So I get on the bus this morning and pick up a copy of the Metro, expecting to read some silly story to entertain myself on the way to work. Instead, here's a quick recap of the articles:

Iraq: A bunch of utter bastards strapped explosives to an 8-year-old girl, sent her to an army checkpoint and blew her up. The sheer cowardliness of this has left me with a feeling of indescribable rage.

Kenya: 9000 people displaced by the violence going on in that country were forced to leave a refugee camp at a few hours' notice, without being told the reason.

Spain: Eta strikes again, killing a police officer.

Italy: 3 teenage boys strangled a pregnant 14-year-old girl and burned her body because they were afraid one of them was the father.

Austria: A father picked up an axe, killed his wife and child, drove over a hundred miles to his parents', killed them, went over to his father-in-law and killed him, then calmly walked into a police station and announced he's murdered five people.

Expected death tolls from China and Burma are on the rise. The estimate for Burma is now 200,000 according to some sources.

By comparison, the rioting and stabbing in Manchester yesterday seems like a quiet and relaxing picnic.

Is it me or is the world going even more mad than it already is?

Is it me or is the world going even more mad than it already is?
The world's always been a crazy place. It's just the nature of the madness that changes.

What the world needs now is love - sweet love.

What the world needs now is love - sweet love....and maybe a Valium prescription.

...and maybe a Valium prescription.

Valium? More like a mixture of Sodium thiopental, Pancuronium, and Potassium Chloride in that order...

No, it's always been like this. In fact, by way of comparison throughout history, we're living in one of the most civilized and non-violent times ever. Tempting to believe otherwise, I know, because it sells papers and gets ratings, hence we hear about it constantly in the ever-present media.

So like most things in life, blame the internet.

Manchester - 200,000 Scottish football fans wreck the city, piss where they wish, steal from shops and trash them, stab a Russian supporter in the back and throw glass bottles at police. They even started fighting with themselves at one point.

But not to worry, Scots are all loveable drunks, no violence from those peacable fellas. It must have been something to do with the English.

Hooliganism is very much an English epedemic :lol:.

I agree the Scots are loveable and peaceable - until they start drinking (never mind getting drunk), at which point I lock myself in my room, hide under the bed and pray the madness will be over soon.

Seriously, I've stopped going out on Saturday nights because of some of the utter madness I saw every single week. The only times I made it home without feeling I'd just escaped a traumatising experience was when I'd head back at 3am, at which point the only Scots on the streets are the ones that dropped on the sidewalk from too much alcohol. A night out on a weekday is so much more relaxing - no gangs of kids trying to smash your head with a glass bottle, no witnessing some crazy drunk/stoned guy trying to murder his girlfriend (I assume she was his girlfriend), no screaming women being chased by a psychotic and oversexed man screaming obscenities...

The only good thing about the Manchester debacle is that it happened far away from here. If all these Rangers fans had actually been in Edinburgh at the time I wouldn't have been surprised if there had been fatalities, considering the enmity between Glasgow and Edinburgh football fans and the fact there almost was one yesterday.

Sidewalk??! It's the pavvie! Pavement if you want, but not sidewalk! Check yaself before you wreck yaself bredren.

Wow, I assumed the streets of Edinburgh wouldn't be affected by that kind of nasty behaviour! It's always looked quite prim and proper (well, for a Scottish city) when I've been there and the people are nice (read 'old'). Glasgow, I can imagine that being a bit dodgy, but Edinburgh?

Around my town, there's usually a fight breaking out towards the end of the night, but nothing major. No woman beating or girlfriend chasing! The obsceneties are par for the course wherever you are though. I don't see the big problem really. A word's a word. We're an island kingdom mate, fighting is part of our nature!

Love the Tartan Army, but I'm so glad Rangers didn't win the cup. The Scots are unbearable when they win stuff! All they do is go on about they've won something that England haven't for the next 10 years and how that makes Scotland better than England. They can't just celebrate their win then go about their day. Obsessed, I tells thee! We love Scotland down here, not necessary! (hah, "no' necessary" always reminds of Pops out of League of Gentlemen).

