Baby beaten, burned and drugged

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What about the recent revelations about the torture and abuse that children suffered in the Jersey children's home in the 60s, 70s and 80s? That's only recently come to light now because previously the victims' reports were ignored, and politicians and senior officials are believed to have covered it up.

What about the many women in the 17th and 18th centuries in Britain whose trial reports can be found at the Old Bailey's website? Women who, giving birth out of wedlock, would smother or drown their infants and claim they had died of natural causes. Victorian Britain was pretty nasty with the abandonment and abuse of small children.

In Roman times you have authors such as Suetonius commenting on the rumours of emperors sexually abusing young children.

Add to that a world population that is growing at an exponential rate (so that there are going to be more cases) and that world news is more easily covered thanks to the advent of the internet...it is not that there was a blackout on the media before, but that reporters have better tools and access.

None of what has happened before means that this report is any less tragic, however.

Absolutely, Alex & Rachel. If you look back at child abductions over the last century or two, the numbers haven't increased at all. It is just the media that enables us to hear about it more often.

The evil abilities of the human mind have not changed or worsened over the years - it was just better disguised 100 years ago and easier to hide.

Humans are capable of extreme evil in many cases - that ain't ever going to change, regardless of what century we are in.

The media is distortive in that respect. I've mentioned before - there have been studies on the perception of crime (one in particular on that BBC show Crimewatch) that show that the news media's fixation with violent crime, increases people's fear of it and creates the false impression that it is more widespread than it actually is. People talk about violent crime being up, but the truth is - violent crime is generally a small percentage of all crime, and within that s*x offences, and also those against children are another small percentage - so if you start using statements like "Crime X up by 20%" that 20% may only amount to a dozen or so cases a year. Of course, from watching the news - you don't get that impression.

[Heracles 417]

The problem is - you don't really have any basis for substantiating that opinion outside of your own personal opinion, and what other people have told you.

People "much older than you" might tell you that this stuff never happened in the 40's and 50's, but surely they can only going off what the media at that time put out - just as you are relying on what the media puts out now to make your own conclusion.

I do not know what your area of 'expertise' is, if any, but there is a huge difference between a personal opinion to a person's observation. A personal opinion is something along the lines of I think chocolate tastes better than ice cream. Whereas someone saying I am starting to see a trend of xyz is voicing a personal observation. You do not have to agree with either but don't pretend that they are both the same thing.

PS Saying prove it to everything I say is a cheap cop out.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm not sure I understand how its a cop-out - given that someone else's observation is essentially an opinion for you.

As I say its hardly an authoritative way of discussing social changes. Its not hard to compare living standards, average incomes, high school graduation rates and unemployment statistics between different decades.

That would at least be a reasonable accurate measure - rather than merely relying on what people tell you.

Oddly enough - in all the places I've lived I've not seen the huge crime explosion that the media would have us believe. I wonder how true that is of the people who are telling you these things - are they replying to what they experience directly, first-hand - or simply what they read in the news?

Edited March 4, 2008 by Number 6

[Heracles 417]

Interesting point especially when I consider that Melbourne, AUS would be the 3rd largest city in America if it where relocated here. Yet, in comparison, you will here about a murder or two per month to 3 shot etc each and every day here. In a city of 3.8 million we do not have any no go zones. Can you say the same about the east NJ areas or Phili or east DC? and the list goes on.

Over 17,000 people where murdered in the US in comparison to ~350 in the UK, Canada and Aus. Even when factoring in the population difference the numbers do not add up to your "opinion".

Funnily enough when looking into the US murder rate I found the following article..

http://www.cnn.com/US/9901/02/murder.rate/

Overall U.S. murder rate down, but youth gun killings up

Edited March 4, 2008 by Boo-Yah!

[Alex & Rachel 78]

The other factor is in the types of crimes committed.

We have more school shootings in this century...but on the other hand I haven't seen many poisoning cases these days; I don't believe Mary Ann Cotton would've managed to kill so many in modern times.

