Is the Internet making us indifferent?

“A YouTube video of a mother being gang-raped in her home has prompted calls for tougher Internet laws.

The 25-year-old UK mother went to police last month after discovering a video of her three-minute ordeal had been viewed 600 times on the popular video-sharing website.

The video was only removed from the site at the request of a concerned user.

The mother claimed three teenage boys raped her and then urinated on her after spiking her drink last November.

The woman appears unconscious in the video as she is repeatedly raped. Her two young children are heard crying in another room and the youths are seen laughing into the camera during the incident.

"I was raped on film and you could hear my [two-year-old] daughter and four-year-old son crying," she was quoted by The Times as saying.

"Putting it on the Internet was an abomination… I cannot understand how any website could show such a thing."

Under UK law, sites that host videos posted by third parties must act "expeditiously" to remove them.

Politicians reviewing these laws are under pressure to allow authorities to prosecute sites if they host videos depicting assaults, according to the newspaper.

YouTube said users were prohibited from uploading content showing pornography but claims it is too difficult to review every video before it is posted.

"If the content breaks our terms then we remove it and if a user repeatedly breaks the rules we disable their account," a spokesman said.

Since the mother came forward police have begun investigating the incident and questioned three teenagers. “

Quoted from from: news.nineMSN.com.au, today.

You know, those who know me know it takes a lot to get me angry. I feel that I’m a rather calm person who’s, generally, capable of reasonable, clear and open thinking. This however, hasn’t made me just angry—it’s made me fucking red hot angry!

The crime itself just simply makes me want to vomit—preferably all over those fucking cowardly bastards before I hack their balls off with a rust knife to let the grovel and die in the gutter where they belong!

But what really disturbs me is that not one, not a dozen, not even one hundred, but over 600 people viewed this vile video clip before someone had the good sense and decency to flag it.

History shows us that our morals and standards are cyclical, yet never before have we had so much information available to us. Never before has pornography been so freely available, although certainly this goes way beyond simple (fictional/consensual) porn. So, can or will the moral compass ever swing back?

But is it the Internet per se that’s actually responsible for the deterioration of our morals? Or, is it perhaps the ridiculously lax attitude of those enforcing the laws governing this kind of thing in the first place that’s the problem? I mean, “"If the content breaks our terms then we remove it and if a user repeatedly breaks the rules we disable their account,”... I say, fuck that!! One strike and you’re out fuckwit!!!

(And, another thing, what if that video had been posted on this site, do you really think you'd be sitting here reading this if it had? Yes, size really does matter, doesn't' it?)

Are we, as a society, really becoming so indifferent towards sex and violence that this kind of real life horror is actually acceptable to so many?

And, finally, do you believe, as I do, that these young fuckwits should be castrated?

Excellant post, and I agree 1,000,000,000%,,hang em by their balls first though.

Be Well
T

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex Bragi

“A YouTube video of a mother being gang-raped in her home has prompted calls for tougher internet laws.

The 25-year-old UK mother went to police last month after discovering a video of her three-minute ordeal had been viewed 600 times on the popular video-sharing website.

The video was only removed from the site at the request of a concerned user.

The mother claimed three teenage boys raped her and then urinated on her after spiking her drink last November.

The woman appears unconscious in the video as she is repeatedly raped. Her two young children are heard crying in another room and the youths are seen laughing into the camera during the incident.

"I was raped on film and you could hear my [two-year-old] daughter and four-year-old son crying," she was quoted by The Times as saying.

"Putting it on the internet was an abomination… I cannot understand how any website could show such a thing."

Under UK law, sites that host videos posted by third parties must act "expeditiously" to remove them.

Politicians reviewing these laws are under pressure to allow authorities to prosecute sites if they host videos depicting assaults, according to the newspaper.

YouTube said users were prohibited from uploading content showing pornography but claims it is too difficult to review every video before it is posted.

"If the content breaks our terms then we remove it and if a user repeatedly breaks the rules we disable their account," a spokesman said.
Since the mother came forward police have begun investigating the incident and questioned three teenagers. “

Quoted from from: news.nineMSN.com.au, today.

You know, those who know me know it take a lot to get me angry. I feel that I’m a rather calm person who’s, generally, capable of reasonable, clear and open thinking. This however, hasn’t made me just angry—it’s made me fucking red hot angry!

The crime itself just simply makes me want to vomit—preferably all over those fucking cowardly bastards before I hack their balls off with a rust knife to let the grovel and die in the gutter where they belong!

But what really disturbs me is that not one, not a dozen, not even one hundred, but over 600 people viewed this vile video clip before someone had the good sense and decency to flag it.

History shows us that our morals and standards are cyclical, yet never before have we had so much information available to us. Never before has pornography been so freely available, although certainly this goes way beyond simple (fictional/consensual) porn. So, can or will the moral compass ever swing back?

But is it the internet per se that’s actually responsible for the deterioration of our morals? Or, is it perhaps the ridiculously lax attitude of those enforcing the laws governing this kind of thing in the first place that’s the problem? I mean, “"If the content breaks our terms then we remove it and if a user repeatedly breaks the rules we disable their account,”... I say, fuck that!! One strike and you’re out fuckwit!!!

(And, another thing, what if that video had been posted on this site, do you really think you'd be sitting here reading this if it had? Yes, size really does matter, doesnt' it?)

Are we, as a society, really becoming so indifferent towards sex and violence that this kind of real life horror is actually acceptable to so many?

And, finally, do you believe, as I do, that these young fuckwits should be castrated?