I'm rambling again I'm afraid. I'm such a wobblegob when I get going. Oops.

I think that as society "advances" the opportunity for things to turn to utter crap in a spectacular manner becomes more pronounced.

Iraq: They call it a war. They have no qualms about using children aqs weapons. See the (No) honour killings thread for more ranting on that topic.

Kenya: Petty warlords squabbling over a bigger piece of the armpit of the world that don't care about the innocent caught in the middle. And how is this different than the behaviour of lords in Feudal Europe? Today you hear more about it.

Italy: Is it the first time someone was a little careless with his willie and fired live rounds? Is it the first time that they resorted to despicable depths to cover their transgressions? No and no.

Austria: There has always been psychos that went around killing people that pissed them off. Again, nothing new, but we hear about it now because the means exist to report that around the world.

AS for disasters, there's more people in smaller spaces, meaning that when these natural disasters will cause more and more damage. Put a monster Earthquake and accompanying Tsunamis in a city like Kyoto and see the death toll and financial value on the damages skyrocket.

Soccer Hooliganism: We see that in North America too over other sports. Montreal had riots after winning the first round of the NHL playoffs. I guess that the crowds just aren't that big here.

Most of this is nothing new, it's the technology that's new.

AS for disasters, there's more people in smaller spaces, meaning that when these natural disasters will cause more and more damage. Put a monster Earthquake and accompanying Tsunamis in a city like Kyoto and see the death toll and financial value on the damages skyrocket.This is a valid point, but the severity and frequency of hurricanes, tornadoes, and other such weather phenomena has been on the rise.

but the severity and frequency of hurricanes, tornadoes, and other such weather phenomena has been on the rise.

I thought that was an urban (scientific) myth -- I've read several articles refuting that claim.

All they do is go on about they've won something that England haven't for the next 10 years and how that makes Scotland better than England. They can't just celebrate their win then go about their day.


It's just as well England never does that!

...I don't have to keep a straight face when I say that, do I?

In Chicago last week an SUV was involved in an accident -- he had been clipped by a car that had been run into a soft shoulder (by a third car -- van actually). The result was the SUV going out of control, sliding swideways, and rolling a couple of times. The children in the back were thrown from the vehicle and lying in middle of the interstate.

The driver of the car saw the children in the road and ran out onto the interstate, directly into oncoming traffic (moving at 70 miles per hour) and managed to get drivers to stop before any of the children were hit. The driver and passenger of the SUV ran away. The children from their vehicle were lying injured in the interstate and they just ran away. To repeat -- they left the kids in the road and ran away, they didn't even try to get one injured victim to safety. They just ran away.

I thought that was an urban (scientific) myth -- I've read several articles refuting that claim.Not exactly refuting, T2. What you have is some scientists pointing to a rise (which had been predicted as one of the side effects of climate change) and other scientists arguing that we either haven't been measuring such phenomena long enough to be sure or that it is simply part of the natural cycle. In other words, if you subscribe to the climate change theory, these phenomena have been on the rise as predicted. If you do not, you claim that it is just a cyclic fluctuation or that we don't have enough information to say for sure.

Sidewalk??! It's the pavvie! Pavement if you want, but not sidewalk! Check yaself before you wreck yaself bredren.
Alright alright it's a pavement! I'll never use an American word again, I promise!

Wow, I assumed the streets of Edinburgh wouldn't be affected by that kind of nasty behaviour! It's always looked quite prim and proper (well, for a Scottish city) when I've been there and the people are nice (read 'old'). Glasgow, I can imagine that being a bit dodgy, but Edinburgh?
Don't get me wrong, Edinburgh is a lovely city and a great place to live (I wouldn't be here if it wasn't). Most places are not nasty, but it's got its share of dodgy people (maybe not as many as Glasgow, but then again Edinburgh's significantly smaller), and on Saturday night all these people converge on the center. When they get kicked out of the pubs at 1am they're all on streets, drunk, and nastiness usually ensues. You rarely get massive gang-on-gang fights, but it's been known to happen (though not in a while now, I think the last one was a couple of years ago).

