What's wrong with our youth? Is it a psychosocial disorder? Is it the parents?

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

I assume that you're speaking generally when you say "you/we also have to understand." None of what is being typed in this thread is a revelation. So it seems like we're typing in circles and repeating ourselves most of the time.

It doesn't change the fact that all violence is not created or responded to equally in this society. People have an image of the "types of people" that are violent and criminal and the "types of places" that this occurs--even if their assessment is inaccurate. It is this perception that feeds the fears and opinions. Not accurate information. Just another reminder for some people who are on the "what's new with our kids...why are they so violent all of a sudden" kick.



Everything's "part of the problem." But a moderate % of adults (and a smaller % of youth) have some degree of mental illness. Most of these people are functional so they have reasoning and self-regulation capacity. They won't end up criminal or deviant on most regards. So to that end, untreated mental illness has not been found to have a huge impact unless the person is unable to function without medication or counseling services.

This is good. I agree, we are going in circles, but you and a few other members are the only intelligent members who are posting on this thread who can have an intelligent chatting session without calling people names. What you said is really good, but I want to elaborate on the mental illness part.

To me, it just seems like people aren't diagnosed until after something harmful happens. In fact few shooters are diagnosed with mental illnesses before their crimes. Yet many are discovered afterward to be mentally ill. Depression and schizophrenia or one of it's variants are particularly common. Only a small minority of these children are under treatment. A lot of us might expect adults who routinely deal with adolecents, such as school personnel, to be able to spot mental illness. I think it turns out to be exceptionally difficult, largely because problems like clinical depression or schizophrenia may be in their early stages, lacking some of the symptoms that manifest themselves later in life. At the onset of the disease, kids are often aware of how different they are from others and, feeling the stigma that comes with this territory, work hard to conceal their troubles. I think mental illness can be a problem if untreated, but given the number of adolescents who are depressed and suicidal, like you said, I totally don't think mental illness can be or should be viewed as a straightforward predictor of school shootings. A lot of times it's these children that are bullied or teased because they may be nerdy or different. Sometimes these kids are sick and no one knows about it, so they snap. Most of the shootings that occured were by kids who were outcasts, teased or just not accepted by their peers.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

This is good. I agree, we are going in circles, but you and a few other members are the only intelligent members who are posting on this thread who can have an intelligent chatting session without calling people names. What you said is really good, but I want to elaborate on the mental illness part.

I was avoiding this thread like the plague but I won't get into why.

I loooove to call names. You just don't deserve it.

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

To me, it just seems like people aren't diagnosed until after something harmful happens. In fact few shooters are diagnosed with mental illnesses before their crimes. Yet many are discovered afterward to be mentally ill. Depression and schizophrenia or one of it's variants are particularly common. Only a small minority of these children are under treatment. A lot of us might expect adults who routinely deal with adolecents, such as school personnel, to be able to spot mental illness. I think it turns out to be exceptionally difficult, largely because problems like clinical depression or schizophrenia may be in their early stages, lacking some of the symptoms that manifest themselves later in life. At the onset of the disease, kids are often aware of how different they are from others and, feeling the stigma that comes with this territory, work hard to conceal their troubles. I think mental illness can be a problem if untreated, but given the number of adolescents who are depressed and suicidal, like you said, I totally don't think mental illness can be or should be viewed as a straightforward predictor of school shootings. A lot of times it's these children that are bullied or teased because they may be nerdy or different. Sometimes these kids are sick and no one knows about it, so they snap. Most of the shootings that occured were by kids who were outcasts, teased or just not accepted by their peers.

You're doing it again. If this is a discussion of violence as a general concept, we have to get away from just thinking about school shooters and their mental health issues. That's the whole "this and this and this and then THAT" approach that lacks focus. You need to assess the validity of mental and emotional health as a correlate for overall violence in children, including perceived increases in violence.

I understand why your mind is going where it is because you have a specific type of violence that is on your mind and peaks your interest. It could also have to do with the image of violence that people are most exposed to. Kind of like that old polygamy thread that I resurrected only to misplace the discussion by discussing the FLDS compound instead of really discussing polygamy.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

I was avoiding this thread like the plague but I won't get into why.

Why don't you want to get into the reason why?

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

Why don't you want to get into the reason why?

Because that's another topic and more typing.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Because that's another topic and more typing.

lol lol....o.k.

[epchick]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

This is good. I agree, we are going in circles, but you and a few other members are the only intelligent members who are posting on this thread who can have an intelligent chatting session without calling people names.

I find this extremely funny, especially since you've made all these comments towards other GC users:

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

Oh dear God, have a cow already!

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

Teach them well and let them lead the way? lol o.k. Whitney Houston. You could have kept that lame remark.

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

"Personally" is the only word you added to your pointless point.

Someone call Whitney. lol

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

Of course I think I'm right. I'm right about a lot of things most of the time, but I'm not the one who's getting totally "hell bent out of shape" and taking things personal like you are.

So obviously you are one of the people you claimed can't have an intelligent conversation w/o calling people names. And don't say "I'm just joking" or "its sarcasm." Really, its just a cop-out.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by epchick

I find this extremely funny, especially since you've made all these comments towards other GC users:
So obviously you are one of the people you claimed can't have an intelligent conversation w/o calling people names. And don't say "I'm just joking" or "its sarcasm." Really, its just a cop-out.