---

Casteration is far to fair for them i can not think of ANY punishment to justify what they dud except for what Torq suggested

Yes they have to have tighter rules for what can be posted on non adult web site, btw, who wns UTube Google, if so they should be ashamned ofthemselves for letting it on

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex Bragi

You know, those who know me know it takes a lot to get me angry. I feel that I’m a rather calm person who’s, generally, capable of reasonable, clear and open thinking. This however, hasn’t made me just angry—it’s made me fucking red hot angry!

---

So obviously our morals aren't deteriorating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex Bragi

The crime itself just simply makes me want to vomit—preferably all over those fucking cowardly bastards before I hack their balls off with a rust knife to let the grovel and die in the gutter where they belong!

But what really disturbs me is that not one, not a dozen, not even one hundred, but over 600 people viewed this vile video clip before someone had the good sense and decency to flag it.

---

This is the Internet and this is Youtube. Both are very popular. 600 people could have clicked it between the time the first viewer saw it and flagged it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex Bragi

History shows us that our morals and standards are cyclical, yet never before have we had so much information available to us. Never before has pornography been so freely available, although certainly this goes way beyond simple (fictional/consensual) porn. So, can or will the moral compass ever swing back?

---

I'm not so sure of that. What history does show is that moral values deteriorate in times of famine. But ever since about 1850 in the West, (1899 for Sweden) when famines were abolished, moral values seem to have been pretty constant. What changes is our demands on other people, or more specifically on how they display them. This is admittedly very hard to measure and psychologists didn't begin to do so systematically until the rise of behaviourism in the 1930'ies. It's a bit short time and quite a revolutionary period to draw any strong conclusions about anything regarding human morals.

But I'm with the geneticists. Human morals are intrinsic and are simply based on our ability to spread our genes while still surviving. Since we're basically pretty weak naked monkeys we need to cooperate. That's why humans are so kind to each other. We can't help showing compassion. Just like you displayed by making this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex Bragi

But is it the Internet per se that’s actually responsible for the deterioration of our morals? Or, is it perhaps the ridiculously lax attitude of those enforcing the laws governing this kind of thing in the first place that’s the problem? I mean, “"If the content breaks our terms then we remove it and if a user repeatedly breaks the rules we disable their account,”... I say, fuck that!! One strike and you’re out fuckwit!!!

---

I think that the only thing Internet is responsible for is educating us on the state of the world. If anything it makes us more caring and more compassionate. But instead of feeling sorry for the abstract entity of "starving children in Africa" we're feeling empathy for concrete people and are given tools to do something about it. I don't see that as a bad thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex Bragi

(And, another thing, what if that video had been posted on this site, do you really think you'd be sitting here reading this if it had? Yes, size really does matter, doesn't' it?)

Are we, as a society, really becoming so indifferent towards sex and violence that this kind of real life horror is actually acceptable to so many?

---

I don't think it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex Bragi

And, finally, do you believe, as I do, that these young fuckwits should be castrated?

---

Only a few years back scientists found the empathy centre in the brain. Linked to things like psychopathy. What they found our also was that this didn't develop fully in the brain until we're about 21-23. So it should be quite normal for young kids to display psychopathic behaviour.

This is also supported by the fact that 99% of all rapes are carried out by 15-19 year old boys. The statistics vary between reports, but very little.

Young kids need to be closely monitored. A part of being young is doing stupid shit. I never raped anyone but I've done plenty of horrific things in my youth I wouldn't be able to do today. Sure, my situation was pretty extreme. I do think these kids should be punished, but castration? What would that say about our morals?

I don't think its the internet, but a lack of fundamental teaching by parents. The priorities of those involved get so far out of whack, they don't pay attention to the consequences of their actions. My guess is these boys parents have not supervised them very well up to this point.

I view the Internet as possibly the greatest boon to education since the advent of the printing press. More people have availability to more information than ever before in the history of the world.

The problem is what we do with that information. In the context of the incident in question I see many problems.
1 - Why is it that the woman waited until AFTER the video was posted to report the rape? Yes, I know that rape victims tend to get a raw deal when they come out and file a report, but if they DON'T report it they are simply enabling their rapist(s) to carry on with his activities.

2 - How many people who viewed the video actually assumed it was a standard homemade porn video? The woman was drugged and non-responsive so there were no indications that she was fighting back. And those KINDS of videos are readily available almost anywhere on the web.

3 - It is obvious that YouTube is more concerned with the quantity of videos posted, since that affects their advertising revenues I assume, than in policing the videos when they are posted. If they reviewed videos BEFORE they were posted there would be a lot less problems. And a lot less money.

If this incident happened as reported, and I have no reason to believe it didn't (the Duke "rape" case has me a little leery of the media in these kinds of cases) then the kids involved do indeed deserve whatever punishment is meted out to them. A few years in an adult prison might give them some idea of what their victim endured. They would be sweet young meat for some of the regulars there!

But I don't think you can blame YouTube or the Internet for the morals of the world. A search back through history will show that there is very little going on now that hasn't happened before. The difference now is that the rapists, or other criminals, are so wrapped up in their own egos that they post evidence which can put them in prison! Taken in that context, places like YouTube actually perform a civic service, though I know that's not their purpose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom

Only a few years back scientists found the empathy centre in the brain. Linked to things like psychopathy. What they found our also was that this didn't develop fully in the brain until we're about 21-23. So it should be quite normal for young kids to display psychopathic behaviour.

This is also supported by the fact that 99% of all rapes are carried out by 15-19 year old boys. The statistics vary between reports, but very little.