I've never really bought the "I was drunk" excuse. It's just so convenient. Get drunk and you know you can get away with just about anything except murder. If you know you're going to lose control when you're drunk, then drink more responsibly.

Anyway that's the end of my rant :)

I would say that what is wrong with the world is that there is no accountability anymore -- western society does not punish people for their crimes. I'm alll for being lenient if there are VALID mitigating circumstances, but when someone commits a crime today, we start looking for bogus reasons to excuse their stupidity and venality and blame everyone BUT the criminal.

Good lord, just spotted that thing in Italy...Monsters...

I don't really think people are worse, or behaving much worse, than they used to. It's just that today we get news from around the world instantly. So naturally, we get more bad news. But we don't get the good news, since "Man bites dog" - or "Father keeps daughter locked up in cellar" - is more newsworthy than "Dog bites man" or "Family lives happily".

I agree with LKD that accountability is lacking. People will only do what they feel they can get away with. Criminals only commit crimes if they think they have a good chance of getting away, or that the punishment will be light if they are caught. In other words, a risk/benefit evaluation.

I would say that what is wrong with the world is that there is no accountability anymore


Yet at the same time, we are said to be living in a culture of blame where everything that goes wrong is someone's fault. Odd combination.

I can relate with that Ziad!
Kinda makes you feel bad to be part of Mankind!
There are days wish I was just a Visiting Alien!

I dunno what's wrong...but like Aerosmith said
"The light bulb's getting dim!"

Bloody Right!

Yet at the same time, we are said to be living in a culture of blame where everything that goes wrong is someone's fault.

But it's never the fault of the person doing the blaming. That's the problem. We need to tell the judges to cut the :bs: and actually dish out some justice. ANd if the government *****es about the cost, then tell the politicians to stop skimming off the top and pay the bloody bills!

The world has some pretty lame events going on, but it's nothing exceptional. Indeed, it's probably better off as a whole than it has been in the past. The key totalitarian regimes that honestly threatened everything have largely collapsed, leaving only second rate dictatorships and standard corruption in the 'democracies'. All the bad things - and many bad things that we tend to forget about while making these sorts of threads - were going strong back then to.

So yeah, there's stuff wrong with the world today, but don't go looking back to some nostalgic past. It probably wasn't all that great.

Rubbish like this has been going on all throughout history, we're just more aware of it now because of the multimedia and because we're, well, living now. There's probably more horrendous things that we don't know because it was well hidden. Doesn't make it okay, though, and I think the aforementioned multimedia is partially to blame. When you can Google up ways to kill people in the comfort and privacy of your own home...

I wouldn't be surprised if our water starts turning to blood anytime soon...

Nah, the latest plague is "Reality Television"...

amen to that gnarfflinger, how i loathe reality tv.

No, it's always been like this. In fact, by way of comparison throughout history, we're living in one of the most civilized and non-violent times ever. Tempting to believe otherwise, I know, because it sells papers and gets ratings, hence we hear about it constantly in the ever-present media.


I don't think this is correct. The 20th century was extraordinarily bloody, from WWI&II to Turkey to the Holocaust to Rwanda to the Congo to the Killing Fields to SE Asia to the USSR to the PRC to...

On a day-to-day basis, okay, life in the developed world is much better than it used to be. But catastrophes are, well, more catastrophic than they used to be.

I think it only seems that way because the 20th Century's catastrophes are both more recent and more easily documented. The 19th century had the American Civil War, the Napoleanic wars, the slave trade, the El Nino famines, Venezuela, tons of fun famines and plagues - hell, the Taiping Rebellion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_rebellion) alone accounted for 20-30 million deaths. Then you have the century before that, which, in addition to even more famines and plagues, brought us such hits as the Seven Years war (incredibly bloody for it's eponymous brevity), the ritual murders in India, Spanish Succession, the fall of the Ming Dynasty, the slave trade (again), the extermination of the native Americans, etc.

The further back we go, we hit things like the Crusades and Rome's outings and the Mongol conquests and all the fun nasties who'll eventually get their own movies and it's hard to come to the conclusion that the world was less catastrophic and f***ed up in years gone by than it is today. I agree that the Second World War does push the 20th century into the top position, but my original point still stands I think - we're a species determined to kill each other. Also, the world's population has grown steadily over the centuries, so I'm thinking that's a factor of the high numbers as well. More people = more killin and dyin.

I am more inclined to agree with AM, for two reasons:

Technology and the media: It's made killing on a larger scale not only possible but more anticeptic. Look at the war in Iraq, we have been responsilble for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Do you think Americans care? They put one face on all those people: Saddam. And they believe that they are actually doing these people a favor by killing their fathers, mothers, daughters and sons. Yet, they really believe that all Iraq will be "free" someday (like never).

The media actually controls our perceptions of mass killings within almost any context. What they choose to show us, as the result of our actions, plays a large part of how we feel about ourselves in the process. I've seen old newsreels of how the Germans were actually shown pictures of Jewish families in phony "camps" and of how much "better-off" Jewish families were during the attempted genocide by the Nazis.

How do we close the distance between the order of the prez to kill hundreds of thousands of people and the understanding of the morality of our actions on a personal level? The answer is that we have to come face-to-face with our perceived enemies in order to understand the "fullness" of our actions.

If Americans were more aware of the bloodshed on a personal level it would make a difference, IMO. There is that memorable scene in "All Quiet on the Western Front," where Paul finds himself in the foxhole with the dead Frenchman, only to discover that the Frenchman was not really the "enemy" after all. The enemy was really the misinformation that made Paul believe who the enemy was. But isn't that almost always the case? Whether it is a ranting priest inciting the population to "Take up the Cross, because God wills it," or the electronic media showing moving pictures of 9/11 alongside the face of Saddam, the results are same: Only now it is on a much larger scale, and it can occur, as did the Iraq War, before anyone has had any time to think it through. That's pretty scary, IMO.

The further back we go, we hit things like the Crusades and Rome's outings and the Mongol conquests and all the fun nasties who'll eventually get their own movies and it's hard to come to the conclusion that the world was less catastrophic and f***ed up in years gone by than it is today. I agree that the Second World War does push the 20th century into the top position, but my original point still stands I think - we're a species determined to kill each other. Also, the world's population has grown steadily over the centuries, so I'm thinking that's a factor of the high numbers as well. More people = more killin and dyin.

It is now within the realm of possibility that human actions will destroy an immense proportion of the world's human population in as little as a day. Hell, a few hours. That alone would tip the present day toward the worse end of the suckage scale.

Back to the original argument: while there had previously been catastrophic events on a scale equal to those of the modern age, the modern age is unique in that the catastrophes have been more closely packed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_disasters_by_death_toll)

We need to tell the judges to cut the :bs: and actually dish out some justice. ANd if the government *****es about the cost, then tell the politicians to stop skimming off the top and pay the bloody bills!
We've rarely been on the same page, but this time I fully agree with you. We get more and more bizarre crimes, the age of those committing them gets lower and lower, and how did the government here respond? By asking judges to keep as many criminals as possible out of prison. What...?

while there had previously been catastrophic events on a scale equal to those of the modern age, the modern age is unique in that the catastrophes have been more closely packed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_disasters_by_death_toll)
I wonder if that's a direct result of the world's population increasing exponentially. The more people there are, the higher the chance one of them will go nuts at any particular point in time?

I wonder if that's a direct result of the world's population increasing exponentially. The more people there are, the higher the chance one of them will go nuts at any particular point in time?

You'd have to make that a societal argument. Hitler didn't kill all those people by his lonesome. Ditto Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.

They put one face on all those people: Saddam.

