment). The last few spots on the dial have warnings next to them like extreme danger to the last one could cause death.

The study was rigged, the student was always the same guy. It was actually to see how far people would go to shock another person. The researcher, in advanced, asked other psychologist what they thought. The other psychologists all said somewhere between 0 and 1% would go all the way, knowing that that is the amount of psychopaths in society.

The number of people that went all the way to the end, somewhere in the range of 90% if I recall right.

Now that was "teacher" in one room and "student" in another room, where student was actually drinking a coffee, just making ouch noises and louder and louder screams when he saw a light go on. The researcher tried the same thing from 2 rooms but with a window, large room on opposite sides., all they way to the teacher has to walk over strap the students arm to the shock plate each time then turning the dial. This last try the number went down to the under 1% of people going all the way.

The other thing that this brings to mind is the Stanford prison experiment. A psyc study at Stanford University in the 70's. Kind of shows how normal people can be crappy to each other.

That being said, I have to agree with people that say our time is by far better than others in the past. Media highlights the crappy stuff that happens and ignores the great things we do for each other.

[Das Platyvark]

Our society is no worse than the many that came before it. Sure, a drive through a bad suburb has had me rooting for global warming, but there are still good things, and plenty of them that happen, and if there really is such a thing as moral decline than society should have gone to s't by the middle ages. I feel like a lot of what looks like society being awful is more like a fear of the 'other' you know, those people who lure children into their white vans, you know the ones. And of course you do, but it's almost always a story. You always hear tell of the bad things, and they do happen, maybe a little too often, but not as often as it seems like they do.

I had a friend who would always talk about the horrible things done by, say, the army of some small African or Eastern European country (I give no names because I remember none, and because the location and deed changed every time). I always reacted by trying to remind her of the horrible things that happen regularly and close enough to be shock rather than unknowing voyeurism (This is very much the wrong word, it's more of an interest in distant horrors accentuated by a cushy lifestyle). But even my examples were somewhat distant. Once you put a little thought into it, things are usually nice, but it's a niceness tainted by the knowledge that there are people closer than you think who are going through hell.

Dear god, that sounded arrogant and semi-aristocratic. I'm disappointed in myself.

[Kelb_Panthera]

It's an odd question this one. The world is definitely a safer place than it's ever been, but is society?

Per capita, the number of madmen, "evil" men, uncaring men, "good" men and paragons of virtue, haven't really changed much, if at all, in the last few centuries, if they've changed much at all throughought human history.

Some people will give you the shirt off their back, some people will try to take your shirt just because they like the color, and some will knife you to get it without a second thought.

Where's the line between society and its accomplishments? Sure, I'm not going to die from polio, but is that a factor of modern society or is it a legacy of the society before this one? Are those societies even seperate things?

If we define society as the collective human behavior, then society hasn't really changed much in centuries. It's certainly accomplished many wondrous things and made the world a safer place, but the people that benefit from these accomplishments behave in largely the same way they would if these accomplishments never were.

The rapists were always there, the religious fundamentalists that want to kill anyone who doesn't agree with them have always been there, and the cold-blooded murderers have always been there; but at the same time, the good sumeritans have always been there, those who would fight for the rights of their fellow man have always been there, and those who would care for the weak and the sick have always been there too.

Everyones' perception of reality is based in their own experiences, and many of those experiences are largely the same in any society in any time period. Details vary, no two people have exactly the same experiences in exactly the same order, and an unfortunate handful have had truly horrific experiences that noone should have to endure; but this is how it's always been and always will be.

For better or for worse, that's just life.

At least, that's my take on the matter.

[Lentrax]

*snipped*

I could not agree more on that.

[Jeff the Green]

Social License To Operate.

That is, most people are good, or at least not actively harmful to society, but they do create spaces where true bad actors feel like they have the weight of society behind them. As an example, because it's relatively non-political and I'm most familiar with the specifics, let's talk about rape. I'm putting this in spoilers because chances are there's a rape survivor with PTSD reading this, and the last thing they need is to have me trigger them.

Rape is not uncommon. Exact statistics are hard to pin down because they vary so much by methodology, but it's safe to say that at least 10% of women and a smaller but far from insignificant number of men in the US will be raped in their lifetimes. (The number is certainly higher in some countries and probably lower in others.) This is almost certainly lower now than in the past when marital rape wasn't recognized as rape because once a man married a woman he owned her (at first literally and then only figuratively), when women who were raped could be expected to be forced to marry their rapist or be executed for fornication, or when laws did not exist prohibiting the use of rape as a weapon of war. It's still unfathomably high, even if you discount the studies suggesting that the actual figure is closer to 1 in 3 than 1 in 10.

But the number of rapists, though, is surprisingly low. Something like 6%, maybe lower. Most men (since most rapists are men, even those that assault other men) do not rape and would not consider raping. But many do contribute to a culture in which rapists are free to operate. A common theme running through the numerous studies that involved interviewing convicted rapists is that rapists think they are normal. Even though they are both obviously and empirically not.

It's not hard to see where they might get this impression, though. This is a culture where it's commonly believed that women will say "no" even when they want sex, that it's only possible for some men to get laid if they get women drunk (and that this is acceptable), that raping a prostitute is theft and not, y'know, rape. A culture where it's okay to make jokes about how it would be really, truly awesome if that one bitchy girl got raped. Where we talk about acing an exam (a good thing) as "raping" it. And then, when woman accuse their rapist, they're more likely than not to be accused of making it up by the police. If you want a good rundown of how {scrubbed} up our cultural dialog on rape is, check out the rape tropes on TVTropes and/or search for "rape and the social license to operate." Be warned that the latter will get you into some scary and political stuff.

The same is true of most other bad acts. Most people agree that greed is bad and can, for example, destroy economies. But the pathological greedy have countless cultural narratives to back up their unfounded assertions that they're normal, wherein it is a cultural Good to become wealthy, and the Grade-A jackasses of Steve Jobs and Thomas Edison are portrayed not just as geniuses (which might be true) but as people you should emulate if you want to be successful. This despite the fact that when confronted with Edison's and Jobs's perfidy almost no one will maintain their defense of them.

So, on the one hand, this makes the problem of improving our society really {scrubbed} hard, because it's not a matter of, say, passing an amendment to the constitution or repealing some bad laws (though those could help), we have to actually change the culture. On the other hand, it also means that doing something as simple as refusing to tolerate bad behavior can make a big difference.

[Eldonauran]

---snip---

Best way to prevent that is to make sure there aren't repeat offenders. :smallannoyed: Literally. They don't get a second shot at it. I'm somewhat perturbed most of society doesn't feel the same way about it.

[Jeff the Green]

Best way to prevent that is to make sure there aren't repeat offenders. :smallannoyed: Literally. They don't get a second shot at it. I'm somewhat perturbed most of society doesn't feel the same way about it.

Wouldn't make a huge difference, and might make things worse. The conviction rate for sexual assault is abysmal, so much so that there's talk among prosecutors of pushing for misdemeanor (i.e. punishment >1 year) laws to be passed so they can bring charges in front of a judge so juries won't acquit "sympathetic" rapists with "unsympathetic" victims. In order for penalties to have a deterrent effect or eliminate repeat offenders there has to be a high conviction rate, which there isn't because of the SLtO. Juries might even acquit guilty rapists more often if they thought a guilty verdict likely to lead to a death sentence, and rapists would be more likely to kill their victims if they knew that the punishment for rape was the same as the punishment for rape + murder.

[Triscuitable]

Well , I am biased in this matter, but I need to put my bit in here.

If this is one of the 'safest times' in our society, why would an innocent ten year old boy, be beaten nearly every day by his classmates, in front of at least ten or twenty witnesses, and the adults merely shrug it off?

If this is one of the 'safest times' in our society , why do kids show up at school with assault rifles and shotguns? Why has it taken over 15 years for people to realize there are serious issues at play here.

If this is one of the 'safest times' in our society, why are some of the cults most dedicated to violence against our common man still allowed to thrive?

It seems INoKnowNames isn't the only one who needs to think about human nature.

Wow, that came off as kind of judgmental. Ever hear the phrase, "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times"? It's the first line to a story by Charles Dickens. It refers to how we're in a point in our lives where good things are happening as often as the bad ones.

And kids don't show up to school with assault rifles. Those are extremely hard to come by, no matter how you try and get it.

[Lentrax]

A Tale of Two Cities. Yes I have, and I also have to point out once again:

I say at the beginning, I am heavily biased.

[Volthawk]

Best way to prevent that is to make sure there aren't repeat offenders. :smallannoyed: Literally. They don't get a second shot at it. I'm somewhat perturbed most of society doesn't feel the same way about it.

Just to be clear, are you talking death penalty here, or life imprisonment? What if people are wrongly convicted? if we're talking life sentences, how easy would it be to overturn the sentence if it turns out that the jury was wrong, and the convict was not a criminal? (Of course, with the death penalty that's a moot point, since it's not like we can resurrect dead people) What about guilty who don;t get convicted (there is that low conviction rate Jeff the Green talked about)?

Here's my problem with such...final measures: Humans are fallible, emotional creatures, capable of being swayed by those emotions to make wrong judgements. I really don't think we should give something like the ability to deliver these ultimate, final judgements, when we're relying on a bunch of people to not let prejudices, emotions and the like impact on their decision.

[Karoht]

And kids don't show up to school with assault rifles. Those are extremely hard to come by, no matter how you try and get it.Only because they don't fit in the backpacks, and it really depends on what part of the world you are talking about there.