Young kids need to be closely monitored. A part of being young is doing stupid shit. I never raped anyone but I've done plenty of horrific things in my youth I wouldn't be able to do today. Sure, my situation was pretty extreme. I do think these kids should be punished, but castration? What would that say about our morals? Only a few years back scientists found the empathy centre in the brain. Linked to things like psychopathy. What they found our also was that this didn't develop fully in the brain until we're about 21-23. So it should be quite normal for young kids to display psychopathic behaviour.

This is also supported by the fact that 99% of all rapes are carried out by 15-19 year old boys. The statistics vary between reports, but very little.

---

Interesting facts for sure, Tom.

Ok, so 99% of rapes are committed by 15 -19 year-olds but do 99% of all 15 -19 year-olds commit rape? Age does not, and can not, mitigate this most heinous of crimes. We're civilised human beings not animals acting on our basic instincts, not matter what age we are.

Let me ask you this: Do you think those snotty noised little bastards would think a little longer and harder about committing rape if they knew getting caught would mean they'd, quite literally, have to pay with their balls?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom

Young kids need to be closely monitored. A part of being young is doing stupid shit. I never raped anyone but I've done plenty of horrific things in my youth I wouldn't be able to do today. Sure, my situation was pretty extreme. I do think these kids should be punished, but castration? What would that say about our morals?

---

I think it would say that we consider the morals and well being of majority of our community, who are doing the right thing, to be more important than that of individuals who choose to do the wrong thing in committing this most heinous of crimes. And, that we are prepared to deter potential rapists in the strongest possible way.

However, I don't feel it's a moot point, since it's never going happen--not in my lifetime anyway.

I'm tending to agree with Tom's perspective.

Further, we have a knee-jerk reaction when we see something such as this, and I would point out our initial reaction is anything but indifferent. Our first impulse is to indeed lash out at the offenders.

But there is always two sides to every story. Before we string the kids up by their balls, let's be damned sure of all the circumstances.

What we as a society seem to actually be indifferent to is making sure parents are monitoring their children and are actually parenting them. Including those more affluent parents who apparently don't seem to have time for their kids.

I have the misfortune of knowing a family whose child did a murder. He was hounded by a bully. His girlfriend was raped by the bully. The bully bragged he would do it again and threatened his life. He's in adult prison, no parole. No prior record of any kind. It's made me rethink my attitude against juvenile leniency. Who's to blame? His parents? The bully's parents?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

...

But I don't think you can blame YouTube or the Internet for the morals of the world. A search back through history will show that there is very little going on now that hasn't happened before....

---

"O tempora, O mores!" - Oh, the times! Oh, the morals! (Cicero)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

...

I have the misfortune of knowing a family whose child did a murder. He was hounded by a bully. His girlfriend was raped by the bully. The bully bragged he would do it again and threatened his life. He's in adult prison, no parole. No prior record of any kind. It's made me rethink my attitude against juvenile leniency. Who's to blame? His parents? The bully's parents?

---

That's an extremely sad case, Oz, peppered with mitigating circumstances.

:eek: damn that just harsh.
on the subject of punishment. stumping should be implemented.
nail the boy's ball sacks to a tree stump and light it on fire. give them a dull spoon and the option of castration or death by immolation. after that burn their scalps off with lye and brand an "S" into their foreheads. honestly they may have been teens but they knew what they were doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex Bragi

Let me ask you this: Do you think those snotty noised little bastards would think a little longer and harder about committing rape if they knew getting caught would mean they'd, quite literally, have to pay with their balls?

---

I wonder if their parents might have been a little more attentive if their genitals were at risk for their kid's bad behavior.

It's not that I wish to make light of the crime. But maybe we, as a society, need to make Parenting a high-school course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

I wonder if their parents might have been a little more attentive if their genitals were at risk for their kid's bad behavior.

It's not that I wish to make light of the crime. But maybe we, as a society, need to make Parenting a high-school course.

---

Amen to that!!! The Internet has a plethora of benefits, but if misused can be equally as detrimental. Too many parents expect someone else (or thing such as Internet or video games or television) to look after their kids!!! Why have children if you don't plan to be involved with their lives!?!

How about making laws that require parents to be more responsible for their children's actions????

Oz, I don't know all of the facts in your friends' son's case, so I'm unsure as to how this one in particular would be affected if such laws were passed.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

I have the misfortune of knowing a family whose child did a murder. He was hounded by a bully. His girlfriend was raped by the bully. The bully bragged he would do it again and threatened his life. He's in adult prison, no parole. No prior record of any kind. It's made me rethink my attitude against juvenile leniency. Who's to blame? His parents? The bully's parents?

---

The first blame must go to the bully's parents, for sure. I would never tolerate that kind of attitude or behavior in one of my kids. And they knew it, too. In no uncertain terms.

But the state, or city, or community, must also shoulder a portion of the blame. In this country, at least, bullies seem to have the run of the streets, terrorizing their victims with impunity, rarely having to pay the price, until finally one of their victims snaps and takes him out! How can any jury convict a young man (I'm assuming a teenager?) who killed a rapist, one who bragged about it and threatened to do it again? Must we wait until someone dies before we act?

And a prosecuting attorney who would pull out all the stops to convict this boy and send him to prison for LIFE? I'm guessing here, but either it was an election year and the DA needed to show he was tough on criminals, or the bully's parents were well placed in the community. Perhaps wealthy contributors? Politically connected?

