Dealing With Violence And Threats

[Sonthert]

To Giant Ninja Robot:

What I am saying is I don't think Neil's a threatening person. I've tangled with a lot of dangerous people in my life, and me living another day or dying on a sidewalk depended on my ability to assess the risk someone posed. I'm saying, he talks a lot of shit, but I haven't seen clear indications of him being dangerous. I'm saying I don't believe Frank should let it affect his life too much. Call the Police, get a restraining order, all good ideas, but I wouldn't lose sleep over it.

How is it then, in this age of the Baby-Sitter State, though do you explain more and more mass shootings? Are the shootings a result of a Baby-Sitter State or people's unwillingness to deal with other people directly? Either way, I think dealing with a problem amongst ourselves first is the best policy, before pressing buttons and involving authorities. I understand Frank's perspective and I think he's handling things perfectly right, from what he's said. I think, on the other hand, from what you're saying, worrying about anybody making a threat is over-reacting. If people took an active involvement in their society, maybe there would be fewer killings in society, maybe fewer killing sprees. What we're doing now isn't working too well. Maybe going back a few steps is a good idea, maybe approaching how we deal with threats and violence differently is a good idea, too. Is taking all threats seriously going to escalate or deescalate violence? I think escalate. Why do people make threats? To get attention and to get at other people, rattle them. People who make threats to get attention, if treated like pariahs, will just alienate them more, People who do it to bother or rattle others will get more utility from everyone becoming alarmed at their threat and be more likely to do it again. We should all work to become better at assessing risks. I'm pretty good, I think. I'm trying to reassure Frank, tell him its OK, and we're running around raising his stress level saying we should take all threats seriously...why? If you don't believe my perspective, why did Neil react so positively the way I handled it?

Any day you die is a bad day, that bad day will come eventually. I personally would rather die after living a large life, living each moment and sucking the juice out of each last piece. What's true with animals is true with humans (since we are animals, too), I believe. If you show fear, you're more likely to be attacked...

I've seen people just before they killed other people, outside of war, of course. Their mental state is quite unique, at least the two I knew. When their minds come to a fine razor edge that makes killing person or persons change from a moral question to a necessary activity and cross over that frontier, you can see it. Thats all I can tell you. Lots of people make threats, few follow through. There's a reason for that. Its not easy to kill a human being. Most people have thought or think about killing other people, but some people say whatever's on their mind, like Neil. People often think or say things they have no intention of doing...or lack resolve to actually do.

Just my thoughts.

What do you think?

[Charley]

How is it then, in this age of the Baby-Sitter State, though do you explain more and more mass shootings? Are the shootings a result of a Baby-Sitter State or people's unwillingness to deal with other people directly?

It is our culture now. kids grow up watching violent movies, listening to songs about smakin biotches up and puttin a cap in that (word I will not even degrade myself by saying) ass. playing video games where you sell nht products steal cars and go on mass killing sprees with flame throwers with no consequences.

now I am not knocking any of these they are entertainment. shows music and video games of the past were just as good at teaching kids bad stuff they just didnt show it in as much detail. (hell I could wipe out a city block with some of the shit I learned from Macgyver.) I do not blame the entertainment I blame the self adsorbed to busy to deal with my kids parents that seemed to start popping up when my generation was young. It is there job to make sure there kids know that that it is entertainment not real life. first words out of my moms mouth when Richard Dean Anderson filled his bikes frame with black powder and a stuck cannon fuse in it before riding it into the bad guys was "you know thats a bad idea right? if the bike dosent kill you Ill beat you silly till the ambulance gets here."

In short teach your kids right and you can play a first person shooter with them all day long instead of watching them play a real life version of it on the news.

[Sonthert]

Canadians watch the same stuff we do, more or less, have more guns per capita and a lot less homicides. I don't think the media is entirely to blame. A little.