[JoshL]

I read a book years ago, about how hard it is to get a job when you are homeless. There are a lot of barriers to entry that people completely underestimate when they yell "get a job you lazy bum" at a homeless person.

Depending on where you are, this may or may not be true. Your post does bring up some excellent points. But I've been homeless. I've been able to get a job, get money, get an apartment, and get back on the "right track" so to speak. There are jobs you can get, depending on where you are. I'm in Pittsburgh, which is a moderately big city. Before I became homeless, my life was pretty ordinary. So I already had things in place (ID, etc). But those things can be obtained, relatively easily.

Now, at the same time, there were a lot of homeless folks around. There were those who were too far gone to hold a real job. There were panhandlers who had homes and cars, but preyed on the sympathetic. The "I need money for gas" scam was a pretty common one. The real homeless folks I knew tended to dumpster dive rather than panhandle (this was '97). Either way, when I had money, I would always be willing to buy a meal, or to fill a car with gas. But never to just give money. Though buskers were a different story...boy this is a complex topic!

Anyway, it's good to help people. It's good to help people get to the soup kitchen. It's good to buy a meal for someone who needs it. It's good to help people get on their feet. It can be done. And if they're too far gone, there are mental health programs that can help as well. We should all look out for each other. But maintaining a healthy level of skepticism isn't a bad idea.

[Eldonauran]

Just to be clear, are you talking death penalty here, or life imprisonment?

:smallconfused: Up to the death penalty, sure. There are other means to ensure certain ... actions aren't taken again.


What if people are wrongly convicted? if we're talking life sentences, how easy would it be to overturn the sentence if it turns out that the jury was wrong, and the convict was not a criminal? (Of course, with the death penalty that's a moot point, since it's not like we can resurrect dead people) What about guilty who don;t get convicted (there is that low conviction rate Jeff the Green talked about)?

Here's my problem with such...final measures: Humans are fallible, emotional creatures, capable of being swayed by those emotions to make wrong judgements. I really don't think we should give something like the ability to deliver these ultimate, final judgements, when we're relying on a bunch of people to not let prejudices, emotions and the like impact on their decision.

I don't disagree. Humans are fallible and there is never going to be a perfect justice system as long as those that intentionally lie, accuse and abuse the system are allowed to. Luckily, as technology progresses, proving guilt is getting easier and easier. When guilt is not in question, I think judgement should be swift and harsh. No appeals, no 'human rights' (you gave those up when you violated someone else's). You get to be put down like the animal you've shown yourself to be. Maybe that's harsh. Im fine with it.

[HeadlessMermaid]

When guilt is not in question, I think judgement should be swift and harsh. No appeals, no 'human rights' (you gave those up when you violated someone else's). You get to be put down like the animal you've shown yourself to be. Maybe that's harsh. Im fine with it.
Yo, harsh guy. Lemme tell you a story.


[SPOILER]I knew a girl in college who had grown up in a village. We hanged out for about a year, and one night we found ourselves alone. And she revealed to me that, before coming to college, her next-door older cousin sexually assaulted her, regularly. (I was shocked and speechless.) That this went on for 5 years, from when she was 13 until she was 17. (I was shocked again and still speechless.) That I was the second person in the world she'd ever told, and that the first one was the local priest, during confession - to make sure no one else would find out. Still shocked, I managed to ask WHY, why didn't you tell anyone else, your parents, your sister, a close friend, a teacher, someone?

She said "If I told anyone at all, my father would eventually find out. And if he ever finds out, he'll kill my cousin, there's no doubt about it. And I don't want that. I hate him and despise him, but I don't want him to die."


What's the morale of the story? To understand that, you must take into account the statistics of rape. Because this case isn't as unusual as it looks at first glance.

Who is the rapist? A stranger with a knife in a dark alley? That certainly happens. But not nearly as often as someone close to the victim. Someone from her (or his) social circle, an acquaintance, a colleague, a friend, a relative. Not uncommonly, it's someone the victim actually cares about.

So what does a harsh stance (death! castration! first castration and then death!) achieve, exactly? I'll tell you. It makes victims even more reluctant to report the crime and seek true justice. It leaves them in a black and white world, where they either suffer in silence or bear the burden of condemning someone to death. Yay, more guilt for the victim, ain't that swell.


Rape is still institutionalized. Even in industrial, developed societies. I've read studies where junior high and high-school kids are asked questions like "is it OK for a boyfriend to force his girlfriend to have sex with him?" and "what if they've been together for more than six months?" and "what if he forces her without hitting her?" - and you won't BELIEVE how high is the percentage that replies yes, "it's OK". What do we do with these kids? Who's to blame for these kids? A single bad influence in their environment? Lenient sentences to rapists? Or does the entire society around them project these ideas, insidiously and continuously?

You can't solve this with death sentences, you just can't. More than that, you don't even help, you're making it worse. All you achieve is a sense of superiority over the monster next door.

[dps]

I don't see how any rational person without an axe to grind can deny that modern, Western societies are, by the standards of history, remarkably safe. Heck, just the medical advances in the last 50 years make our physical safety much more protected than that of my grandparents when they were my age.

But are people any better, or is human nature any better? There, I see a lot of room for reasonable people to doubt it.

[Eldonauran]

Yo, harsh guy. Lemme tell you a story.


I appreciate the story, really. I can understand where she is coming from. It is a heart-breaking story and I've heard stories like that before. Regardless, my opinion on it is unchanged.

The abuse happened and regardless of how she feels, the cousin is getting away with what he did and is free to do it again. Most likely has, statistically. Why exactly are we protecting this monster? Would she say the same thing if she was aware others went through the exact same thing she did, at the hands of the exact same person?

I won't get into a discussion regarding the rest of the spoilered bit, re: junior high sex. My opinions on that are too lengthy and blunt to discuss in a forum.

[Othesemo]

I appreciate the story, really. I can understand where she is coming from. It is a heart-breaking story and I've heard stories like that before. Regardless, my opinion on it is unchanged.

The abuse happened and regardless of how she feels, the cousin is getting away with what he did and is free to do it again. Most likely has, statistically. Why exactly are we protecting this monster? Would she say the same thing if she was aware others went through the exact same thing she did, at the hands of the exact same person?

I won't get into a discussion regarding the rest of the spoilered bit, re: junior high sex. My opinions on that are too lengthy and blunt to discuss in a forum.

The point is that giving rapists the death sentence actually contributes to them not being punished. The cousin is getting away with what he did because he would have died if she had turned him in, not in spite of it.

[Tyndmyr]

Response to Karoht spoiled for length



You don't have access to some pretty basic things which make the hiring process easier. ID and Social Security Card? Due to the lack of access to records, some people can't get their own ID (they don't have any major documents to support who they claim to be), and without ID you can't get your Social Security Card issued to you. And since you can't be employed without a Social Security Number for the company to send your tax documents to, they will just pick someone with that information at hand and ready to go. Also, good luck getting a bank account without ID. Good luck getting your paycheque cashed without ID.
There's Temp employment that pays cash daily. However, to get the cash, you still need to provide ID and such.

Well, there's services for that. Most urban areas have shelters or services that'll give you item #1 that you need to get all those things...an address of residence. Oh, it'll probably suck compared to an apartment or a house, but if you get your birth certificate, you can chain that into getting the rest of the needed documents. Usually it's pretty inexpensive, but it may take a bit of time.

If you've got the birth certificate and an address, the rest is usually pretty easy. ID cards are done on the spot at most DMVs, and typically only cost around $5. You usually need some way of showing residency, but most states will allow you to demonstrate this by bringing in bills with your address on them...and given that homeless people usually have unpaid bills, those will basically show up shortly after you get an address.


You don't have a phone number for people to contact you and get you an interview, so unless they do interviews on the spot, you are probably out of luck. Yes, one could list the number of the homeless shelter you are at, but some companies are... rather rude we will say... and refuse to callback if the number is a homeless shelter. But good luck proving that as it would be a form of discrimination.

Yeah, that does happen. One minor up side is that disposable cell phones are remarkably cheap these days. I used to use one prior to my smartphone-adopting days, simply because of how inexpensive the prepaid cards were for someone who didn't use a phone much...but needed a number for people to call him at. I paid around $20 for 3 months of service. It's probably unlikely that anyone reading giantitp is homeless, but this might be a reasonable way to help homeless sorts out.

It's my experience that genuinely homeless, on the streets people(in a real, have nothing but the clothes on your back fashion) tend to be experiencing other disadvantages that make it harder to escape the cycle. Mentally handicapped people, for instance. The witty person talking everyone up in the tourist part of town...more likely to be a scammer. The person in the corner not talking to anyone....more likely to be in real trouble.

[Eldonauran]

The point is that giving rapists the death sentence actually contributes to them not being punished. The cousin is getting away with what he did because he would have died if she had turned him in, not in spite of it.

I understand that. That is why its such a tragedy. One should not fear revealing what has happened and end up protecting the person that has hurt them. That person deserves to be held accountable for their actions.

[Karoht]

The point is that giving rapists the death sentence actually contributes to them not being punished. The cousin is getting away with what he did because he would have died if she had turned him in, not in spite of it.

Also, on the note of castration, it tends to make the situation worse, as the rapist now has a physical issue to fixate on (to compound any mental issues already in place) and therefore more reason to lash out, not less.