I know there are many people who believe that ALL human life is precious, and that taking a life is the ultimate crime, worthy of the harshest penalties. I believe that there are some people out there who are so evil that they deserve to be killed, especially if it's one of their victims who does the killing. It's a sad, sad world when people give more thought to the welfare of the criminals and bullies than to that of the victims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Isabelle90

Amen to that!!! The Internet has a plethora of benefits, but if misused can be equally as detrimental. Too many parents expect someone else (or thing such as Internet or video games or television) to look after their kids!!! Why have children if you don't plan to be involved with their lives!?!

How about making laws that require parents to be more responsible for their children's actions????

Oz, I don't know all of the facts in your friends' son's case, so I'm unsure as to how this one in particular would be affected if such laws were passed.....

---

It would have stopped the bully long ago... It would have made his parents responsible for his actions long before he became so belligerent that he attempted a rape... let alone threatening a repeat... let alone threatening this kid's life. Nothing can be done for an incident out of the blue... but if he hadn't been harangued by the bully's acts and threats, this kid would have been one of the good ones. His mistake was trying to deal with it on his own.

The downside from the kid's perspective is that his parents were separated and maybe if his dad was in the house he would have tried that venue... but he tried to shield his mom from that family and the potential that the bully would come after her too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

The first blame must go to the bully's parents, for sure. I would never tolerate that kind of attitude or behavior in one of my kids. And they knew it, too. In no uncertain terms.

---

The bully had a juvie record to boot... but the parents didn't seem to care until he was dead and now they're suing the school district... I don't know much more than that

Quote:

---

But the state, or city, or community, must also shoulder a portion of the blame. In this country, at least, bullies seem to have the run of the streets, terrorizing their victims with impunity, rarely having to pay the price, until finally one of their victims snaps and takes him out! How can any jury convict a young man (I'm assuming a teenager?) who killed a rapist, one who bragged about it and threatened to do it again? Must we wait until someone dies before we act?

---

That's in part due to the girl's parents not letting her report it AND making her recant after the murder... I think they feared she'd be named an accomplice. There was a second boy... and he was coerced to testify in exchange for a mere 27 year sentence.

Quote:

---

And a prosecuting attorney who would pull out all the stops to convict this boy and send him to prison for LIFE? I'm guessing here, but either it was an election year and the DA needed to show he was tough on criminals, or the bully's parents were well placed in the community. Perhaps wealthy contributors? Politically connected?

---

As I understand it... he was elected on a "tough on crime" platform and is prosecuting all questionable juveniles as adults. Unfortunately it was obvious that the murder was planned...

Quote:

---

I know there are many people who believe that ALL human life is precious, and that taking a life is the ultimate crime, worthy of the harshest penalties. I believe that there are some people out there who are so evil that they deserve to be killed, especially if it's one of their victims who does the killing. It's a sad, sad world when people give more thought to the welfare of the criminals and bullies than to that of the victims.

---

As I said, because I know the family and the kind of kid he was... I'm really conflicted about my previous no-leniency stance. It's just not a cut and dry issue for me anymore.

Hello All~

What another Horrific Thing! <grimace>.

I don't blame UTube though. They offer a Free Sevice. I don't know for sure, but I don't think the place was intended/created for stuff like this that happened. Nearly any site has ways to Report Problems, or Violations of Their Policies. And given that U-Tube is widespread, 600 PPL while it sounds like a lot, and Is a lot of PPL, I'm sure it's not for That Site. I wonder what the other 599 PPL thought? Maybe that it wasn't even Real? Fortunately *Someone* was disturbed enough by it to Report it.

Maybe the internet does help create indifference to such things? And others. These days children, and PPL everywhere pretty much have free access to the internet, where they spend hours upon hours, talking with PPL they don't know, playing games, reading and seeing things that maybe they shouldn't be? Nearly everyone has a computer these days. Who is not influenced in some way by what they see and read and hear? The internet also has the annonminity factor that a child or anyone else can Do Be Say Anything while on the net.

I think the net offers a lot of positives, but that it has as many negatives also.

Too Many children today (because of a need for 2 income households just to survive in today's economy, and split Family's) are left to do what they will, with no Caretaker to Teach, Supervise, and watchover them, and what they do.

I've also noticed that younger children are doing more horrific things, than in the past. It seems there is a lack of Supervision and Guidance for many of today's children. And then taking away of Authoritative Power (tying their hands), from Parents, Teachers, and Other's, by the Government, has done a lot to harm Society as a whole, by Allowing children to *just get away with it* (whatever IT is). I've also heard many children say what the laws will or won't do about things they do, because of their age. AND they find that quite hilarious <sighs>. Most of them already Know just how much Time they will do for what. And they have no fear or concern about it at all.

At the same time there is children, such as the child Known by Ozme, who is suffering for Trying to Protect himself and the PPL he Loves, from one of the type of children I wrote about above. When Those who are Supposed to make others abide by the Laws Don't, what the heck is someone to do? Granted, this child made a very poor Choice by killing the other child. At the same time, he was Also a Child.

I don't think, and in my experience with children (and I have a lot of it) that children think, realize, or reason, the way adult PPL do. They lack Experience and adult Judgement in deciphering things. They many times think themselves 10 foot tall and bulletproof, and they aren't.

There should perhaps be Levels of punishment for children? And psychologicals done on them before a punishment is handed down, to determine Why it happened. And consideration of that child's Criminal past also. Before determining a child should be Caged for the rest of their Life. Sometimes there are extenuating circumstances, like the child Ozme Knows.

Children like the ones that this thread was started about, were nearly adult in age, by most Laws, most places. Dunno about England? And I do think should be Judged as such, based on the hieniessness of what they did to another Human Being.