[Charley]

reread my post I did not blame the media I blamed the parents for not telling there kids that thats entertainment not real life.

[Scoop]

I have never responded seriously to a thread but I will here.

In response to Charley's post...that is what I basically do at work, research on that very topic. I've come up with my own conclusions on the topic. Three problems exist within the debate in my eyes.

Who to blame, what causes the problem, and what to do.

To me the issue is both nature and nurture. I generally feel that dumber people are having more children while the smarter ones are having less; to me intelligence is partially genetic (while research agrees, the percent I give is a bit higher). However, intelligence is only one aspect. Parenting is definitely huge. Whether rich or poor, bad parenting will devastate your child. Children need attention, understanding, sympathy, advice and direction. TV dinners and 2 hours of parental conversation a week simply does not help develop a self-identity. Without a self-identity, it is much easier to simply to fall into what i'd call a "weakened state of mind"; leading to drugs, violence, etc etc. Being too rich simply allows the parents to buy their children's happiness, rather than do it the right way. Being too poor (and possibly having too many kids) does not allow the parents to be in a good mindset to help the child grow (how many happy, proud, and knowledgeable piss-poor people do you know? i'm not saying they don't exist but in general...). Hell, even being middle-class parents can destroy a child's psyche. The child can be used as a tool in which the parents live vicariously through the child; usually involving burdening the child with their dreams and aspirations through constant pressure.

Now, if the child is both genetically dumb, and does not have a well established self-identity, potential problems exist. There are a ton of psychological disorders that can be developed during this time as well.

Compound that with a terrible education system. It does not develop a child's mind properly, it teaches you to follow work orders, punishes you for trying, and disallows free thought. In addition, homework is busy work that keeps you focused on working even after school. It seems the education system is formed around work during periodical parts of the day, separated by bells and whistles (allowing a single break, for lunch) and only ending when the sun goes down. Outside of going to school, homework, tv, video games...when does a child get the time they need to develop a self-identity (ever notice how teachers always give you an extra heavy load during the weekends).

Continuing this idea, politics have made this debate far worse. You have a group of dumb parents, who simply do not get it and have no idea what is wrong, another group of people making money on the process in the form of entertainment (which I see nothing wrong with as I played mortal kombat and other violent games and I turned out alright), and yet a third group on a righteous crusade to avenge the parents and attack those that make their money on such "sins". I heavily researched adolescent violence and video games; what I found was that research presented to congress during the debate was basically forged. Due to the publicity and HUGE grant money involved, research was, for the lack of a better word, made-up to fit the model some politicians wanted. The presented facts were never published in scholarly journals, yet used by congress lol...After being quickly disillusioned by this, I found tons of research that has been presented in scholarly journals which confirmed my belief that (bluntly put) "as long as your children have been raised even remotely ok, they will be fine playing games". Its much more complex than this, but in a simple sentence this will do. What I would say is don't let video games raise your kids, especially if they already lack a self-identity, it can lead to trouble (however I lay no blame on the entertainment).

The message to anyone who is smart enough to see it is: Let's not blame the parents, they vote for us, let's blame the creators of the entertainment. This is a sad state of affairs.

In summation, you have a growing number of dumb children, a growing number of dumb parents and an education system that is troubling to think about and a clear message from politicians that says "it's not your fault, they were fine before they listened to the music and played the video games and watched the TV". This is very scary. It takes away from your freedom and creative freedom of entertainment and places blame in all the wrong spots.

Enough rambling. I really would love to develop the topic further and links articles however it doesn't seem that I'm even on topic. Maybe another time when my workload is smaller.

[Voski]

Just to add on to what Scoop said I have noticed that when I try to do schoolwork during the morning it just doesn't feel right. I am only comfortable doing it after class or during the night. I never thought that doing homework after school for so many years would have had any affect.