As for prevention, deterancy factor (IE-Death or castration) does play a role, I won't argue that. In the case of certain crimes, the knowlege that it is a crime and that one will be caught tends to be a deterancy, not the stuff that happens after one is caught. Being caught brings more than just death or jail, it brings about some pretty big changes. Like entire families or communities who suddenly want nothing to do with you (the crook that is).

Besides, death is easy. Living is hard. Why grant the criminal the kindness of the easy way out?
(not really a serious statement FYI)

[Jeff the Green]

I understand that. That is why its such a tragedy. One should not fear revealing what has happened and end up protecting the person that has hurt them. That person deserves to be held accountable for their actions.

...You realize it's possible to love someone who has hurt you right? Even someone who raped you?

Or even to think that killing someone is so abhorrent that even the person who raped you doesn't deserve it?

In fact, it's pretty common. All that would happen under your scenario is that only tender-hearted and anti-death penalty women would get raped.

[Eldonauran]

...You realize it's possible to love someone who has hurt you right? Even someone who raped you?

... Yes. I am accutely aware of being able to love someone who has hurt you. Not as extreme as in a rape, but that doesn't change how that person is still accountable for what they did. Love doesn't mean you let people get away with being abusive.


Or even to think that killing someone is so abhorrent that even the person who raped you doesn't deserve it?

Yes, I am aware of this. But, I am aware that my inaction will cause others even more pain. My feelings really don't matter at that point. That person knew the risks and was willing to hurt someone in spite of them. Doesnt matter whether or not the punishment is extreme or slight.


In fact, it's pretty common. All that would happen under your scenario is that only tender-hearted and anti-death penalty women would get raped.

That is an hypothetical, although logical, deduction. I'd counter that while that might happen, signs of that kind of abuse will be easier and easier to spot and we will become more apt at seeking justice.

EDIT: There are always going to be people that abuse and hurt others. They will always target those that they perceive as weaker and more suceptible to coercion. All we can really ever do is make the punishment severe enough to discourage such actions from occurring and make examples of those that don't take the discouragement seriously.

[Marillion]

EDIT: There are always going to be people that abuse and hurt others. They will always target those that they perceive as weaker and more suceptible to coercion. All we can really ever do is make the punishment severe enough to discourage such actions from occurring and make examples of those that don't take the discouragement seriously.

The problem is that deterrence policy isn't actually a deterrence for the majority of violent or sexual offenders. Sure, if the assailant were in full possession of their faculties, they may realize that the risks outweigh the benefit of assaulting someone, but often they attack BECAUSE they aren't in possession of their faculties and/or they believe themselves to be cleverer than the authorities. I posit that rather than focusing on deterrence, we should instead focus on understanding what makes people do this and reducing those stressors, in addition to a prison sentence of rehabilitation rather than punishment. No, the rapist and murderer can never truly make amends for their crimes, but they can spend their whole lives trying.

[Karoht]

Keep in mind, these sports coaches and priests who are coming forward and seeking help for their problems? They are seeking help because there is an offer of help, not a threat/deterant of mutilation/imprisonment/death.
Do you see a connection here, and if so, what do you make of it?

[HeadlessMermaid]

[once again, spoilered for those who'd rather not read about rape]

I understand that. That is why its such a tragedy. One should not fear revealing what has happened and end up protecting the person that has hurt them. That person deserves to be held accountable for their actions.
I know you don't mean to, but right now you are blaming the victim. We're talking about a spectacularly under-reported crime. In theory, yes, "one should". In practice, and for a variety of reasons, it can be really, REALLY hard. Add the death sentence to the mix, and you're making it even harder.

That was the point of my story. If that girl wasn't absolutely sure that the culprit would end up six feet under, she WOULD have reported him, she wouldn't have gone through 5 years of... of that, and he WOULD be held accountable. Death sentence (well, the closest equivalent) is what protected him. In this case, it's the ONLY thing that protected him.


Yes, I am aware of this. But, I am aware that my inaction will cause others even more pain. My feelings really don't matter at that point.
I respect and admire those who find the strength to act. But the fact is that most people CAN be shackled, so to speak, by their feelings. Trauma is a debilitating condition by default. So I'm not going to accuse those who don't.

Especially since it's not always a given that inaction "will" cause pain to others action "will" prevent pain to others (we can't predict the future, there isn't always a pattern, the cousin - thank god - didn't touch anyone else, etc), or that action will bring the desired result (it often boils down to "my word against his", there are still policemen and jurors who honestly think that a short skirt indicates consent, and so on).

In short... it's complicated. So complicated, that absolute statements get us nowhere.

P.S. As for the surveys on high-school kids, fair enough if you don't want to talk about it. Just to clarify, though, the questions were about sex in general and not high school sex in particular, and the mind-boggling "it's OK" replies were given by boys AND girls (fewer girls than boys, but still).

[Eldonauran]

The problem is that deterrence policy isn't actually a deterrence for the majority of violent or sexual offenders. Sure, if the assailant were in full possession of their faculties, they may realize that the risks outweigh the benefit of assaulting someone, but often they attack BECAUSE they aren't in possession of their faculties and/or they believe themselves to be cleverer than the authorities. I posit that rather than focusing on deterrence, we should instead focus on understanding what makes people do this and reducing those stressors, in addition to a prison sentence of rehabilitation rather than punishment. No, the rapist and murderer can never truly make amends for their crimes, but they can spend their whole lives trying.

I disagree on a visceral level with the theory that all people need is education and rehabilitation to correct their behavior. Sure, some people are mentally deficient or not in full possession of their faculties (and for those a lesser degree of severity should be used) but most of the predators that engage in this behavior do so willingly. Some people simply choose to do horrible things to people and will 'play nice' when they are observed only to flip back when they are free.

When there is no true accountability and freedom is only a few short 'years' away, the monsters will do their time and bait their time until they can feed again.

[Karoht]

I disagree on a visceral level with the theory that all people need is education and rehabilitation to correct their behavior. Sure, some people are mentally deficient or not in full possession of their faculties (and for those a lesser degree of severity should be used) but most of the predators that engage in this behavior do so willingly. Some people simply choose to do horrible things to people and will 'play nice' when they are observed only to flip back when they are free.

When there is no true accountability and freedom is only a few short 'years' away, the monsters will do their time and bait their time until they can feed again.
First off I'm not going to demand proof of this claim. Partly because of how difficult it would be to narrow down anyone who was successfully rehabilitated in this manner who then reoffended in the same or similar manner. It's unreasonable to suggest that anyone should have to dig through a bunch of casefiles, especially given the current topic matter.
Sound reasonable?

But I do have a request for you.
Lookup Norway Prison on youtube. Feel free to follow up any of what you see with the following wiki article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halden_Prison
"The article says that although recidivism rates are calculated differently between countries, only 20% of Norway's prisoners end up back in jail within 2 years (compared to 50%–60% in the UK and US)."

Now I'm not saying that it's perfect, nor am I saying that anyone there does not reoffend.
Depending on the institution, these people go from their protected area, right back into society, then back into their protected area at night. They are trusted to return. They are monitored by professionals.
Again, not saying it's perfect, I'm not even going to suggest that we should adopt a similar model or anything of the sort.
But watch it, consider it, and tell me what you think it means. Does the low reoffence rate mean that maybe it's working?

PS-I should point out that I'm all for treating victems with all the due rights they are entitled to. I think we (society, justice system, etc) downplay victems of crime rather more frequently than we should, especially in cases like rape. Just saying.

[Marillion]

I disagree on a visceral level with the theory that all people need is education and rehabilitation to correct their behavior.
Disagree all you like. I understand it's very difficult to understand. But that's just it: It's a visceral reaction. A deeper understanding allows many people to see that punishment for punishments sake does not work.


Sure, some people are mentally deficient or not in full possession of their faculties (and for those a lesser degree of severity should be used) but most of the predators that engage in this behavior do so willingly.
Some of them are permanently unable to control themselves. Others just lose that power for a moment.


Some people simply choose to do horrible things to people and will 'play nice' when they are observed only to flip back when they are free.

When there is no true accountability and freedom is only a few short 'years' away, the monsters will do their time and bait their time until they can feed again.
Who said anything about lacking accountability?

[Jeff the Green]

Keep in mind, these sports coaches and priests who are coming forward and seeking help for their problems? They are seeking help because there is an offer of help, not a threat/deterant of mutilation/imprisonment/death.
Do you see a connection here, and if so, what do you make of it?

Except for the most part they aren't coming forward, they're being outed. I agree that when possible, people should be treated and rehabilitated, but it's not always possible (see my spoilered argument below).


I disagree on a visceral level with the theory that all people need is education and rehabilitation to correct their behavior.

This isn't a "visceral" issue, though. This is a cold, hard policy one. What gets the results we want? In my case, my desire is less crime, and I've shown you how your proposal results in more.


The problem is that deterrence policy isn't actually a deterrence for the majority of violent or sexual offenders. Sure, if the assailant were in full possession of their faculties, they may realize that the risks outweigh the benefit of assaulting someone, but often they attack BECAUSE they aren't in possession of their faculties and/or they believe themselves to be cleverer than the authorities.

Counter-argument spoiled for possible triggering.
That might be true of murderers (I honestly don't know), but it's not true of rapists. The vast majority of rapists are perfectly sane, they're just either sadistic or believe that they're entitled to sex even without consent. This isn't my opinion or observation, by the way, it's the conclusion of numerous scientists who have studied the issue for many years. (See the article "Meet the Predators." I won't link because while the article doesn't violate forum rules about political discussions, all the sites I can find that print it do in other articles. Just Google it.)