I Always think the punishment should fit the crime! And too many times it doesn't.

At the same time, I am Very For the Punishment handed down Being what one did. Rape=Be Raped. Kill=Be Killed. Maim=Be Maimed. etc. If PPL Knew they were going to suffer the same thing they did to someone else, they might not be in such a hurry to do it?

Also when found Guilty by a Court of Law, I think the perp should be handed over to the victim for punishment, or the Family of the victim if the victim did not survive.

Just Me and My Opinion's and Thoughts on such things.

Respectfully~Suni

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex Bragi

Interesting facts for sure, Tom.

Ok, so 99% of rapes are committed by 15 -19 year-olds but do 99% of all 15 -19 year-olds commit rape? Age does not, and can not, mitigate this most heinous of crimes. We're civilised human beings not animals acting on our basic instincts, not matter what age we are.

---

I agree that a thing like rape is pretty far off the deep end. But this I'm guessing is a cultural thing. It has to do with what adult behavioiur kids are trying to emulate and how they interpret the background of this behaviour. Adults rarely do what they say.

In Sweden we have to deal with the fact that a distressing majority of all sexual assaults are carried out by young Middle Eastern immigrants and/or children of Middle Eastern immigrants. I think we can be fairly confident that none of their parents incite them or even tell their kids that rape is ok. This is an issue with how cultural values and tacit rules are transferred to our young. There's obviously a cultural mismatch between how the Middle Eastern kids in the Middle Easterners are kept in line and ethnically Middle Eastern kids in Sweden. I have no idea how common rape is in the Middle East, (there are no reliable statistics) but I personally, am pretty confident no culture condones rape and I'd be very surprised if it was high over there.

Here's the question: who's fault is it that these Middle Eastern kids haven't been taught how to behave when in Sweden? Who's fault it is that a young kid hasn't learned acceptable social boundaries? It seems obvious that there's a problem, but is it only their fault? Will castration solve this problem? Of course we should punish them to let them know they've done wrong. I'm not taking away blame from the kids. I'm a strong believer in punishing the one who did the crime and not society. But I've got no illusions about this not being a solution. As far as I'm concerned it's only consolation for the victims.

I don't have a good answer for a quick solution. I'm assuming it'll sort itself out in time. As has always happened when cultures collide. We take the best bits from both, reject the rest and create a new improved amalgam culture. The constant machinery of civilisation building. I think the best/only way to combat it is simply to be publicly horrified, just like you are doing now with this thread. Right now, you and I and everybody else reading this thread is changing our culture. Refining and updating it. Letting people know your strong opinions on the matter in casual conversation.

I'm convinced we can't punish ourselves out of this hole in an instant. By turning to harsher punishments and bringing down the law as hard as we can, all our prior experience, (ie science) tells us that what we'll get is not only simply poor and Middle Eastern people with a severe criminal record marginalising them further, but also perpetuating the behaviour we're trying to solve with the punishment. People just don't react to punishment like we seem to hope they'll do. It may be logical, but it isn't human nature. If we identify with being anti-establishment we'll keep being anti until the time when establishment feels like including us. The worst thing that can happen is that they feel persecuted as a group. Then we can be sure they'll never address it, since that would be tantamount to admitting some kind of racial inferiority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex Bragi

Let me ask you this: Do you think those snotty noised little bastards would think a little longer and harder about committing rape if they knew getting caught would mean they'd, quite literally, have to pay with their balls?

---

This old argument. Nobody commits a crime if they think they might get caught. No culture has ever condoned rape. The stigma alone of being outed as a rapist in circles beyond ones closest friends, I'm sure is a lot harsher than any prison sentence or punishment will ever be. Compare it to wife-beating. It's still going strong all over the world, in spite of the stigma attached. Nobody respects a wife beater. Just like nobody ever respects a rapist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex Bragi

I think it would say that we consider the morals and well being of majority of our community, who are doing the right thing, to be more important than that of individuals who choose to do the wrong thing in committing this most heinous of crimes. And, that we are prepared to deter potential rapists in the strongest possible way.

However, I don't feel it's a moot point, since it's never going happen--not in my lifetime anyway.

---

I agree we should do what we can to prevent rape. I'm sure we'll all agree that the right not to have sex should be universal. But harsh punishments only seem to work as deterrents against people who wouldn't have done it anyway. As always it's very complicated once we start scraping at the surface.

,,,

f**k castration bring back the death sentence!

no not really i dont think thats something i could support although it does make me feel that way at times
it wouldnt deter anyone neither would castration if people are naturally inclined that way then given the right circumstances then they're very often going to act on it.

there are always going to be sickos that search for those type of movies but they can also get a thrill out of reading lurid descriptions in newspapers,just as others get a kick out of reading porn literature.

to answer the OP i would say that no the internet doesnt makes us more indifferent if anything its probably the opposite,its things like this that can really hit home and hopefully have an impact on the ''it will never happen to me'' attitude that people often have.
theres a much higher percentage of educational info and support groups out there than there is that crap

but unfortunately the internet does and probably always will give people more access to sick shit like that.

I suppose the internet is only mirroring what is going on out there in the world.

More effort has to be put into catching and punishing the perpetrators rather than blaming the method they used to broadcast their sick act.

I have a theory that the human race is deteriorating due to the lack of selective breeding.

Simply put, I believe the wrong sort of people are breeding out of proportion, largely due to the need for cannon & factory fodder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tojo

I have a theory that the human race is deteriorating due to the lack of selective breeding.