There are more abortions and single parents these days but there are also fewer orphanages and a lower infant mortality rate. Women were always having babies out of wedlock; it is simply that now there are probably far fewer babies being brought up believing that their mother is actually their sister or being abandoned on doorsteps. It's a tricky situation; if you return to the laws of yesteryear then you'll end up with more botched backstreet abortions and higher rates of infanticide; if you keep today's laws, then you'll have to accept that there are always going to be some people who will take advantage of the system.

It's always tempting to view the past through rose tinted spectacles, and to focus on the negative rather than on the positive. Ask, say, an Irishman what it was like to live in London in the 50s, or imagine what it must've been like to work down the mines or as a chimney sweeps's apprentice before that - there are many people still living who could tell you plenty about that.

Here's a couple of ancient quotes - the authorship is uncertain (often attributed to Socrates) but that they far pre-date modern times is not in question:

The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority, they show disrespect to their elders.... They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and are tyrants over their teachers.

The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint. They talk as if they alone knew everything and what passes for wisdom with us is foolishness with them. As for girls, they are forward, immodest and unwomanly in speech, behaviour and dress.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Interesting point especially when I consider that Melbourne, AUS would be the 3rd largest city in America if it where relocated here. Yet, in comparison, you will here about a murder or two per month to 3 shot etc each and every day here. In a city of 3.8 million we do not have any no go zones. Can you say the same about the east NJ areas or Phili or east DC? and the list goes on.

Over 17,000 people where murdered in the US in comparison to ~350 in the UK, Canada and Aus. Even when factoring in the population difference the numbers do not add up to your "opinion".

What opinion was that exactly - that your reliance on the media to illustrate broad social decline is a rather flawed way of looking at things.

That's the only opinion I'm expressing.

I don't know what bringing in Australia (again) has to do with the price of fish. Its a different country, with its own set of problems - some universal, some unique.

Its a pretty big jump to go from discussing changes over time in the same country, to current sociological differences between entirely different countries.

Regardless - that doesn't have a lot (well anything) to do with my argument so far.

[Mags 112]

Absolutely. The methodology may change (i.e. poisoning to guns, impaling to guns, etc) but the basic nature is there underneath it all - the driving force.

That hasn't changed at all.

The other factor is in the types of crimes committed.

We have more school shootings in this century...but on the other hand I haven't seen many poisoning cases these days; I don't believe Mary Ann Cotton would've managed to kill so many in modern times.

There are more abortions and single parents these days but there are also fewer orphanages and a lower infant mortality rate. Women were always having babies out of wedlock; it is simply that now there are probably far fewer babies being brought up believing that their mother is actually their sister or being abandoned on doorsteps. It's a tricky situation; if you return to the laws of yesteryear then you'll end up with more botched backstreet abortions and higher rates of infanticide; if you keep today's laws, then you'll have to accept that there are always going to be some people who will take advantage of the system.

It's always tempting to view the past through rose tinted spectacles, and to focus on the negative rather than on the positive. Ask, say, an Irishman what it was like to live in London in the 50s, or imagine what it must've been like to work down the mines or as a chimney sweeps's apprentice before that - there are many people still living who could tell you plenty about that.

Here's a couple of ancient quotes - the authorship is uncertain (often attributed to Socrates) but that they far pre-date modern times is not in question:

The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority, they show disrespect to their elders.... They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and are tyrants over their teachers.

The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint. They talk as if they alone knew everything and what passes for wisdom with us is foolishness with them. As for girls, they are forward, immodest and unwomanly in speech, behaviour and dress.

[Heracles 417]

Nowadays kids have on demand access to violence, horror etc through various mediums which humans, over the past 10,000 years, have never had access to let alone with such ease. Studies have shown that such exposure has negative affects on children. Clearly affecting some more than others. hence the reason it is highly regulated in various countries.

We where all kids once. Some got up to no good more than others. Coming from Aus, for example, there is clearly a huge difference in attitude between the kids there to the kids here. I have cousins, nephews and nieces of the same age yet the difference in attitude between them based on where the are from is amazing to see.

[Heracles 417]

I don't know what bringing in Australia (again) has to do with the price of fish. Its a different country, with its own set of problems - some universal, some unique.

Its a pretty big jump to go from discussing changes over time in the same country, to current sociological differences between entirely different countries.

It has a lot to do with one another considering that countries are so similar. Well for now..

It shows that based on ones exposure, surroundings, culture, upbringing, parenting or lack of etc this can have a dramatic affect on crime and even how it is perceived within a community. Something quantifiable changed after the 60's in America which has altered the standard of living, safety, security, risk of being a victim of violent crime etc for Americans. Whereas you seem to deny this and believe that people where as self-absorbed, unsympathetic, victims of violence etc in the 40's, for example, as they are now.

Edited March 4, 2008 by Boo-Yah!

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

So how does that explain higher crime rate in Sydney, hmmmm?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't know what bringing in Australia (again) has to do with the price of fish. Its a different country, with its own set of problems - some universal, some unique.

Its a pretty big jump to go from discussing changes over time in the same country, to current sociological differences between entirely different countries.

It has a lot to do with one another considering that countries are so similar. Well for now..

It shows that based on ones exposure, surroundings, culture, upbringing, parenting or lack of etc this can have a dramatic affect on crime and even how it is perceived within a community. Something quantifiable changed after the 60's in America which has altered the standard of living, safety, security, risk of being a victim of violent crime etc for Americans. Whereas you seem to deny this and believe that people where as self-absorbed, unsympathetic, victims of violence etc in the 40's, for example, as they are now.

I'm not denying anything - simply that your entire argument thus far has relied on media presentation as a means of judging social changes. Its a flawed way of looking at things - for all the reasons that I've said.

You don't seem capable or willing to quantify (or qualify for that matter) anything in relation to backing up your claims. And when pushed - you change the argument completely to something totally different that doesn't even tie in to your original statements.

[Heracles 417]

So how does that explain higher crime rate in Sydney, hmmmm?

Sydney's population is actually larger than LA. Is their crime rate anywhere near that of LA?

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I hate to break it to you but the population of Los Angeles County (which doesn't even come close to representing the entire LA conurbation) is 10 million - more than twice the size of Sydney

[Heracles 417]

I'm not denying anything - simply that your entire argument thus far has relied on media presentation as a means of judging social changes. Its a flawed way of looking at things - for all the reasons that I've said.

You don't seem capable or willing to quantify (or qualify for that matter) anything in relation to backing up your claims. And when pushed - you change the argument completely to something totally different that doesn't even tie in to your original statements.

I am not going to bother asking what qualifies as substantiated research under your 'standards. The media's job is to report the news. It is up to us to make a logical assumption based on the facts presented to us. Rather than jump on the moronic the big bad corporate media is stupid and out to get us mentality.

Whenever discussing something you seem to confuse my unwillingness to show you proof of my view as it being weak and unsubstantiated. Or was it anecdotal. But anyway, in reality it is merely a case of me choosing not to spend time proving a point to someone I do not know anything about in a visa forum.

I hate to break it to you but the population of Los Angeles County (which doesn't even come close to representing the entire LA conurbation) is 10 million - more than twice the size of Sydney

Seems to suggest otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles,_California

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

Edited March 4, 2008 by Boo-Yah!

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Seems to suggest otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles,_California

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

That is for the City of Los Angeles - as any fule no (and you know all about LA and the people there), what is commonly referred to as "Los Angeles" includes several cities and unincorporated towns such as Inglewood, Hollywood, Santa Monica, Inglewood, Compton, Watts, Venice, Marina Del Rey, etc. The population of this urban community is 10 million.