The reason the justice system isn't an effective deterrent against rape is that a minority of rapes are reported, a minority of those that are reported are investigated, a minority of those that are investigated result in an arrest, and the minority of rapists that are arrested are ever convicted. A man (let's face it, it's usually a man) considering raping a woman (again, usually but not always a woman) doesn't just think he can get away with it, he knows he's likely to get away with it.

Even when a victim makes a fuss, which doesn't happen as often as you'd think, their friends, relatives, and acquaintances often side with the rapist. There are a lot of proposed explanations for this; the most convincing I've seen is System Justification Theory. And of course this makes it so victims are even less likely to report rapes.

[Eldonauran]

I know you don't mean to, but right now you are blaming the victim. We're talking about a spectacularly under-reported crime. In theory, yes, "one should". In practice, and for a variety of reasons, it can be really, REALLY hard. Add the death sentence to the mix, and you're making it even harder.

That was the point of my story. If that girl wasn't absolutely sure that the culprit would end up six feet under, she WOULD have reported him, she wouldn't have gone through 5 years of... of that, and he WOULD be held accountable. Death sentence (well, the closest equivalent) is what protected him. In this case, it's the ONLY thing that protected him.

I completely understand and empathize with her, in a lot of ways. I simply do not agree. No blame or pointing of fingers intended. I firmly believe that cousin SHOULD end up six feet under.

If it came down to it, and that was my daughter, nothing short of her pleading with me to spare his life would keep me from making it happen. Then, and only then, would I beat him within an inch of his life and turn him over to the authorities.

Disclaimer: I am by far the least violent person you will ever meet. But there are things that I will 'hulk-out' over. Responding to a threat to my spouse and children are definately one of them. Sometimes violence is necessary.


In short... it's complicated. So complicated, that absolute statements get us nowhere.

Agreed. There is always an exception to every rule and a way to wiggle out of anything. But we can't allow that to prevent us from acting. We have to draw the line somewhere.


P.S. As for the surveys on high-school kids, fair enough if you don't want to talk about it. Just to clarify, though, the questions were about sex in general and not high school sex in particular, and the mind-boggling "it's OK" replies were given by boys AND girls (fewer girls than boys, but still).

Yeah, still not touching it. Splitting hairs over the details of whether something is or is not ok, or what exactly defines the line between rape and not-rape is something I will not engage in. My ability to think rationally and logically is sorely tested on this matter already. :smallfrown:


First off I'm not going to demand proof of this claim. Partly because of how difficult it would be to narrow down anyone who was successfully rehabilitated in this manner who then reoffended in the same or similar manner. It's unreasonable to suggest that anyone should have to dig through a bunch of casefiles, especially given the current topic matter.
Sound reasonable?

Actually, you may have (most likely) misunderstood. I never said they were successfully rehabilitated. But, anyway, I said I disagreed on a visceral level. That's on an instinctual basis. I am familiar with elements of the criminal mind. Fairly familiar, I would say. I don't have hard, statistical or clearly labeled studies to point to.


But I do have a request for you.
Lookup Norway Prison on youtube. Feel free to follow up any of what you see with the following wiki article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halden_Prison
"The article says that although recidivism rates are calculated differently between countries, only 20% of Norway's prisoners end up back in jail within 2 years (compared to 50%–60% in the UK and US)."

Now I'm not saying that it's perfect, nor am I saying that anyone there does not reoffend.
Depending on the institution, these people go from their protected area, right back into society, then back into their protected area at night. They are trusted to return. They are monitored by professionals.
Again, not saying it's perfect, I'm not even going to suggest that we should adopt a similar model or anything of the sort.
But watch it, consider it, and tell me what you think it means. Does the low reoffence rate mean that maybe it's working?

I may take a look at this but then again, I might not. I don't have a disagreement with successfully rehabilitated people reintegrating into soceity. I simply see this people as people who made honest mistakes, rather than the predators that continually prey on the populace.


PS-I should point out that I'm all for treating victems with all the due rights they are entitled to. I think we (society, justice system, etc) downplay victems of crime rather more frequently than we should, especially in cases like rape. Just saying.

I agree with you here. :smallwink:


Disagree all you like. I understand it's very difficult to understand. But that's just it: It's a visceral reaction. A deeper understanding allows many people to see that punishment for punishments sake does not work.


Understood and noted. I used visceral as I meant to. I will further say that, in my opinion, some things do not require a deeper understanding. Punishments for punishment's sake does not work. Agreed. But then again, there needs to be consequences. Rape is severe enough to justify a death penalty to me. I understand that it isnt so for others.


Some of them are permanently unable to control themselves. Others just lose that power for a moment.

Sure, no disagreements there. However, rape is something else, not like accidently crushing someone's skull.


In my case, my desire is less crime, and I've shown you how your proposal results in more.

No, all you stated was a logical, if hypothetical redirection of existing instances of rape.

[Creed]

I don't think this society is worse off than any historical one. But we really aren't better off, either. I mean, every society has different problems.
I mean, kids weren't bringing six-shooters to their school houses in the American West (Not that I've ever heard of, I'm no history major), but there's (relatively) few marauding armies of bandits in modern America. Some times in history have had serious issues, and we have some big issues too, the least of which I think is a guy asking for gas money. Heck, I'd be a liar if I said that I had never had to work a crowd for gas money.
I suppose what I'm saying is that there are bad people, good people, bad things, and good things. The world, for the most part, seems to me in a fairly True Neutral box.
My (knock knock knock) 2 pennies (geddit?).


EDIT: If ever I go to prison, I want that prison to be in Norway. That is all.

[Fiery Diamond]

I completely understand and empathize with her, in a lot of ways. I simply do not agree. No blame or pointing of fingers intended. I firmly believe that cousin SHOULD end up six feet under.

If it came down to it, and that was my daughter, nothing short of her pleading with me to spare his life would keep me from making it happen. Then, and only then, would I beat him within an inch of his life and turn him over to the authorities.

Disclaimer: I am by far the least violent person you will ever meet. But there are things that I will 'hulk-out' over. Responding to a threat to my spouse and children are definately one of them. Sometimes violence is necessary.



Agreed. There is always an exception to every rule and a way to wiggle out of anything. But we can't allow that to prevent us from acting. We have to draw the line somewhere.



Yeah, still not touching it. Splitting hairs over the details of whether something is or is not ok, or what exactly defines the line between rape and not-rape is something I will not engage in. My ability to think rationally and logically is sorely tested on this matter already. :smallfrown:



Actually, you may have (most likely) misunderstood. I never said they were successfully rehabilitated. But, anyway, I said I disagreed on a visceral level. That's on an instinctual basis. I am familiar with elements of the criminal mind. Fairly familiar, I would say. I don't have hard, statistical or clearly labeled studies to point to.



I may take a look at this but then again, I might not. I don't have a disagreement with successfully rehabilitated people reintegrating into soceity. I simply see this people as people who made honest mistakes, rather than the predators that continually prey on the populace.



I agree with you here. :smallwink:



Understood and noted. I used visceral as I meant to. I will further say that, in my opinion, some things do not require a deeper understanding. Punishments for punishment's sake does not work. Agreed. But then again, there needs to be consequences. Rape is severe enough to justify a death penalty to me. I understand that it isnt so for others.



Sure, no disagreements there. However, rape is something else, not like accidently crushing someone's skull.



No, all you stated was a logical, if hypothetical redirection of existing instances of rape.

I just wanted to tell you (the quoted poster) that I completely agree with you. I feel the same way you do, and your statements and responses in this particular post also mirror mine. I wish that more people felt that way.

[Jeff the Green]

If it came down to it, and that was my daughter, nothing short of her pleading with me to spare his life would keep me from making it happen. Then, and only then, would I beat him within an inch of his life and turn him over to the authorities.

Sigh. And then you would be the one the authorities arrested and sent to jail and your daughter's rapist would go free because you contaminated the case.

I didn't want to make this argument because I thought it was below the belt, but it needs to be made now. A daughter with a father like you is less likely to tell them they've been raped/hit/abused/whatever even if they think their abuser deserves to die because they don't want their father to go to jail. This is not supposition. I have friends who had fathers who made it very clear to them that they would go to town on any one who abused or bullied them, and because of that they didn't tell their parents. Hell, my grandpa was like that when he was raising my mom and her sisters, and while they felt safer because of it they also didn't tell him when they were bullied or their boyfriends were (sub-abusively) jackasses.

I agree with you that a substantial portion of rapists probably deserve to die. But to paraphrase Gandalf, should you or I or even 12 average citizens give it to them? The role of public policy is to ensure its people's well being, not to exact justice. Our well-being is not served by executing rapists.


No, all you stated was a logical, if hypothetical redirection of existing instances of rape.
I wasn't referring to that; I was referring to the argument summarized by Othesmo:

The point is that giving rapists the death sentence actually contributes to them not being punished. The cousin is getting away with what he did because he would have died if she had turned him in, not in spite of it.

[Karoht]

Actually, you may have (most likely) misunderstood. I never said they were successfully rehabilitated. But, anyway, I said I disagreed on a visceral level. That's on an instinctual basis. I am familiar with elements of the criminal mind. Fairly familiar, I would say. I don't have hard, statistical or clearly labeled studies to point to. Nope, I understood. The qualifier of 'Visceral Level' was also why I thought it would be unreasonable (for me or anyone else really) to suggest that you should have to back it up with a real life example.