Simply put, I believe the wrong sort of people are breeding out of proportion, largely due to the need for cannon & factory fodder.

---

It's not just a theory. Our invention of medicine, hospitals and aid for the handicapped has hampered selective breeding quite a bit. I'm not sure what you mean with cannon and factory fodder? Our brains have probably not changed much since 30 000 years. Evolution doesn't work that fast. Sure, there's been adaptions. But nothing measurable. The genetic errors that are increasing is the errors that prevent an unaided human to survive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden

It's not just a theory. Our invention of medicine, hospitals and aid for the handicapped has hampered selective breeding quite a bit. I'm not sure what you mean with cannon and factory fodder? Our brains have probably not changed much since 30 000 years. Evolution doesn't work that fast. Sure, there's been adaptions. But nothing measurable. The genetic errors that are increasing is the errors that prevent an unaided human to survive.

---

Not sure I like the term "selective breeding." It brings up thoughts of the Nazi effort to create a super race. But if you mean "natural selection" then I have to agree with you. People who, even 100 years ago, would have died in infancy or childhood, are living at least long enough to procreate, tending to infuse defective genes into the pool. We therefore have more and more people dependent upon medical intervention for their survival, placing an increasing burden upon the medical resources, causing an increase in cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tojo

Simply put, I believe the wrong sort of people are breeding out of proportion, largely due to the need for cannon & factory fodder.

---

This really scares me! What do you consider "the wrong sort of people?" People who are not like you? And for most of the world, cannon fodder is a thing of the past. Modern warfare requires much less brawn and a lot more brain. The same with "factory fodder." Routine drudgery is being taken over by automation, requiring fewer people to sit at a machine all day doing one simple task. Of course, then you have more people sitting around their homes watching the idiot box all day, unable to find simple jobs which won't tax their minds, putting a burden on the welfare system.

I don't think that this phenomenon (lots of people watching a crime and not doing anything about it) is caused by the Internet. It's often known as the Bystander Effect, or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility">Diffusion of Responsibility</i>, and the most famous case in the US was the rape and murder of Kitty Genovese in 1964. Simply put, people in a large crowd are actually less likely to call the police or intervene, because they assume that someone else will do it. Probably all 600 YouTube viewers were thinking "someone else must have already notified the police about this," when in reality none of them had.

If this crime had happened in the US, where I live, and the rapists had been caught and convicted, it's possible that they would get the death penalty. Personally, I don't agree with that. The crime that they committed was terrible, but I don't think that killing them would do anything to mitigate the damage done to this woman and her family. I think that society should look for ways to rehabilitate criminals rather than simply punishing them.

double post

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

Not sure I like the term "selective breeding." It brings up thoughts of the Nazi effort to create a super race. But if you mean "natural selection" then I have to agree with you. People who, even 100 years ago, would have died in infancy or childhood, are living at least long enough to procreate, tending to infuse defective genes into the pool. We therefore have more and more people dependent upon medical intervention for their survival, placing an increasing burden upon the medical resources, causing an increase in cost.

---

The term is "Eugenics".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

The Nazi's gave it a lot of bad press. It was very trendy at the start of the 20'th century. The Nazi's took the idea of Eugenics and coupled it with the assumption that there exists a perfect human. As if there was an original perfect human race that has been diluted through interbreeding. But these are two completely different theories. The first one is up for debate but the second one is just plain daft. There's never been the slimmest of scientific support for it ever. It's as stupid as New Age and Phrenology.

I'm a big fan of Eugenics, for the simple reason that I think we have to.

What we're doing now is breeding humans for increased amounts of genetic errors. What an error is, is a debate in itself. Let's just call it "traits all humans would rather avoid". Things like short sightedness. It has no useful function for anybody, and is a pure nuisance. We're compensating for the increased number of errors with medicines and aid to the handicapped. Like glasses for instance, negating the handicap, and therefore spreading the defective gene. When 8000 years ago, short sightedness would have led to death, killing off the gene for good. If this keeps going, a thousand years from now we'll all have a number of genetic defects that will make us dependent on a number of gadgets for us to at all survive and breed. I don't see that as a positive development.

The error in thinking is that if we don't employ eugenics, that our bodies will remain the same, as if there's a natural state for humans. Some sort of equilibrium. As if God created us. We now know that, this is not how it works. All species and life is in constant flux. We're always evolving and adapting. A little bit for every generation. The question is, what? What is it that humanity is adapting to?

I think we should take matters into our own hands. I think we should use Eugenics and create perfect little designer babies with the looks and traits of our choice. If we're going to evolve no matter what, we might as well decide the direction of the evolution. Eugenics is the key.

Interesting post, Tom. Thanks. :)

That's just disgusting, I really do think that there seems to be a lack of care about people now ... maybe it was always there though and it's just broad-casted more now, but either way there is still no excuse for that kind of behavior.

Personally though, I think it's getting worse; the things you hear about now are horrible - like curb-stomping, and the whole gang culture.

I've heard a story of a pregnant women being beaten so badly her baby died, even after she told her attackers she was pregnant, they replied "you won't be by the time we're finished."