Add to this the stories like spawned the (no) honour killings thread, and you have a recipe for genocide. Just like with WWI, the people were desensitized to what was being done and did not count the Jews as humans. Likewise, the people in the Middle East are being dehumanized. The only difference is that George W. is not interested in Genocide...

AMaster brings up an interesting point. I read an essay way back in university that talked about how living creatures behave differently if there are too many of them packed together -- the essay cited experiments wherein lab rats were forced to live in crowded / confined conditions. The author then cited studies / statistics about the fact that living in crowded cities is stressful (especially if poverty is factored in) and can influence people to behave in ways they otherwise wouldn't.

Now that you bring attention back to it LKD, I heaerd about this in college too. There was more violence, an increased rate of homosexuality and increased difficulty getting to the feeder...

Now that you bring attention back to it LKD, I heaerd about this in college too. There was more violence, an increased rate of homosexuality and increased difficulty getting to the feeder...I wouldn't put too much stock in the homosexuality part, Gnarff. Urban areas tend to be more accepting of each other's differences than rural ones. A gay man from the "conservative" rural south -where people are still threatened and harassed for interracial dating- is a lot more likely to be in the closet than a man in an open-minded, accepting city like San Francisco.

Uh, Drew, The segment of my post that Gnarff was talking about was regarding rats in a controlled lab experiment. What the scientists found was that male rats forced to live in close quarters were more likely to engage in homosexual behaviour than rats in more spacious accomodations. I don't think that rats in bigger cages were somehow "redneck rats"! The essay didn't extrapolate THOSE findings into a conclusion that urban humans were more likely to be gay.

Hey i resent that ! I'm the biggest redneck on this board & i don't have a probelm with anybodies sexuality. One of my workout partners is gay & if you don't mind a gay man's crotch half a foot from your face when he is spotting you on the bench press/decline press you sure as heck ain't prejudiced against him because of who he sleeps with.
That is just another stereotype that isn't always or even mostly true, IMHO.

Ahh, Martaug, my deepest apologies, though at some point someone on the board is going to throw that admission right back in your face. Allow me to amend my post then:

I don't think that rats in bigger cages were somehow "homophobe rats"!

Better?

@LKD: My essential point is that humans aren't rats. Not even in our prisons do we pack ourselves so closely*, so a direct comparison isn't really all that feasible or practical (and would likely constitute a severe human rights violation).

@ Martaug: Obviously not all rednecks are homophobic. This doesn't change the fact that hate crimes on the basis of race, creed, or sexuality are more frequently committed in areas where the population is less dense. The south isn't actually the worst place to be gay in this country. Wyoming, Montana, and Colorado actually share that dubious honor.

* and the increased homosexual behaviour in our prisons probably has a lot more to do with the lack of women than it does with over-crowding.

Thanks LKD, didn't mean to rant so bad just kinda bugged me
:yot:
Dang, i can't believe i'm saying this but i agree with what drew said(ducks & waits for lightning to strike)
With the exception that i think that every area has a particular group that is looked down on or blamed for more of the crimes than others. Not to say that this is deserved just that this is the way it seems to be.
I have black friends who hate asians & a couple that hate white people but like me(go figure), an asian friend who doesn't even like to go to movie theatres because of what she sees as a mob of blacks just hanging out & of course several white friends that dislike/hate various groups. None can give me a good reason for their dislikes/hatreds.
Life is too short to spend it hating others yet i get torqued when i see someone use religion(or the appearence of such) to keep basic rights away from all people. I don't dislike religion, i think it has a place however i think it should have some limitations when it comes to certain basic rights.
Ok my peace is said thanks for letting me rave, sometimes you just gotta :bang:

I'm the biggest redneck on this board

Um, I'm about 320 lbs. I think I'm the bigggest Redneck here...

So yes, I'm the Big, Redneck Mormon Metalhead with some really wierd tasted in Entertainment...

My essential point is that humans aren't rats.