[BBKakes]

This is obviously easier said than done, but my thoughts are that the system needs a complete overhaul. If laws and its enforcement were taken seriously, I think we'd see a change in the demeanor of people like Neal. Much like the freeways, medical facilites, and the DMV (which argubly is home to sick people as well), law and law enforcement are built on antiquated foundations that did not contemplate the volume or severity of crimes that are found in our society today. I'm not talking about increases in the Death Penalty or anything like that to "flush the backlog" out, but essentially, a redo. Granted, this takes us back to the first sentence of my response. Because we're dealing with governmental and political entities, this means that by the time anything that was proposed as effective becomes policy or legislature, there'll be enough of a time lag along with added political pork to nullify its original intenet.

This means we have to rely on ourselves (as people are alluding to above) in the world to handle people like this. I agree with Sontherts thoughts on giving these people the attention that they are looking for. No matter where you are (or what you are), if the enemy smells fear, they will try to undermine you. If you show no fear, they'll find someone who will. Edited April 24, 2009 by BBKakes

[judgeposer]

How is it then, in this age of the Baby-Sitter State, though do you explain more and more mass shootings? Are the shootings a result of a Baby-Sitter State or people's unwillingness to deal with other people directly? Either way, I think dealing with a problem amongst ourselves first is the best policy, before pressing buttons and involving authorities. . . . If people took an active involvement in their society, maybe there would be fewer killings in society, maybe fewer killing sprees. What we're doing now isn't working too well. Maybe going back a few steps is a good idea, maybe approaching how we deal with threats and violence differently is a good idea, too. Is taking all threats seriously going to escalate or deescalate violence? I think escalate. Why do people make threats? To get attention and to get at other people, rattle them. People who make threats to get attention, if treated like pariahs, will just alienate them more, People who do it to bother or rattle others will get more utility from everyone becoming alarmed at their threat and be more likely to do it again. We should all work to become better at assessing risks. . . .

I do wonder these same things, especially since (and I accept your assertion that)

Canadians watch the same stuff we do, more or less, have more guns per capita and a lot less homicides.

If our stimuli and relative resources are the same, that is to say since we consume the same "media" and too have ready access to firearms and other weapons, as Canadians, but Americans seem more prone to commit acts of violence, then doesn't that leave the explanation somewhere in the realm of personality? I don't mean to say something too extreme, however, such as Americans tend to be more homicidal by nature, but a conclusion just short of that might, given the data, seem more reasonable than not.

Just my thoughts.
What do you think?

A reasonable explanation for me might be the American personality, constitutive of a rugged individualism, manifest destiny, and a sense of moral righteousness and certitude - though, as I write this, I am almost ashamed to offer such sociological gobbledygook, though unless we're wrong about our facts (Americans vs. Canadians and gun violence), I don't think such an explanation is too far off the mark. Any reluctance I have remains so because I cannot then account for the change in European countries like England, Germany, and France, which throughout history, it seems to me, also heralded their own brands of those same American impulses (remember imperialism?), but who have now exchanged them (England to a lesser extent) for so-called passivity. I should say too that this European exchange, especially on matters of philosophy, like the moral certitude I spoke about, is truly quite mythic, I nonetheless remain with the belief that something about our American personality, perhaps particularly the component that emphasizes individualism above community might offer the most reasonable explanation for American's so-called violent behavior.

Eric, have I strayed too far off the reservation here? I trust you can set me straight.

[Thermo]

Compound that with a terrible education system. It does not develop a child's mind properly, it teaches you to follow work orders, punishes you for trying, and disallows free thought. In addition, homework is busy work that keeps you focused on working even after school. It seems the education system is formed around work during periodical parts of the day, separated by bells and whistles (allowing a single break, for lunch) and only ending when the sun goes down. Outside of going to school, homework, tv, video games...when does a child get the time they need to develop a self-identity (ever notice how teachers always give you an extra heavy load during the weekends).