One of the worst I've heard is this though:


"Disabled Miss Lakinski had collapsed on Jobson Street, Hartlepool, as she returned home from visiting a friend on July 26 this year.
But instead of helping her, Teesside Crown Court heard how Anderson called her a smackhead, emptied a bowl of water on her head and covered her in shaving foam.
The final humiliation came when vile Anderson urinated over Miss Lakinski while his friend filmed it on a mobile phone.
Judge Peter Fox, the Recorder of Middlesbrough, said: "You gave her a kick on the foot and went to get a bowl of water and threw it over her.
"And then you plumbed the depths of degredation by urinating all over her while your friend recorded it on his mobile phone, which you and your mates thought was funny.
"During this despicable act which lasted half an hour you went back into your house and equipped yourself with shaving foam and returned to spread that all over her.
As he did so, Anderson shouted: "This is YouTube material."
"To make matters worse you then went and got ready to go out to the nightclub, leaving her there.
Mrs Dalton said: "Although the actions of the defendant were not contributory to her death, his appalling behaviour robbed her of any dignity in the last hours of her life."


The most horrible thing is that in the end he was only jailed for 3 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden

I think we should take matters into our own hands. I think we should use Eugenics and create perfect little designer babies with the looks and traits of our choice. If we're going to evolve no matter what, we might as well decide the direction of the evolution. Eugenics is the key.

---

That's all well and good, but who decides what "perfect" is? You? Your wife? Or shall we just let the State (whichever government is in power) determine that for you? Maybe force all citizens to have only children with Conservative tendencies? (Substitute a political party from your own country.)

And do we REQUIRE people to submit to a Eugenics bureau whenever they wish to have children? And destroy any children which are born without the boards stamp of approval? No, that road leads to madness. Let's keep it to the old-fashioned way.

That being said, though, I do agree that there are far too many people who are kept alive artificially, who would not be able to survive on their own, yet are quite capable of having children. This does, indeed, pollute the gene pool, and also places an enormous financial burden on taxpayers. I don't know what the solution could be, though. Forced sterilization is one possible treatment, but one I'm not willing to allow. We again run into the problem of who decides. Do we really want a government bureaucracy to determine whether a person needs to be sterilized? I don't think so!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

That's all well and good, but who decides what "perfect" is? You? Your wife?

---

Who decides how children should be brought up? These kinds of conflicts will sort themselves out like they've always be done. With loud argumentation and crockery projectiles. I'm sure there will be trends just like we have with clothes today. I'm sure there's nothing to worry about.

The most important thing to keep in mind is that this will happen, whether we want it or not. If not legally, then illegally. Parents strong wishes to have a healthy child just like they've dreamed of, will trump anything any government or moral opinion could say anything about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

Or shall we just let the State (whichever government is in power) determine that for you? Maybe force all citizens to have only children with Conservative tendencies? (Substitute a political party from your own country.)

And do we REQUIRE people to submit to a Eugenics bureau whenever they wish to have children? And destroy any children which are born without the boards stamp of approval? No, that road leads to madness. Let's keep it to the old-fashioned way.

That being said, though, I do agree that there are far too many people who are kept alive artificially, who would not be able to survive on their own, yet are quite capable of having children. This does, indeed, pollute the gene pool, and also places an enormous financial burden on taxpayers. I don't know what the solution could be, though. Forced sterilization is one possible treatment, but one I'm not willing to allow. We again run into the problem of who decides. Do we really want a government bureaucracy to determine whether a person needs to be sterilized? I don't think so!

---

He he. You're still mixing up the subject of eugenics with Nazi practices. This can all be put down as paranoid ramblings that will never happen...again. Because nobody would want it. Democracy is good that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden

Who decides how children should be brought up? These kinds of conflicts will sort themselves out like they've always be done. With loud argumentation and crockery projectiles. I'm sure there will be trends just like we have with clothes today. I'm sure there's nothing to worry about.

---

Yes, it will start that way. A fashion statement by the rich, designer children at exorbitant cost to satisfy exorbitant egos. But as the technology becomes more prevalent and the costs start to drop it will spread slowly to the middle class. Once that happens the governments will step in.

Quote:

---

The most important thing to keep in mind is that this will happen, whether we want it or not. If not legally, then illegally. Parents strong wishes to have a healthy child just like they've dreamed of, will trump anything any government or moral opinion could say anything about.

---

Healthy, yes. I'm not disputing that. But there is more involved in genetics than just healthy. The ongoing debate between "Nature or Nurture" will take on new urgency as parents, or governments, try to weed out "undesirable" elements from their offspring. And once again I must ask, who decides what is undesirable?

Quote:

---

He he. You're still mixing up the subject of eugenics with Nazi practices. This can all be put down as paranoid ramblings that will never happen...again. Because nobody would want it. Democracy is good that way.

---

And that is how it WILL happen...again! Democracy is also good at allowing the worst aspects of humanity (by my definition, anyway) to flourish. But it is in the more autocratic governments that the worst abuses will probably arise. States run by ego maniacal dictators, or by religious fanatics. No, we must never assume that something cannot happen just because we don't want it to happen. We must be aware of what's happening and keep vigilant to prevent suck things. Having healthy children is one thing. Having healthy boys (or girls) because that's what the State decrees is another. And NOT having children because you are the wrong color, or religion, or because someone in a musty little office somewhere has decided that your genome is not acceptable, is something else entirely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex Bragi

Interesting facts for sure, Tom.

Ok, so 99% of rapes are committed by 15 -19 year-olds but do 99% of all 15 -19 year-olds commit rape? Age does not, and can not, mitigate this most heinous of crimes. We're civilised human beings not animals acting on our basic instincts, not matter what age we are.

Let me ask you this: Do you think those snotty noised little bastards would think a little longer and harder about committing rape if they knew getting caught would mean they'd, quite literally, have to pay with their balls?

---

Ok, you asked Tom this, but I hope it's okay if I post a few words in response to your question.