I may take a look at this but then again, I might not.Take your time.
The long and short of what I'm getting at is, the US and UK have things like death penalty (rare though), tougher and tougher sentencing, and reletively speaking, harsh jails. Then we have the people of Norway who have next to none of the above, and have a much lower reoffence rate. The connection I am trying to make is that harshness and deterancy aren't doing the job in one part of the world, while (the appearance of) being downright nice and respectful to the criminals is succeeding at making an impact on the problem and changing the people for the better.
Mind you the above paragraph is somewhat generalized, but you get the idea.



Understood and noted. I used visceral as I meant to. I will further say that, in my opinion, some things do not require a deeper understanding. Punishments for punishment's sake does not work. Agreed. But then again, there needs to be consequences. Rape is severe enough to justify a death penalty to me. I understand that it isnt so for others.Fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion and you appear to be hearing us out and considering what is being said. This is the internet, so this is more than I could ask for. :smallbiggrin:

[Kelb_Panthera]

Response to Karoht spoiled for length




Well, there's services for that. Most urban areas have shelters or services that'll give you item #1 that you need to get all those things...an address of residence. Oh, it'll probably suck compared to an apartment or a house, but if you get your birth certificate, you can chain that into getting the rest of the needed documents. Usually it's pretty inexpensive, but it may take a bit of time.

If you've got the birth certificate and an address, the rest is usually pretty easy. ID cards are done on the spot at most DMVs, and typically only cost around $5. You usually need some way of showing residency, but most states will allow you to demonstrate this by bringing in bills with your address on them...and given that homeless people usually have unpaid bills, those will basically show up shortly after you get an address.



Yeah, that does happen. One minor up side is that disposable cell phones are remarkably cheap these days. I used to use one prior to my smartphone-adopting days, simply because of how inexpensive the prepaid cards were for someone who didn't use a phone much...but needed a number for people to call him at. I paid around $20 for 3 months of service. It's probably unlikely that anyone reading giantitp is homeless, but this might be a reasonable way to help homeless sorts out.

It's my experience that genuinely homeless, on the streets people(in a real, have nothing but the clothes on your back fashion) tend to be experiencing other disadvantages that make it harder to escape the cycle. Mentally handicapped people, for instance. The witty person talking everyone up in the tourist part of town...more likely to be a scammer. The person in the corner not talking to anyone....more likely to be in real trouble.

@ the phone thing: there are actually a number of programs available, at least in some places, that will give low- and no- income people those throw-away phones free of charge. Here in my part of Alabama, it's basically the exact same deal as a $20 phone and I think it was something like the equivalent of a $10 phone card each month, with the option to purchase more minutes if you do manage to scrounge together some money.

I've been in that situation, and I had my wife to take care of. Her disability makes getting and holding a job impossible for all practical purposes, and she wasn't collecting disability at the time.

It is possible to get back on your feet, but it's not easy.

[comicshorse]

The long and short of what I'm getting at is, the US and UK have things like death penalty (rare though)

Just to point out the UK does not have the death penalty and haven't since the 1960's

[Avilan the Grey]

To punish rape with capital punishment is completely mind-bogging to me. A war criminal or certain serial killers maybe, but for rape??? Of course I am living in a country that abolished the death penalty in 1921.


Just to point out the UK does not have the death penalty and haven't since the 1960's

As far as I understand it the only two democracies that actually executes people are Belarus and the US.

[Kelb_Panthera]

As a US citizen I'm not sure if I'm proud or ashamed to say that we rarely actually execute criminals. Oh we say we're going to all the time, but the greater portion either end up stewing on death row until some ailment gets them first, or until they can't take waiting anymore and kill themselves. It's kind of a really f***ed up joke on both the criminals and the taxpayers. The worst part is that I don't even think the politicians that made the joke (the ones that support the death penalty because of perceptions of how it will affect their careers) are laughing. I'm not certain I believe its outright abolishment would be appropriate, but something's got to change.

I don't think rapists should be sentenced to death.

Though on a personal level I think they should be slain or castrated (maybe both), but I think that should be at the hands and discretion of the victim rather than the government. I'm very pro-revenge.

[pendell]

I haven't read all three pages so I'm going to reply to the original question.

Why is the world a crapsack place?

1) Second law of thermodynamics. Things tend from a state of order to a state of disorder. It takes work to build instead of destroy, to create. It's easier to take from someone who already has something, to reap what someone else has sown. This is the fundamental principle why slavery and piracy and banditry is so common in history. You even see it in D&D. Imagine how much work and money it takes to fill a tomb with all the goods our heroes pillage.

2) We live in a civilization which allows us to get away with silly stuff. You can live in our society and not be brave, for example, because you're protected. Since we've less need for virtue, being insulated, we don't develop it as much. The problem, of course, is that when we DO need it we don't have it.

3) People tend to respond to like with like. If you hit someone, they will hit you back. If you do someone a good turn, they'll do a good turn back.

Thing is, there's a lot of garbage in the world. And people who can't pay back the person who's given them grief often take it out on an easier target. I've seen a lot of that with victims of abuse who pass it on to their own children in return. Or they pass it on to the person they're working for, or their customer, or the person in line in front of them.

Which means, if there is to be any goodness and peace in the world, people have to make the willing choice to pay back evil with good. To turn the other cheek. To be stepped on by the world and refuse to pass it on. To do good to other people, instead.

That goes against the grain of normal human nature, and few people do it. Which is why as a rule things get worse and worse until a crisis point is reached. Then things collapse and we learn again the same old lessons and build a new civilization. Then the cycle begins again.

There's more, of course, but it's outside forum bounds. Hope that helps!

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Reluctance]

Found this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBmJay_qdNc) while browsing around earlier. Another data point for my "it's all too effing complex for simple solutions" theory.

[Jeff the Green]

1) Second law of thermodynamics. Things tend from a state of order to a state of disorder. It takes work to build instead of destroy, to create. It's easier to take from someone who already has something, to reap what someone else has sown. This is the fundamental principle why slavery and piracy and banditry is so common in history. You even see it in D&D. Imagine how much work and money it takes to fill a tomb with all the goods our heroes pillage.

That's not how entropy works. My house messy has exactly as much entropy as it does when it's clean.


3) People tend to respond to like with like. If you hit someone, they will hit you back. If you do someone a good turn, they'll do a good turn back.

Thing is, there's a lot of garbage in the world. And people who can't pay back the person who's given them grief often take it out on an easier target. I've seen a lot of that with victims of abuse who pass it on to their own children in return. Or they pass it on to the person they're working for, or their customer, or the person in line in front of them.

Which means, if there is to be any goodness and peace in the world, people have to make the willing choice to pay back evil with good. To turn the other cheek. To be stepped on by the world and refuse to pass it on. To do good to other people, instead.

Tit-for-tat is actually a valid strategy in most cases, and in fact the best in any that roughly fit the Prisoner's Dilemma, which are a lot.

[Tyndmyr]

Jeff, you beat me to it...I was going to post exactly that.

[pendell]

That's not how entropy works. My house messy has exactly as much entropy as it does when it's clean.


Be that as it may, your house left to itself will become dirty. A dirty house will not spontaneously become clean. It takes WORK to move things from a state of disorder to a state of order , and that's always easier than letting things go.



Tit-for-tat is actually a valid strategy in most cases, and in fact the best in any that roughly fit the Prisoner's Dilemma, which are a lot.


I believe the Prisoner's dilemma is flawed because it concentrates heavily on the immediate objective , minimum prison time. But the long-term result is a lack of trust by all players, leading them all to confess immediately, resulting in prison terms for everyone.

Trust is the glue that holds society together. I have some $20 bills in my pocket. The reason I can exchange that for alcohol, or cigarrettes, or pron, or food, is because the person I give the money trusts that this paper is worth something. When I come to work, I'm trusting that I'll be paid. I can't get a bank loan if someone doesn't trust that I'll pay it back. On the battlefield or in firefighting, it is absolutely imperative that people trust other people to have their backs. Otherwise people break and run out of self preservation.

So .. selfishness is a short-term benefit for individuals. Altruism is a long-term benefit to society at large.

It is because so many accept short term benefit to self over long-term benefit for all that we are in the fix we are in. Well, okay, it's one of the reasons, but that's a big one.

I agree that tit-for-tat retaliation has its place. Sometimes negative consequences and negative reinforcement are critical to snap people out of bad behavior. But I think it's also true that absent altruists willing to pay back evil with good, the system devolves into a Darwinian competition , the war of 'all against all', as Hobbes put it. It's a world devoid of the possibility of trust, and therefore of any form of co-operation, because you can't have any sort of co-operation if you can't at least predict the behavior of the other parties.

Which means that a society in which self-interest is exalted to an unhealthy degree, beyond any reasonable sense of proportion, is a society that will collapse. The glue that holds society together -- trust -- is absent.

Which doesn't mean we can totally ignore self-interest. One, it's not possible and two, a society of people who don't look out for themselves can get in a lot of trouble. I've seen religious professionals ruin their families because they've got time for "the mission" but none at all for their own.

So maybe altruism is not a panacea so much as it is a seasoning. Too little of it, the dish is tasteless. Too much of it, it ruins the dish because you can't taste anything but the seasoning. So maybe it's like .. the salt of the earth? Where HAVE I heard that phrase before? :)

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Reluctance]

Be that as it may, your house left to itself will become dirty. A dirty house will not spontaneously become clean. It takes WORK to move things from a state of disorder to a state of order , and that's always easier than letting things go.

You're basically saying that if people are lazy, things go downhill. The optimists here are saying that people haven't been lazy, and that arguments to the contrary are myopic. (Nostalgia does bad things to objectivity.) I don't feel wrong in asking, if we're so horrible now, when was this golden age of human morality?


I believe the Prisoner's dilemma is flawed because it concentrates heavily on the immediate objective , minimum prison time. But the long-term result is a lack of trust by all players, leading them all to confess immediately, resulting in prison terms for everyone.

Except that everybody who knows about the game should also know the difference between one-off games and extended versions. "Tit for tat" is effective precisely because it encourages long-term cooperation. (By smacking selfish actors with a stick, admittedly.)

More generally, yes. Cooperation vs. self-interest is an interesting point for game theory. This doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the moral state of any given culture at any given point in time.

[Asta Kask]

@OP: Was it ever better?

[Tyndmyr]

Be that as it may, your house left to itself will become dirty. A dirty house will not spontaneously become clean. It takes WORK to move things from a state of disorder to a state of order , and that's always easier than letting things go.

This is a misapplication of the principle of entropy to social areas. Clean is not the same as order, and dirty is not the same as disorder.

Left to myself, my house will eventually rot away, and be food for a number of organisms. The structures of these organisms is one that might be considered an orderly one. Possibly even a clean one, because such things are terribly subjective. Certainly a field is not something often described as dirty.


I believe the Prisoner's dilemma is flawed because it concentrates heavily on the immediate objective , minimum prison time. But the long-term result is a lack of trust by all players, leading them all to confess immediately, resulting in prison terms for everyone.

Trust is the glue that holds society together. I have some $20 bills in my pocket. The reason I can exchange that for alcohol, or cigarrettes, or pron, or food, is because the person I give the money trusts that this paper is worth something. When I come to work, I'm trusting that I'll be paid. I can't get a bank loan if someone doesn't trust that I'll pay it back. On the battlefield or in firefighting, it is absolutely imperative that people trust other people to have their backs. Otherwise people break and run out of self preservation.

So .. selfishness is a short-term benefit for individuals. Altruism is a long-term benefit to society at large.

It is because so many accept short term benefit to self over long-term benefit for all that we are in the fix we are in. Well, okay, it's one of the reasons, but that's a big one.

That's rather the point of the prisoner's dilemma. Sometimes, you CAN benefit yourself more by screwing over society at large.


I agree that tit-for-tat retaliation has its place. Sometimes negative consequences and negative reinforcement are critical to snap people out of bad behavior. But I think it's also true that absent altruists willing to pay back evil with good, the system devolves into a Darwinian competition , the war of 'all against all', as Hobbes put it. It's a world devoid of the possibility of trust, and therefore of any form of co-operation, because you can't have any sort of co-operation if you can't at least predict the behavior of the other parties.

Nope. The most efficient general algorithm for prisoner's dilemma in the wild is, IIRC, initial cooperation followed by tit for tat. Cooperation is useful, and often optimal...but cooperating with the guy who's screwing you over for his own gain is a fool's errand. It translates rather elegantly from game theory to the real world.

[pendell]

I don't feel wrong in asking, if we're so horrible now, when was this golden age of human morality?


Never was one. Humans have always known what morality is, and humans don't do it. While the Assyrian tablet (http://www.bartleby.com/73/456.html), is most likely spurious, a lot of ancient writings are full of condemnations of 'the sinful and corrupt generation'. Macaulay put it this way (http://www.theotherpages.org/poems/horatius.html)




Then none was for a party;
Then all were for the state;
Then the great man helped the poor,
And the poor man loved the great:
Then lands were fairly portioned;
Then spoils were fairly sold:
The Romans were like brothers
In the brave days of old.

XXXIII

Now Roman is to Roman
More hateful than a foe,
And the Tribunes beard the high,
And the Fathers grind the low.
As we wax hot in faction,
In battle we wax cold:
Wherefore men fight not as they fought
In the brave days of old.


That's 19th century Britain.

But here's my point: [i]These end of the world predictions happened [/url]. The world of prehistoric Palestine and the Assyrians and the Babylonians and the Egyptian Old Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Kingdom_of_Egypt), have all passed away, and most of it has done so by suicide.

Human history, it seems, is a cycle. Humans learn what it takes to build a culture of worth, and we call these traits 'virtue'. But again and again we are the victims of our own success and allow these things to lapse because we don't need them in sheltered society. But this way of life can't be sustained forever, resulting in societal collapse, resulting in a dark age from which people learn the lessons and again drive back the darkness to build a new culture. And so the cycle begins again.

So there is no 'golden age of morality'. There is only the never-ending cycles as we learn and forget the same lessons over and over and over. Time and again we build, time and again we become complacent, time and again the gods of the copybook headings (http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_copybook.htm) ride again.



. "Tit for tat" is effective precisely because it encourages long-term cooperation. (By smacking selfish actors with a stick, admittedly.)


Indeed. But my point is in the real world people rarely lack an excuse or a pretext for taking revenge. "Tit for tat" is effective, but at some point someone has to stop hitting back if there's every going to be any cooperation. A one time thing to punish a bad actor is one thing, but left unchecked you've got a Hatfields and Mccoys situation where people are still throwing tits and tats back and forth hundreds of years after the original quarrel, and no on remembers how it all started in the first place. In such a situation , the only way for the cycle to end is for one person to take the hit and to NOT hit back.

But I agree with Tyndmyr, persistent victimization isn't the answer. That's not what I'm talking about. It takes wisdom, I guess, to know when it's appropriate to retaliate and when to forbear, but both are needful.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Chen]

Understood and noted. I used visceral as I meant to. I will further say that, in my opinion, some things do not require a deeper understanding. Punishments for punishment's sake does not work. Agreed. But then again, there needs to be consequences. Rape is severe enough to justify a death penalty to me. I understand that it isnt so for others.

There's a larger logistical issue with executing people for rape. Rape convictions almost always rely on the victim's testimony. If you're going to execute someone who rapes, they might as well rape and then murder to make it less likely for them to be convicted. The punishment is the same (or more severe) so they have an incentive to kill the person rather than not to. That's not an incentive you want out there.

[Tyndmyr]

There's a larger logistical issue with executing people for rape. Rape convictions almost always rely on the victim's testimony. If you're going to execute someone who rapes, they might as well rape and then murder to make it less likely for them to be convicted. The punishment is the same (or more severe) so they have an incentive to kill the person rather than not to. That's not an incentive you want out there.

Yeah, that's a pretty bad case of perverse incentives. Murder's pretty much never something you want people going "eh, why not" about.

[Asta Kask]

Human history, it seems, is a cycle. Humans learn what it takes to build a culture of worth, and we call these traits 'virtue'. But again and again we are the victims of our own success and allow these things to lapse because we don't need them in sheltered society. But this way of life can't be sustained forever, resulting in societal collapse, resulting in a dark age from which people learn the lessons and again drive back the darkness to build a new culture. And so the cycle begins again.

I think you're being too pessimistic. It sounds to me like you think there's no progress, and I would disagree with that. If we confine ourselves to Western societies (because that's what I know) - we don't keep slaves anymore. We don't burn witches anymore. We don't engage in cat-burning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat-burning) anymore. This is progress.

[pendell]

If we confine ourselves to Western societies (because that's what I know) - we don't keep slaves anymore. We don't burn witches anymore. We don't engage in cat-burning anymore. This is progress.


Funny how human societies are blind to the evil they do or the costs paid for them to be the way they are. I can't really continue this discussion on this forum, so I'll just use a historical analogy: If you read 18th century American literature you'll see lots of proclamations about what a 'moral' people we were and how 'virtuous'. But if you asked the slaves of those 'virtuous' people, or the Cherokees they pushed aside or exterminated to build their 'virtuous' society , you'd get a different opinion.

Every one of the societies I mentioned prided themselves on their technological and moral achievements. And every one collapsed because they forgot the foundations which allowed them to make those achievements in the first place. And some of the things they considered 'achievements', such as the Roman Bread and Circuses, we view instead as low points.

No human society that has ever existed has ever endured because it runs afoul of fundamental human nature. Societies that thrive have either had to seriously reinvent themselves when the previous version failed (see: the rise of the Samurai caste in Japan to the failure of the Emperors, or the constant cycle of barbarism and dynasties in China) or , as Rome, they fall apart completely and others must rebuild from scratch.



I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desart. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed:

And on the pedestal these words appear:

"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.




I think you're being too pessimistic

Pessimistic? I was being hopeful. Because no matter how things get or how complete the collapse, the sun always rises again and joy comes in the morning. No defeat is ever final, and no night lasts forever. Until the end of days -- whenever that is -- dawn will follow darkness.

If you expect me to say that our current society can continue on as it currently does forever, always progressing towards the good, I don't believe so. No human society ever has, and I have not seen that we have repealed the laws of fundamental human nature. But that does not mean that the world has to end in darkness. Life will go on, after our own lives and after the life of our society. Possibly, life will go on when the planet itself is a burned cinder in a red giant. It is our part to try to pass on to that next generation the best we can. And they will be as greedy and selfish as we are, but not totally bereft of those good qualities which make life worth living.

Isn't that what it is to be human? To be both fallen angel and rising ape?


Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Asta Kask]

I don't doubt for a moment that ancient empires thought themselves the pinnacle of morality. That's not the point. The point is were they right?

I recommend Sam Harris's "The Moral Landscape". It gives a yardstick for actually measuring progress.

Exist without falling? No. But not lose all the progress gained? Yes.

[Giegue]

If you want to know the real reason our society is so horrifically depraved right now, just do research on the New World Order, the Illuminati and similar secret societies.(Like the Bilderberger group, Skull and Bones ect..) I know I'll probally be called a crackpot for even uttering the word Illuminati but there is a hidden history in our world that explains why society just seems so evil right now. The TRUE MASTERS of the western world are by far the greatest evil mankind has ever faced, and unlike the emperors of Rome or tyrants of the middle ages their depravity and tyranny is hidden in shadows, away from the eyes of the those who do not know, or do not want to know the truth.

Again, I'll probably be laughed out of this thread but the "NWO" as it's known does exist. My girlfriend has family members that are part of it, she is related to the Rothschild banking family, who are members of the Illuminati network/NWO.(And it's no surprise that they are extremely wealthy and yet do not appear on any list of the world's wealthiest people. There are plenty of super-high ranked NWO members who are unimaginably wealthy and live totally secret existences.) I've also had personal experiences with some of the more supernatural aspects of the NWO but won't go there since I know a lot of people don't believe in that kind of stuff. So, why is society so ****** up? Because the people who run it are depraved psycopaths who only serve themselves and screw everybody else over in the process. Just please, before laughing at my claims, just do the research for yourself....but just dear god don't believe David Icke....he's a crackpot even by my standards.

I'm ready to be laughed out of this thread now....

[Avilan the Grey]

If you want to know the real reason our society is so horrifically depraved right now

Not touching the rest of the post, because of obvious reasons, but this part... Our society is not depraved.

[Giegue]

I may have used the wrong choice of words there. I apologize for my lack of tact. Our society is not depraved as a whole. Most people are genuinly good, but simply ignorant. It is the elite who control us who are depraved and as a result their lack of morality translates to a less then moral society.

[Avilan the Grey]

I may have used the wrong choice of words there. I apologize for my lack of tact. Our society is not depraved as a whole. Most people are genuinly good, but simply ignorant. It is the elite who control us who are depraved and as a result their lack of morality translates to a less then moral society.

But what is immoral to you? As stated over and over in this thread... Modern society at it's worst is still vastly better than society a few hundred years ago. Especially if you compare "worst to worst".

[Giegue]

Society is not as "enlightened" as you may think. Slavery still exsists. To think otherwise is ignorant. Slavery is not commited in the open, mind you, and fround uppon by the common man, but it none the less exsists. There is a very large human trafficing opperation that even includes a black market organ trade for members of the elite who seek to extend their lives by ending the lives of others. Sweatshop labor, I may also argue, is a form of slavery. There is still racisim, bigotry and intollerance. All the things that went on then still go on now, just on a smaller scale and in the shadows rather then in the open. Evil in our world opperates in the shadows. In a way it has to because good people have made great strides in fighting against such evil. However, despite that, it still exsists, it still happens.

I will admit that things have been made better by good people who fought to force evil into the shadows, but it still exsists there.


Also, another point. You cannot deny that our of all human traits it is greed that rules our society. Our entire way of doing things is based on greed and harnessing it. Money rules society. Money is power. Money is God. Money rules everything and those with money have all the power and influence. Our society is controlled totally by money, and money is the root of countless crimes and evils committed in the world. To deny that money and greed are what rules our society is to deny that economics exsists. That is simply the nature of western society. So, in conclusion I will ask you this; can you call a society ruled and run by greed a society that is moral?

[Asta Kask]

This discussion - while enlightening and interesting - is getting too close to politics for me.

[Tyndmyr]

If you want to know the real reason our society is so horrifically depraved right now, just do research on the New World Order, the Illuminati and similar secret societies.(Like the Bilderberger group, Skull and Bones ect..) I know I'll probally be called a crackpot for even uttering the word Illuminati but there is a hidden history in our world that explains why society just seems so evil right now. The TRUE MASTERS of the western world are by far the greatest evil mankind has ever faced, and unlike the emperors of Rome or tyrants of the middle ages their depravity and tyranny is hidden in shadows, away from the eyes of the those who do not know, or do not want to know the truth.

Oh, I find these modern myths to be delightful...I've actually found attending conspiracy theorist meetings to be fascinating stuff. I don't, of course, believe a word of it, but it's still an interesting insight into the way people work and think.


Again, I'll probably be laughed out of this thread but the "NWO" as it's known does exist. My girlfriend has family members that are part of it, she is related to the Rothschild banking family, who are members of the Illuminati network/NWO.(And it's no surprise that they are extremely wealthy and yet do not appear on any list of the world's wealthiest people. There are plenty of super-high ranked NWO members who are unimaginably wealthy and live totally secret existences.)

I was curious to see if these sorts of beliefs would survive the banking crisis bit...banker used to be synonymous with wealth and stability, but that has...pretty rapidly faded from modern culture, as even very large banks can evidently tank.

Also, I've yet to hear a convincing reason for why such a wealthy family would need to keep it secret. Certainly, many a rich family has existed just fine in publicity.


I've also had personal experiences with some of the more supernatural aspects of the NWO but won't go there since I know a lot of people don't believe in that kind of stuff. So, why is society so ****** up? Because the people who run it are depraved psycopaths who only serve themselves and screw everybody else over in the process. Just please, before laughing at my claims, just do the research for yourself....but just dear god don't believe David Icke....he's a crackpot even by my standards.

I'm ready to be laughed out of this thread now....

But...society isn't particularly screwed up. At least, not historically speaking. We've crushed lots of oldschool problems like starvation pretty hard. The green revolution, the end of infant mortality, vaccinations...these are all ways in which modern society has made us clearly better off than past cultures have ever been. Yeah, there's still jackasses out there. Probably always will be. But on the big scale, things are a lot more awesome.

[Avilan the Grey]

Stuff

And you are just being fatalistic and pessimistic. Society as a whole IS better than ever before. That is a FACT. That it's still pretty bad in places is a completely different discussion.

[Murska]

If someone is controlling the world in secret, it's to their own advantage to keep the world as stable and peaceful as possible. This hypothetical group could possibly be doing a better job, or maybe that's impossible, I can't know. But considering how the world seems to be headed generally for the better, I wouldn't lynch a secret society that controls everything outright. I would of course prefer a more transparent method of choosing leaders of the world to prevent corruption, but that's beside the point.

In fact, if I were able to believe in an all-reaching conspiracy I would be glad of their existance on some level. Because it'd mean that at least someone out there, and considering they're secret and all-powerful then also someone quite smart, is in fact in control of everything. It's far more concerning to believe, like I do, that there's no-one really in control over the world and our society. Some people have more control than others, but never enough to turn the boat, at most enough to steer it a little bit.

[Frozen_Feet]

It's bad for the same reason as it has always been: because there are bad people.

The depressing fact is, the bad people are probably the minority, but they still end up having wider influence than the majority of good people in a perverse manifestation of the Pareto Principle. Here's my reasoning:

Suppose 80% of people are good. Because they are good, and most people they ever meet are good, they usually assume whoever they meet is good. It makes a great deal of sense - always doubting and being on your toes takes a great deal of energy. That energy is out of what you could use to make yourself happy.

But then we get to the exceptions - the people who are not good, and assume the worst out of others. They will always see flaws in others that, to them, perfectly justify using those people - and their own flaws prevent them from feeling bad about it.

So these exceptions will lie and abuse people, and the good people will often take too long to notice this, because they are keyed to assume best of people. And so, the bad people will get disproportionately more power and influence than the good people.

This is a very simplified model, and it leaves many facets of human psychology unaccounted for. But it does illustrate an effect that does exist, and has been shown in many studies. For example, there's a much higher proportion of Anti-social people in upper levels of company management.

[Thajocoth]

Why wouldn't the guy have a cell phone? Especially if he lives near a college (so it's not a poor area) and has a family (that he'll want to be able to communicate well with.)

He's on a college campus. Why doesn't he borrow the use of a phone? Surely he has family or friends that can come help him out.

The guy's not a psychopath. This was in too public of an area. The guy's a beggar. He knows college kids are often naive enough to part with some loose change. College kids and tourists are really the two easiest groups of people to get money from. A beggar in Manhattan's Penn Station easily makes several hundred dollars in a day.

If this was in the middle of nowhere (no one around, no one who could see) and you were alone, then this could've been a psychopath situation.

The ability to think from a variety of perspectives, including those of a beggar or psychopath, is helpful for analyzing a situation like this one.

If I was you, I would've directed him to the nearest campus office with a phone. People who work in such offices have no real reason to deny a person such phone use. (Though I suppose this could be a charisma check... Mine's decent when I need something.)

[dps]

But what is immoral to you? As stated over and over in this thread... Modern society at it's worst is still vastly better than society a few hundred years ago. Especially if you compare "worst to worst".

This is what I had to say on another forum, when the question was asked, "Is progress real":


If you want to determine if progress is real, don't use cultural factors (which are too subjective) nor politcal factors (which are too prone to the problem of the victors writing historym) nor economic factors (which simply beg the question of whether or not the mere accumulation of wealth is progress in any meaningful sense). (And besides that, both political and economic factors are more about who's winning at a particular time rather than the parameters of the game.)

Instead, look at life expectancy. While there are limitations in the data, it seems clear that average worldwide life expectancy has increased over human history, thouogh not in a strictly linear fashion, and not without a few setbacks at certain times (though those setbacks may have been somewhat localized--life expectancy almost certainly went down in Europe when the Black Death first struck, but it's not entirely clear that the worldwide average dropped at the time; similarly, life expectancy has apparantly gone down in Russia since the break-up of the Soviet Union, but is still rising worldwide).