Okay, but is it possible that people behave differently in crowded urban settings than in less densely populated Rural areas?

i think i broke something trying to wrap my brain around the concept of a "redneck mormon metalhead":toofar:

:yot:
oh i didn't mean physically i think chev's like almost a foot taller than me. i'm only 5'10" & 240-245, it's scary i look alot like the bald headed portrait available in bg1 & 2 but my head is nowhere as tall(but dont all bald white guys with facial fur look alike) well plus the tats of course.

BTW, hows the back?

How's the topic, it seemed to be around here, but got lost in the chatter? martaug, for chat like that, you've got profile visitor messages and/or PM. Please use them and keep off-topic discussion out of the threads.

Just some updates on the New Zealand side of the crappy world:

1) A teenager who last year drove his car through a crowd of people leaving a party (killing two, wounding several) is finally considered "guilty". His defence lawyer was arguing on basis of "panic". This is from yesterday's headlines.
2) An economics tutor at Otago University (down south, big university) was recently found stabbing his girlfriend to death. The girl has been stabbed 216 times and suffered seven heavy blunt attacks (yesterday's headlines).
3) The father of two twin babies, thought very likely to have killed them, was found not guilty.
4) Recently, the youngest killer in NZ was released on parole. He was aged 13 when he bashed a pizza delivery guy's head in with a pipe.
5) Last month, teenage girl Marie disappeared. Posters were up all over the city. She was later found in the Waimak River (biggest river around here), dead. They found the killer. I'm not sure if she was raped.
6) A young African girl, aged 8 IIRC, died of AIDS last year. It is uncertain if her stepfather had raped her, recently he was found not guilty.

For some of these cases, especially the first one, it's ridiculous how there was even a trial to begin with. The guy's a murderer, so lock him away.

What's wrong with the world today? You tell me.

@Deathmage: Anyone who's ever been wrongfully accused convicted of an offense can tell you exactly why fair trials are necessary. Not only do we not always get the right guy, but when we get the wrong one, the right guy gets away with it.

Sometimes I wonder if the people that are doing the "bad things" are out to top the bad things done before they came around. Was 9/11 about the damage it could do or the fact that Terrorists were trying to make a bigger attack than had ever been done before?

AS for the guilty getting off, Shakespeare suggested killing the lawyers.

I'm going to hide now from the lawyers here...

Was 9/11 about the damage it could do or the fact that Terrorists were trying to make a bigger attack than had ever been done before?Hiroshima. Nagasaki.

Right. Okay, biggest, most damaging without nukes?

Right. Okay, biggest, most damaging without nukes?Well, actually, they do want nukes. My larger point was that the largest terror attack ever perpetrated was launched by none other than the USA. We dropped our nukes directly on innocent civilians who served no tactical value. Using the modern definition of terrorism (an attack on innocent civilians in order to instill fear and accomplish a political objective), Hiroshima and Nagasaki certainly qualify as terror attacks.

Right. Okay, biggest, most damaging without nukes?

Irrelevant insofar as your assertion goes.

Nukes were the most damaging, and assuming the 9/11 terrorists have some awareness of significant prior events, to outdo it would have to involve something even more destructive. They chose a different approach.

OK, how about this -- their biggest and most flamboyent attack FOR THEM to date? I think Gnarff was saying that this particular group of terrorists had never pulled off an operation of that magnitude before. Also, these people were not representatives of a government -- if we want to open up the field of terrorist attacks to government operations, that's a whole 'nuther kettle of fish (which is not to say that I necessarily disagree with Drew's logic on the nuke attacks on Japan.)

Oh, and as an addendum, I'm a big fan of talks and negotiating. There comes a time, however, that you have to draw a line and say enough is enough. Seeing the other fellows viewpoint is always good, but constantly using that empathy to make excuses for their heinous behaviour is another. We need to start saying to criminals, terrorists and other such filth "No more! We will not sit back and wring our hands and let you brutalize innocents while we try to use your lousy home life to justify your evil."

Is it me or is the world going even more mad than it already is?

There are just more people today than in the past and we have 24/7 media covering everything. There was sick stuff going on in ancient Mesopotamia, I'm certain, but all we've got is a few stone tablets detailing bread recipes from them.