Uh...yeah...o.k.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

Uh...yeah...o.k.

LOL...she's right, though. You did start it.

You just haven't warranted being called names yet, as far as I'm concerned. If you were dumb 90% of the time AND belligerent, then you'd be all kinds of names.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

LOL...she's right, though. You did start it.

You just haven't warranted being called names yet, as far as I'm concerned. If you were dumb 90% of the time AND belligerent, then you'd be all kinds of names.

I wasn't the one who started getting totally upset because people had an opinion. I clearly said that I was kidding to ISUKappa.

[epchick]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

I wasn't the one who started getting totally upset because people had an opinion. I clearly said that I was kidding to ISUKappa.

Except, you were. I haven't seen anyone else get upset, you are the one who's been upset because people have said that you aren't 100% correct.

So you said you were joking, then don't make a comment about how people are calling each other names, because YOU are the one that has been calling names.

[ISUKappa]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

I wasn't the one who started getting totally upset because people had an opinion. I clearly said that I was kidding to ISUKappa.

But it kind of feels you were, especially earlier in the thread. Defensive, at the very least. See this post for examples. Whether or not that's how you meant it, that's how I interpreted it, and I doubt I'm the only one. That's the problem with posting on an online message board. We lose some of the most important aspects of communication (tone of voice, facial expressions, gestures) that it can be difficult to tell the meaning of a post. That's why God invented smileys.

I'm not upset, nor am I taking anything in this thread personally (though some may chose to interpret otherwise). It's just the internets, after all.

[Tippiechick]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Seriously, though? If you needed to, you could've clowned her without going the "stupid bitch" route. Especially when your critique of her position is inaccurate.
Actually, she isn't talking out of her ass in that post and most of her posts. She's just making a laundry list, which brings too many factors into the equation and makes it difficult to assess the relative strength of the factors in explaining the "violence problem."
What she said about migration and the eroding of traditional ties is accurate and supported by research. It is the basis for a lot of theory and research. It doesn't mean it applies in 100% of the cases or relates to everyone's experiences, but as I said before in this thread no one cares about everyone's experiences and exceptions to the research-supported "rules."

The issue of migration and ties is the same explanation that is attached to the advancement of societies, in general, and can be used to compare rural vs urban, different levels of urbanity, regional variations, and different nations. For instance, we compare economically developed nations with urbanization like the U.S. and Japan. We find that Japan has a lower crime rate than the U.S., even with high urbanization and development. One explanation for this is Japan's strong family ties and an ability to maintain solidarity and awareness of those around you (attempt to maintain informal social control mechanisms even with increasing residential mobility) even if society is developing. If you can understand that then you can understand the rural vs. urban distinction that applies in a general sense.

My point was that I wanted evidence. And, from what I have seen, there has yet to be any provided by CG. And, I believe that Southern small town ties are as strong as they have ever been. Unless of course, she would provide me with the same information my post was asking for.

Unless someone backs up their point with hard evidence, I will conclude that they are talking out of their ass. I think, perhaps, you missed the sarcasm in my post. The point was that I can say anything as long as I don't give info to back it up. It was an example... I do think she has overstepped her boundaries on rural Southern towns. That doesn't come from any research. Just almost 3 decades years of living in small rural towns in two Southern states. But, you see, I can admit that. I just want her to back her point up. I think she has talked in circles rather than backing up her position of small, rural towns in the South. If it's all just anecdotal evidence like my statement above, fine. But, I would like an explanation.

But, so far, I cannot find where she has given any kind of proof. From what I have seen, she wants to open a discussion, make points, and back away without defending them.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Tippiechick

And, I believe that small town ties are as strong as they have ever been. Unless of course, you would provide me with the same information my post was asking for.

You can believe that but it doesn't make it true in a general sense.

Feel free to look up and read the sources that I provided regarding the foundation for what cheerfulgreek was referencing. That's the extent of the info that I'll provide for a GC thread on this topic.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Tippiechick

Unless someone backs up their point with hard evidence, I will conclude that they are talking out of their ass. I think, perhaps, you missed the sarcasm in my post. If I wanted to call someone a stupid bitch, I would just say it.

You read more like you're talking out of your ass than cheerfulgreek reads, though. You don't know that the information is wrong. You just think that it's wrong, mostly because you disagree based on your personal experience. Not based on contrary research.

I'm good at capturing sarcasm when it is effectively conveyed. It seemed like you were trying to find a cutesy way of calling her a stupid bitch who doesn't know what she's talking about. If that's not what you were doing...okay....

[Tippiechick]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

You can believe that but it doesn't make it true in a general sense.

Feel free to look up and read the sources that I provided regarding the foundation for what cheerfulgreek was referencing. That's the extent of the info that I'll provide for a GC thread on this topic.

While you were typing, I was editing. See, that was my whole point. That without evidence it doesn't make anything so. Perhaps it was a bad way of phrasing it. But, I was trying to get her attention.

I didn't see the above references until I posted. That's why I edited.

I actually think we are on the same page. I just think sometimes I don't know how to put things in a way that is less aggressive...