Keep in mind that morality would be part of "cultural factors". As I said earlier in the thread, people might not be better today than in the past, but on the whole, they are better off. How can we tell that people are better off than in the past? Because they don't die as quickly.

[Jeff the Green]

How can we tell that people are better off than in the past? Because they don't die as quickly.

Other objective measures that have improved massively:

Infant mortality
Nutrition (the average man today is 4" taller than the average man a few hundred years ago)
Communicable disease prevalence
Number of people killed in war
Violent crime frequency
Crop productivity
Happiness

[Tyndmyr]

Hell, time off. We have more time off work than we did...for as far back as we have records. Certainly a crapton more than we did in the industrial age(a particularly rough patch for work hours). The vacation as we know it hasn't always been a thing most people enjoyed.

It's hard to see if you're caught up in the present, though. Today looks pretty much exactly like yesterday, and so on and so forth, unless you're one of the very few people directly involved with pushing some new tech forward.

[pendell]

•Number of people killed in war


*Cough choke hack*

I'm not up for a detailed analysis of all points at this time , but this one in particular I question. If you factor in events from 1900 to 1950, the 20th century was the bloodiest century on record.

For the moment, we are enjoying a respite from the end of the Cold War. But as in the 19th century, there are still small wars all over the world.


Roughly once every hundred years the world has been gripped in a paroxysm of war. The Thirty Years War. The Seven Years War. The Napoleanic Wars. The World Wars. We *just concluded* the cold war in 1991.

You have not shown me that humans or the world have "solved" the problem of war. At this moment The United States is at war and has been at war for twelve years. The fact that the suffering of western soldier and third world civilian doesn't reach our comfortable living rooms doesn't mean it isn't happening.

I remind you also that every one of those instances you write was also true in the 1920s, yet western Europe still gave birth to death camps and human experimentation and all the rest of it. It didn't take much to get even the most civilized countries in Europe to do things they are now ashamed of. In the midst of our civilization, the darkness of the human heart was restrained only by a thin veneer of civilization. And the benefits of industrial civilization also allow us to bring about nightmares on a vast industrial scale.

For the moment, we've driven back the darkness and put it in check. You have not persuaded me that that darkness is not still there, waiting for the time and conditions to once again bring havoc on the world.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Chen]

You have not shown me that humans or the world have "solved" the problem of war. At this moment The United States is at war and has been at war for twelve years. The fact that the suffering of western soldier and third world civilian doesn't reach our comfortable living rooms doesn't mean it isn't happening.

They simply mentioned less people are dying in wars than they were in the past.

Looking at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_ toll

Even using absolute values it seems modern wars are definitely killing less people than wars in the past. Looking at it as a % of world population its even more drastically skewed towards wars in the past causing bigger death tolls.

[Tyndmyr]

You have not shown me that humans or the world have "solved" the problem of war. At this moment The United States is at war and has been at war for twelve years. The fact that the suffering of western soldier and third world civilian doesn't reach our comfortable living rooms doesn't mean it isn't happening.

We haven't solved war, per se, but it's gotten a lot better. Developed countries basically don't go to war with one another now. Of course, we still have it out with developing/undeveloped countries on a semi-regular basis, but even so, the scale of suffering, for us at least, is much diminished.

Ain't entirely gone, but some definite improvement.

[dps]

I'm not up for a detailed analysis of all points at this time , but this one in particular I question. If you factor in events from 1900 to 1950, the 20th century was the bloodiest century on record.


Yet even during that time period, despite the massive casualties of the 2 World Wars, we were progressing so rapidly in other areas that life expectancy was increasing dramatically.

[Jeff the Green]

And the benefits of industrial civilization also allow us to bring about nightmares on a vast industrial scale.

The thing is that you don't need industrial civilization to "bring about nightmares on a vast industrial scale." Let's look at the Holocaust, for example. It was made possible by the anti-semitism of Europe at the time and the existence of the train system. That's it.

In truth, the Holocaust had been going on for a long time before Hitler. It had hit a low point by the end of the 19th century, and Jews were starting to be better off. But before that, Jewish villages were destroyed regularly, Jews were lynched because of blood libel, they were kept from most occupations, and they were excluded from government positions.

And remember that "Never Again" has a good chance of being true. It was easy to ignore the pogroms of the past, just like it was easy to ignore the genocide of the Armenians, because there were no pictures. There were no testimonials that made it onto radio and television, because there were no radio and television. Hell, we didn't even have the word "genocide" before then.

There have, obviously, been genocides since WWII. But we've gotten better at dealing with them. Think about it. In 1492 genocide was a good thing to Europeans. We didn't believe in the Holocaust until the end of the war, remember? And we allowed the Germans to quash the Warsaw Uprising to placate Stalin. We stepped in in the Balkans. In Rwanda, Western leaders were excoriated for not doing anything. And most recently, in Sudan and Syria, we're actually doing something.

[Knaight]

The thing is that you don't need industrial civilization to "bring about nightmares on a vast industrial scale." Let's look at the Holocaust, for example.

A better example would be any of the notable civil wars in pre-modern China, particularly the Warring States and Three Kingdoms periods. These wars dropped population levels by about 40% in both cases, and they did so before the advent of firearms, explosive weapons, remotely modern vehicles, or basically anything even vaguely industrial, with the notable exception of centralized production facilities.

[Wardog]

A better example would be any of the notable civil wars in pre-modern China, particularly the Warring States and Three Kingdoms periods. These wars dropped population levels by about 40% in both cases, and they did so before the advent of firearms, explosive weapons, remotely modern vehicles, or basically anything even vaguely industrial, with the notable exception of centralized production facilities.

Or any of the cities exterminated by the Mongols to discourage others from resisting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Kiev_%281240%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Khwarezmia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_China

Also, someone mentioned that the US has been at war for 12 years. For much of history, a country being at war for 12 years (let alone 6+ years - "Longer than WW2!" seems to be a common measure of a war being too long) would be decidedly unremarkable. The main question such a war would prompt would probably be "how much loot have we got so far?"


The other important point to make is that pretty much all the terrible things happening in the world today also happened in the past. But a lot of the terrible things that happened in the past have been eliminated, or at least severly reduced.

[Jeff the Green]

Another thing to note is that while civilian deathcounts have been unacceptably high in America's recent wars, the military has recognized that fact and taken steps to reduce them. Not enough, in my opinion, but certainly more than in previous wars, like in WWIi when we firebombed Dresden or the Middle Ages when it was generally expected that the conquering army would exterminate a city's population.

[Asta Kask]

There were areas in Germany (e.g. Pomerania) that lost 75% of their population in the 30-years war. Some areas didn't recover fully until the 19th century.

[pendell]

Thought this was relevant (http://xkcd.com/1111/)

Tongue-in-cheek,

Brian P.

[Ravens_cry]

Thought this was relevant (http://xkcd.com/1111/)

Tongue-in-cheek,

Brian P.
I hope we as a species, in one form or another, live to see that day, and I hope, I pray, we find some way to save Earth.

[Thajocoth]

I hope we as a species, in one form or another, live to see that day, and I hope, I pray, we find some way to save Earth.

200 years ago, we thought bleeding was a cure for disease. Today there are people working on creating a warp drive. That's 200 years. We have 800 million more to go... We'll be okay, I'm sure of it.

[pendell]

I hope we as a species, in one form or another, live to see that day, and I hope, I pray, we find some way to save Earth.


Stop the sun from expanding to red giant phase? I suspect that might cause more problems than it solves.

The earth, like everything in this world, has a finite life span. If it and we live long enough, I say we emigrate to other planets and give it a proper send off when the time finally comes. You only say goodbye to the mother planet once EVER, after all. Should be a party to be remembered.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Grimsage Matt]

Humans can be nasty, brutish and cruel sure. But we're not living in the wild here. All the sounds you hear in the forest are animals desperately trying to get laid.* They're cold, almost always near starving, infested with parasites** and one step away from biting the proverbial biscuit.


*How is this any diffrent the modern day man:smallconfused: People do crazy things, driven on by base urges. People engage in meaningless flings and one night stands, spend small fourtunes on porn. Ya, we might be worse off then them poor critters, since they are not doing it just to fill a unfillable hole in their hearts.

** Modern sports teams, The Fashion & Beauty Industries, Politics, Cleberities. We never got rid of Parasites, they just started looking better.

[Frozen_Feet]

I hope we as a species, in one form or another, live to see that day, and I hope, I pray, we find some way to save Earth.

... by the time sun goes down, I believe all of that will be as moot as a point can be. Indeed, if by then we still have something vaguely qualifying as direct descendants, and they are still clinging to earth, I will be sorely disappointed.

Yes, my wording does indeed mean I intend to see it. :smalltongue:

[Asta Kask]

I hope we as a species, in one form or another, live to see that day, and I hope, I pray, we find some way to save Earth.

How can the net amount of entropy of the universe be massively decreased?

INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER.

[dps]

** Modern sports teams, The Fashion & Beauty Industries, Politics, Cleberities. We never got rid of Parasites, they just started looking better.

I really hope you're being tongue in cheek there, because the existance of the things you mention is nothing like the health problems faced by someone who does have some sort of parasitical infection.

[Knaight]

** Modern sports teams, The Fashion & Beauty Industries, Politics, Cleberities. We never got rid of Parasites, they just started looking better.
Somehow, these don't seem anywhere near as bad as serving as the host for a tapeworm, let alone any of the numerous parasites that are far worse. This is a false equivocation, and disingenuous in the extreme.