- Sorry, we couldn't find that question.
| Are teenagers today more violent than in the past? |
|
|
|
Asked 2 years ago
by odessaphiles  United States |
|
About
I'm a 40 year resident of South Florida, just outside Fort Lauderdale. I've enjoyed watching the area change due to immigration. A lot of it good, some of it bad. But, I realized a long time ago that there is good and bad in every nationality, religion....you get the drift. I have become interested in the Scottish Premier League and in the English Premier League. In the SPL, I root for Heart of Midlothian as my family is from Edinburgh. In the EPL, I cheer for Liverpool as their owners also own the Boston Red Sox. Fenway Park in Boston holds many fond memories of growing up and my young adult life. And, as always, you can e-mail me at odessaphiles@gmail.com....
|
10 Points
|
http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/columnists/mayo/blog/2010/03/text_rage_beating_new_era_of_s.html
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/broward/michaelbrewer/?track=ss-mark-searchlinks-brewer
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyNope. There's a couple of hot topics concerning teen violence in our area that have gained a lot of attention. Remember when we were young and there were fights? The msot serious situation would involve someone getting their ass beat? Now, in the past few months, one has been set on fire and the other, who has never met her attacker, was stomped into a coma with steel-toed boots. I am just curious if this elevation of of extreme violence is occurring elsewhere and with as much savageness, y'know?
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyIn itself teenagers have probably not changed much over the past 100.000 years (genetically we still live in the stone age). However the factors that predispose a person to act violent might have changed. For instance culture might be more accepting of violence, differences between groups in society leading to friction might have become larger, drug-dealing associated with violence might be more widespread, weapens might be more widely available and finally our perception might have changed as well since it is easier to spread the news of a violent incident in the media.
So my conclusion is that it is not so much the teenager that is innately more violent but the circumstances that predispose to violence and our perception of it.
Lord, no! Think about it. During the Middle Ages, people didn't live very long; most decisions were made by the under-thirty crowd (i.e., before the brain's frontal lobes were fully online) because the over-fifty crowd wasn't a crowd, being almost completely non-existant; punishments like drawing and quartering were public entertainment; and so forth.
This comment was deleted.
[-1 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyI was in my teens 50 years ago and I dont see any difference??
I do. I was in my teens 40 years ago. I can remember many fights, with fists, ending with shaking of hands.
I tell people at work this all the time. When I was young, all I worried about was getting my ass beat. Not stabbed. Not shot. Not set on fire.
This is the difference I see.
BTW The 2 links involve white kids. Oh the horror!!!
Well, I don't know where you were but where I was, no one shook hands after a fight unless made to do so.. LOL Oh yes, the second link posted has black vs white--horrors.
I didn't fight by my last year of High School because I was afraid I might kill someone. (I wasn't a saint. I just wasn't picked on.)