It's a perfect system for what it's designed for - narrowing, focusing, and training the vast majority of the population to move smoothly into the workforce. It not only trains you for the (basic) skills you'll need to work and indoctrinates you with performance/incentive programs, it's schedule also trains you to go to work. That way you're almost used to the daily grind and taking orders from the get-go.

People are free to reject the system, but 99.5% of those who do end up in trailer parks on foodstamps being despised by the rest of society. The other .5% either become billionaires or else shoot up schools and malls.

Developing self-identity, pfft. We're trained from early childhood to BUY our self identities in the form of commercial products. By the time we're almost out of school, we're champing at the bit to get out there and make out own money so we can buy all the products that tell the world who we are or who we want to be. That's why ipods have different colored plastic covers and cars come in all different shapes and why there's 200 different clothing stores within driving distance and websites like che_guevara_tshirt_emporium dot com.

You can even buy factory made t-shirts from Chinese sweatshops that say 'Rage Against the Machine" on them, lol. It's drummed into us all our lives to be 'individual,' and to express our individuality through different ways - but mostly by our purchasing and consuming choices. You are what you buy.

Every thread hanging off my body comes from Goodwill thrift stores, but I still want a nice, name-brand digital video camera and drink Dr. Pepper almost exclusively.

[Scoop]

i really hope you are playing devil's advocate.

[DarkParade]

ive heard neal talk about this guy that he beat down and wasnt sure if he actually lived or not because he walked off so you cant say hes not dangerous

[Thermo]

i really hope you are playing devil's advocate.

Bad habit I know ...

[erufiku]

Compound that with a terrible education system. It does not develop a child's mind properly, it teaches you to follow work orders, punishes you for trying, and disallows free thought. In addition, homework is busy work that keeps you focused on working even after school. It seems the education system is formed around work during periodical parts of the day, separated by bells and whistles (allowing a single break, for lunch) and only ending when the sun goes down. Outside of going to school, homework, tv, video games...when does a child get the time they need to develop a self-identity (ever notice how teachers always give you an extra heavy load during the weekends).

It's a perfect system for what it's designed for - narrowing, focusing, and training the vast majority of the population to move smoothly into the workforce. It not only trains you for the (basic) skills you'll need to work and indoctrinates you with performance/incentive programs, it's schedule also trains you to go to work. That way you're almost used to the daily grind and taking orders from the get-go.

People are free to reject the system, but 99.5% of those who do end up in trailer parks on foodstamps being despised by the rest of society. The other .5% either become billionaires or else shoot up schools and malls.

Developing self-identity, pfft. We're trained from early childhood to BUY our self identities in the form of commercial products. By the time we're almost out of school, we're champing at the bit to get out there and make out own money so we can buy all the products that tell the world who we are or who we want to be. That's why ipods have different colored plastic covers and cars come in all different shapes and why there's 200 different clothing stores within driving distance and websites like che_guevara_tshirt_emporium dot com.

You can even buy factory made t-shirts from Chinese sweatshops that say 'Rage Against the Machine" on them, lol. It's drummed into us all our lives to be 'individual,' and to express our individuality through different ways - but mostly by our purchasing and consuming choices. You are what you buy.

Every thread hanging off my body comes from Goodwill thrift stores, but I still want a nice, name-brand digital video camera and drink Dr. Pepper almost exclusively.

I see someone's been reading Foucault, Deleuze, and Marx

ps: was writing a rant on control societies and hypercapitalism but it's off-topic.

[Sonthert]

All interesting points. One salient feature that differs between Canada and the United States is the United States likes to (presumably a microcosm will resemble the macrocosm) walk around like they're the shit, morally superior and tell others how their way of living is wrong or immoral. Why did we invade Iraq? If we take the party-line as rote, Ultimately because our way of living, in our estimation, is superior. Canada doesn't do this. If you wak into my backyard and start telling me why you're better than me, I'd be inclined towards gunfire, too.

OK, Charley, you're saying that American parents aren't as effective as Canadian parents...since we have the same media, you are contending its a parental problem, it would follow Canadian parents are better at parenting?

Thermo, you're comments are well-received, but I don't believe its by design, I think the system is defective because of neglect. If you look at the texture of the whole system, some elements are fine and work well, others, completely fucked up. The conjunction of these is a dysfunctional system. This is consistent with neglect. A designed or engineered system would have removed all useful sub-systems. Example: California provides cheap basic college instruction for California residents, its the best in the country for what it does at its price. If the engineering was complete, to keep people stupid...good, cheap education wouldn't exist and California's program would have been razed. It costs a lot and it wouldn't be hard to convince people to get rid of it as too expensive. I believe hyper-consumerism is well-engineered, even men can't get away with dressing how they want to now, but is it a negative influence? Is it a destabilizing force? Is it a threat to liberty?

In response to your post, Judge Poser, I have a little anecdote I like to tell. I worked at DuPont Pharmaceuticals, I was the head of a group that parceled out chemicals for robotic combinatorial chemistry. I liked to read the warning labels on the bottles, since it is prudent to do so, and I would be careful with chemicals that had explicit warnings on the label. One time, I came across the grand-daddy of all dangerous chemicals. The noramlly small label read more like a pamphlet. The capping statement was "been shown to cause a Parkinsonian-like disorder in monkeys." I made up my mind to be extraordinarily careful. Whereas I'm a very accurate and fast chemist, I moved very carefully and slowly and proceeded to spill this shit everywhere. I realized after autopsying my failure, that the secret was to not give a rat's ass. Being too careful, being to focused on something inclines us to make more mistakes ( I asked several chemists and they told me much the same thing). I think thats true for life. People walk around in fear, our fear is whipped up be a sensational and exaggerating media. This fear adds to our tension and makes us see threats where they don't exist. How big a threat is terrorism in the United States? Not very. You're more likely to be struck by lightning twice. You're far more likely to be killed in an automobile accident. You're even far more likely to win a multi-state lottery. These are all estimates, of course...who worries about being struck by lightning once, let alone twice (I was struck by lightning when I was 11...am I living on borrowed time?). An animal thats afraid is more likely to be violent. Humans, too. So why does the media work overtime on making and keeping us frayed and afraid? Would it be reasonable that an animal thats afraid is more likely to attack with lethal force? Probably. If Canada's media is less sensational and less bullshit than the United States, then could that explain the difference, too? Our media and government keeps us afraid, makes us more likely to use lethal force...perhaps?

Boris: I agree with the foundational parts of your argument, but I would question how much influence a parent truly has on child, as we discussed Friday night. I think if you check into it, the idea that parents are large contributory factors in their child's development is a recent development. Its the perfect extension of Thermo's hyper-consumerism belief that superficial factors are important. Parents want to "provide everything" for their children so they are good parents, but if children are more independent or dependent on age-peers than common wisdom believes, than how stupid a parent is means very little. I think this is true and there are idea along those lines in child development. Of course, Child development won't acknowledge them fully any more than psychiatry would acknowledge mood stabilizers are useless...it will put them out of a job.

You are equivocating education and intelligence. The dependent factor in family size is educational level, not intelligence.

I have met many fine "stupid" people and lots of fucked up "intelligent ones" not to mention fine "Uneducated" people and fucked up "educated" people and vice-verse, so I don't think the relationships are as cut and dry as you are trying to lead us to believe.

At the risk of opening up an unrelated thread, I think atheism develops better, well-adjusted children. Self-reliance is important to children's positive mental state, and atheism is chock full of self-reliance(at least my brand of it is). It hinges on it. Religion teaches people to rely on or believe in things that couldn't logically exist (whether they do or not is irrelevant), so they believe in and waste time hoping for impossible things. Yes, religious people, go ahead, get your shots in. I'm not taking it back.

BBKakes: I think more law enforcement will only help to an extent. I would hypothesize there is some Laffler-like curve for number of law-enforcement agents, where you get to a point and more law-enforcement creates more crime. I disagree, though, I think people need to learn how to just ignore people, most people will desist if you ignore them. People used to more firmly believe in just going somewhere else if they didn't like how somebody was exercising their rights. Now, we have laws that prevent people from exercising their rights in a way that the majority of society objects to. People have always pushed the envelope. If the envelope is smaller, then pushing the envelope is smaller, too. With more dramatic crap, we make more laws, we have expanded the envelope, making the new crap more outlandish to push the bigger envelope more. If you see what I'm saying. People have spent lots of time having disregard for the law and propriety,whether now or 100 years ago. They're more likely to shoot people now, perhaps, because its the only way to shake people up.

[BBKakes]

BBKakes: I think more law enforcement will only help to an extent. I would hypothesize there is some Laffler-like curve for number of law-enforcement agents, where you get to a point and more law-enforcement creates more crime. I disagree, though, I think people need to learn how to just ignore people, most people will desist if you ignore them. People used to more firmly believe in just going somewhere else if they didn't like how somebody was exercising their rights. Now, we have laws that prevent people from exercising their rights in a way that the majority of society objects to. People have always pushed the envelope. If the envelope is smaller, then pushing the envelope is smaller, too. With more dramatic crap, we make more laws, we have expanded the envelope, making the new crap more outlandish to push the bigger envelope more. If you see what I'm saying. People have spent lots of time having disregard for the law and propriety,whether now or 100 years ago. They're more likely to shoot people now, perhaps, because its the only way to shake people up.

I agree that at the very least, more law enforcement will eventually have diminishing or maybe even negative returns on effectiveness. I guess my next question would be how then would everyone on a societal level "retract the envelope" in order to reduce the severity of behavior that's needed to push it? Edited April 26, 2009 by BBKakes

[judgeposer]

BBKakes: I think more law enforcement will only help to an extent. I would hypothesize there is some Laffler-like curve for number of law-enforcement agents, where you get to a point and more law-enforcement creates more crime. I disagree, though, I think people need to learn how to just ignore people, most people will desist if you ignore them. People used to more firmly believe in just going somewhere else if they didn't like how somebody was exercising their rights. Now, we have laws that prevent people from exercising their rights in a way that the majority of society objects to. People have always pushed the envelope. If the envelope is smaller, then pushing the envelope is smaller, too. With more dramatic crap, we make more laws, we have expanded the envelope, making the new crap more outlandish to push the bigger envelope more. If you see what I'm saying. People have spent lots of time having disregard for the law and propriety,whether now or 100 years ago. They're more likely to shoot people now, perhaps, because its the only way to shake people up.

How do you see that more law enforcement creates more crime?

P.S. Laffer - no "l"

[TheScotsman]

Population concentrations have an effect on people's mental state that seems to be completely missed. With one exception all of the nutjob shootings are confined to larger cities. Canada has a whopping 4 urban areas over 1,000,000 population, the Usa has what, 55 or so over 1,000,000. The 100th largest urban area in the USA is over 500K... the 100th in Canada is 20K. Comparisons are not realistic between the two nations for so many reasons.

All the laws, and law enforcement in the world won't stop a sick mind bent on maximum destruction.

[Rani]

Okay, I believe two things:

1. Anyone making a threat sgainst someone's life should have that threat logged and the only ones capable of logging and maintaining the knowledge of the threat should something actually happen are the authorities. I don't believe it's over-reaction, it's simply that some people who talk trash eventually do what they say and if someone's injured or loses their life then let's at least give our oh-so-underworked-and-over-competent law enforcement a reasonable chance of catching the suspect.

2. Just walk away and leave it alone. This is an incredibly drama laden situation. Some people are enjoying it, others are concerned by it, and still others are appalled by it. Regardless of each one's personal reaction, it's one big drama riddled mess. Since when is life so easy, so peaceful, so kind that anyone has reason to go out seeking interaction with drama? To some people including those directly involved, it can become all-consuming.

I like the phrase "toxic people". Some people are toxic to me or to you or to Joe up the street. Doesn't mean others can't handle with care, but still to you personally they're volatile and if you're not someone who can that particular level of toxicity in that particular person, just walk away and eliminate the reason to bring drama to your own life. Because isn't your life complicated enough as it is? Maybe they'll change or grow or whatever, or maybe you will and you'll be able to have some kind of interaction in the future. But while the level of toxicity is as it is, keeping contact or keeping it going with constant discussion is only going to increase the chance of it escalating into something completely out of control as toxic compounds usually do unless you allow them to disperse and break down naturally into their harmless components.

'Rani

[Charley]

OK, Charley, you're saying that American parents aren't as effective as Canadian parents...since we have the same media, you are contending its a parental problem, it would follow Canadian parents are better at parenting?

In a word. yes

I am not saying every Canadian parent is a good parent just like I am not saying every US parent is a bad parent.
I had good parents as a result I know the difference between what is right and what is wrong. I have had a hard life at times but I have never really resorted to theft or violence to get by. I am slow to anger even slower to act on that anger.

now when I was in school I saw a few other kids that had parents like mine they are all good ppl who obey the law dont get themselves involved with nht or anything of that nature and have decant well behaved kids themselves now.

now on the other hand I seen a lot more kids whos parents just let them run wild doing what they want when they want. sadly now that there adults most have a criminal record. 3 of the students I graduated with are on death row. at least 4 that I know of were murdered (mostly over nht situations) I see there kids age 8,9,10 running around town at 2 and 3 am breaking into cars vandalizing mail boxes. and even selling nht. and every one of the little shits thinks rap music is real. (again not that I am blaming rap music but rather there parents for not telling them hey this is not the way you act this is only entertainment.)

Canadian parents limit video game play, television, violent music a whole lot more than US parents do.
they encourage more physical activity and encourage there kids to read more as well.

http://www.ga-associates.com/pdf/Studyrelease.pdf

http://www.nald.ca/info/whatnew/headline/2003/ipsos.htm

http://www.niagarafallsreview.ca/ArticleDi....aspx?e=1447864


now are you going to tell me that these kids that are sitting there watching "gangstas" kill each other on tv while listening to songs about beating women and killing "punk ass bitches" in between playing grand theft auto: pedestrian rundown dose not have an effect on there minds when there is no one there saying hey thats a game. games are fun but dont ever really drive through a nursing home in a stolen cop car.

[beachkidcb]

It's a perfect system for what it's designed for - narrowing, focusing, and training the vast majority of the population to move smoothly into the workforce.

* * EDIT * *

It's a perfect system for what it's designed for - narrowing, focusing, and training the vast majority of the population to move smoothly into the MINDLESS workforce, devoid of all individual distinctions, thus eventually harboring judgment which could be found in the annals of an active mind.

______________________________________________________

my god this could easily turn into an essay fest, back and forth. That is, if we all didnt have any hookah breaks to take

Edited May 20, 2009 by beachkidcb

[mustang_steve]

My take on threats: I take them very seriously. Only exception is messageboard trolling, but any other situation I take it damn seriously.

Usually they are just drama-whoring, but IMO you never take a threat against your life as anything less than the utmost severity. In some states, thier actions justify the target of their words to use lethal force...so if anything, those that use this language are nothing more than fools.

Messageboard trolling is full of false toughguys and people that just talk a load of crap. I usually leave those at that...but in public, person-to-person...there is no excuse for acting like that, ever.

Police will document it but usually do nothing.

Really, in the end that kind of behavior just shows you what the person is made of, and internet death threats just show everyone that reads the threat what a fool the poster of such words really is.