While I am in enthusiastic agreement that the crime committed is indeed an atrocity to be dealt with severely, Tom has nailed the heart of the matter to the wall yet again-- the fact that the frontal lobe in these youths has not yet developed fully does explain why they did what they did. This physiological truth doesn't justify the rape in any way. It only tells us why teens can be so uncivilized at times. After all, the basic instinct portion of the brain does develop first.

On the other hand (or hemisphere, in this case), the frontal lobe is the very last region of the brain to develop, and doesn't do so, as Tom said, until the age of 25, give or take. Like any growth pattern, for some it's a bit sooner, for others, later. (Others, maybe never? That's yet to be determined and is a-whole-nother discussion.) Anyway, since the prefrontal circuit of the frontal lobe is the brain's CEO, as it were, its responsibilities are many. This area manages emotional impulses in socially appropriate ways, including empathetic and altruistic behaviors. It organizes responses to complex problems and searches memory for relevant experience. Hence, its incompleteness in teens allows for an alarming lack of ability to behave properly in most any given social situation.

So to answer your question, no, these snotty nosed little bastards probably wouldn't think a little longer before raping, even if they knew the dire consequences (and especially not with the mob-mentality mindset these three were sporting). They wouldn't because they simply have not developed the ability to do so yet. Oh sure, they'd cry and beg for mercy if handed down a sentence of castration, because the part of the brain that processes that fearful information,the amygdala, develops in early childhood. But telling these yet-to-be-refined-frontal-lobed teens beforehand that castration would be the end result of their behavior wouldn't be much of a deterrent. In fact, most times out of 10, they'd still go ahead with the improper act. It shouldn't make sense, but given the brain information we have, it actually does.

It shouldn't absolve them of the ramifications of said acts, however, despite what a few radicals are trying to propose. It merely points out the great need to keep a close watch on what teens are doing. Even at eighteen, they just aren't ready to be cut loose and left to fend and decide for themselves. At that age, however, they are quite ready to be guided and instructed by competent and caring adults that wants to assist in training that developing brain. Sadly, that's not happening too much. I have my opinions on why that is, but no real answers.

Maybe this indifference to our youth explains why the rape video was viewed 600 times before one lone soul came along to report it. One too many generations of people erroneously believing that because a teen can drive, said youth is ready to face the world and everything in it may just be the answer to this query of yours, Alex. Maybe we aren't so apathetic to the sexual violence we come across. Maybe it's that we're a bit too indifferent (or too busy or too distracted or too unconcerned...too uninformed, perhaps?) to the developing needs of the youth in our lives, and we're allowing them to go out into the big, bad world before they're ready, despite what teens believe and what adults want to conveniently think?

Maybe. It's just a thought.

:wave:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

Yes, it will start that way. A fashion statement by the rich, designer children at exorbitant cost to satisfy exorbitant egos. But as the technology becomes more prevalent and the costs start to drop it will spread slowly to the middle class. Once that happens the governments will step in.

---

Why would the state step in? Parenthood is such a strong instinct, that I think regulation would be irrelevant. Even if they'd tried, nothing would change. Like it is with prostitution. The regulation doesn't change the behaviour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

Healthy, yes. I'm not disputing that. But there is more involved in genetics than just healthy. The ongoing debate between "Nature or Nurture" will take on new urgency as parents, or governments, try to weed out "undesirable" elements from their offspring. And once again I must ask, who decides what is undesirable?

---

Since the brightest minds today are debating this, I doubt we'll sort it out in this thread. It'll be interesting. But it doesn't really enter into the equation. If instincts can be modified with genetic engineering, we will. If not, we won't. The important thing to keep in mind is all the time, that the government would be powerless to regulate it. All it needs is one liberal country in the world, and then everybody would go there to have their babies designed. And we can be pretty sure that South Korea will never relinquish it's ultra liberal stance on this for any foreseeable future. Compare it to the abortion debate. In countries where abortion where regulated, the rich went abroad. Only the absolute poorest are ever impacted by the regulation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

And that is how it WILL happen...again!

---

I'll believe it when I see it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

Democracy is also good at allowing the worst aspects of humanity (by my definition, anyway) to flourish.

---

I agree, and that is why I like democracy. All extreme governmental systems are kept best in check in the open where they can be easily compared and evaluated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

But it is in the more autocratic governments that the worst abuses will probably arise. States run by ego maniacal dictators, or by religious fanatics. No, we must never assume that something cannot happen just because we don't want it to happen. We must be aware of what's happening and keep vigilant to prevent suck things. Having healthy children is one thing. Having healthy boys (or girls) because that's what the State decrees is another. And NOT having children because you are the wrong color, or religion, or because someone in a musty little office somewhere has decided that your genome is not acceptable, is something else entirely.

---

Probably. But then again. Aren't they guilty of the most vile human rights abuses already? How can it get any worse? Wouldn't this just be another in a long list? The Chinese might engineer their perfect communist citizen who isn't actually a greedy bastard, like the rest of us :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tessa

Maybe it's that we're a bit too indifferent (or too busy or too distracted or too unconcerned...too uninformed, perhaps?) to the developing needs of the youth in our lives, and we're allowing them to go out into the big, bad world before they're ready, despite what teens believe and what adults want to conveniently think?

Maybe. It's just a thought.
:wave:

---

Thanks for this informed back up. Who's ever ready for life? Every time I think I'm on top of things, it hits me in the face :) I pay my bills. It's a humble goal in life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden

Thanks for this informed back up.

---

You don't need any back up ever, but thanks for saying it was informed.

:wave: