Who influenced Breivik to commit his heinous act?

[apeiron]

The right thing, I think, is to stay calm about it and just look at the numbers: Are you, as a society, better off with harsh penalties, or tree-hugging criminals to death? The problem is that nobody knows what works except for crime statistics and recidivism.

All the more so on what is supposed to be a science forum. Let's see a rational examination of the facts. Emotional rants and xenophonic comments we can get anywhere.

 

[apeiron]

A failure of society, yes,

Precisely. So focus on fixing the society. What would that look like?

 

[Evo]

Precisely. So focus on fixing the society. What would that look like?

Impossible.

 

[MarcoD]

The difference is with hardened criminals here, people that grew up in a world of gang violence that don't know anything else. You live by having power over others, drugs, killing, it's their life. A failure of society, yes, but they are killing machines, they don't care. Send one of these people to a Norwegian prison and see what happens. These people have no remorse, they get their kicks out of killing people.

I am aware of that. The US is a big place in comparison to Norway, and if you would take the EU in total I have little doubt that crime numbers would be comparable if not larger. Norway is just a very small, relatively rich country. It's like comparing Seattle to the rest of the states. (I don't know if Seattle is the right example.)

What I do think, is that Norway has one thing right: It is not about punishment, it is about rehabilitating those who can be rehabilitated, have a quiet life and contribute to society. I don't care about the other criminals.

The stupid thing about Breivik is that he falls outside the norm. It is unlikely that it would have happened, now it happened, and it is unlikely that it will happen again anytime soon. In a sense, it doesn't matter what happens to him. Maybe they rehabilitate him, maybe they let him rot for the rest of his life. But I don't think they should change a perfectly well working system over him.

 

[Evo]

I am aware of that. The US is a big place in comparison to Norway, and if you would take the EU in total I have little doubt that crime numbers would be comparable if not larger. Norway is just a very small, relatively rich country. It's like comparing Seattle to the rest of the states. (I don't know if Seattle is the right example.)

What I do think, is that Norway has one thing right: It is not about punishment, it is about rehabilitating those who can be rehabilitated, have a quiet life and contribute to society. I don't care about the other criminals.

The stupid thing about Breivik is that he falls outside the norm. It is unlikely that it would have happened, now it happened, and it is unlikely that it will happen again anytime soon. In a sense, it doesn't matter what happens to him. Maybe they rehabilitate him, maybe they let him rot for the rest of his life. But I don't think they should change a perfectly well working system over him.

Like you said, not everyone can be rehabilitated. For most of the hardened criminals in the US, that's the case. You cannot compare the Martha Stewart type criminals in Norway to what we have in the US. Just the sad reality.

 

[apeiron]

Impossible.

Source?

 

[Evo]

source?

Imo. I'm a realist.

Do you have any idea of how out of control gang life is here? I know you don't live in the US, so it's understandable that you are not familiar with American gang culture or the horrific prison system.

It's so funny that I've never stated my opinion on crime or our penal system, aside from criticising it, yet people have taken it upon themselves to create one for me.

 

[apeiron]

Imo. I'm a realist.

You are making a ridiculously sweeping statement in claiming a social situation is unfixable. You should provide a better argument than IMO if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[Evo]

You are making a ridiculously sweeping statement in claiming a social situation is unfixable. You should provide a better argument than IMO if you want to be taken seriously.

And you should provide an argument to the opposite to back yourself up. No? I'd love to see the research done that claims how this problem can be fixed since you seem to know I'm wrong. You're getting overly emotional and making statements that I haven't seen backed up. I suggest that you calm down and show me where my opinion is wrong instead of making snide remarks.

 

[MarcoD]

Impossible.

Impossible is just what Breivik thought. He lost faith in that society could fix, or defend itself, against all deluded threats he imagined are there. Therefor he set out to fix it himself.

Impossible is not an answer. Having a clear view of movement in society, the sources of the violence, and the best manner to deal with it, is.

Your goal seems to be: fix it by elimination. That's not always the best possible, ethically just, or sensible approach.

In the extreme case, you end up hanging everyone who just did something wrong. Of course, you can 'fix' a society that way. But I don't want to live in Iran or North-Korea.

 

[Evo]

Your goal seems to be: fix it by elimination.

Please post where I said this. Do not start making things up.

Seriously, post where I said that.

 

[MarcoD]

Please post where I said this. Do not start making things up.

Seriously, post where I said that.

I said 'seems to be'. It was just what I assumed given your remarks on the Norwegian penalty system. I do apologize that I got it wrong.

 

[apeiron]

And you should provide an argument to the opposite to back yourself up. No? I'd love to see the research done that claims how this problem can be fixed since you seem to know I'm wrong. You're getting overly emotional and making statements that I haven't seen backed up. I suggest that you calm down and show me where my opinion is wrong instead of making snide remarks.

I'd be happy to discuss social policy in this area. And the wider context of embedded neoliberalist politics. It is one of my interests.

But it is you that have made wild and unsupported statements here. So I'll wait to see if you can back them up.

By definition I cannot argue against an "opinion". All one can employ against opinion is further rhetoric. And then you'd start handing out infractions.

But if you can supply reasoned argument - a theory and its data - then yes I could show where you are wrong.

 

[Evo]

I'd be happy to discuss social policy in this area. And the wider context of embedded neoliberalist politics. It is one of my interests.

But it is you that have made wild and unsupported statements here. So I'll wait to see if you can back them up.

By definition I cannot argue against an "opinion". All one can employ against opinion is further rhetoric. And then you'd start handing out infractions..

But if you can supply reasoned argument - a theory and its data - then yes I could show where you are wrong.

It's my opinion that it can't be fixed, at least not in my lifetime, maybe never. People here are allowed to have opinions. I haven't seen anything that says I'm wrong. You started with the accusations, so I expect that you know something I don't know. I'm willing to read whatever you have that makes my opinion wild and unsupported.

Don't make accusations that you aren't ready to back up with facts. If you want to say that it's just your opinion, then you may do so. People are allowed to have differing opinions.

 

[MarcoD]

It's my opinion that it can't be fixed, at least not in my lifetime, maybe never.

I guess people started to disagree on what the problem is, and what fixing means, and we got side-tracked to discussing US penalty systems. I agree with you that criminality is unfixable, it seems you are undecided on the issue. I could make stupid remarks about a US system I don't understand. My general view is that dividing the overall wealth, good education, demystifying fears, and having an on rehabilitation based penal system is the best for a society.

But what do I know. Maybe the US and Norway have the best penal systems anyway given their circumstances? Having a little faith in what you have, trust the judicial system, also helps, just look at Breivik.

 

[apeiron]

People are allowed to have differing opinions.

Yes, but I thought the guideline here was that they also have to be adequately sourced. Glad to be corrected on this and will remember that for future reference.

In the meantime, I refer you back to my post #24 where I did take a social constructionist perspective on Breivik's "insanity".

Gang culture, and underclasses everywhere, are clearly the result of social conditions. They would not exist unless there was a context that could produce them.

The standard sociological analysis would start with conditions such as extreme social inequality, free access to lethal weapons, drug laws based on prohibition rather than public health, fragmentation of family ties, etc, etc.

You would be right that gang culture in the US can't be fixed unless US society as a whole is willing to make change. If that is all you are saying, then of course I agree.

 

[Willowz]

So... When is the trial taking place?

 

[hbjon]

Do you think that someone must be insane to commit horrible acts? ANYONE can do terrible things if they convince themselves that it is the RIGHT decision. If my neighbor is known to be abusing his children does that give me the right to murder him? No! Is it the right thing to do? I bet many would say yes.[/QUOTE

There is something illogical about what they are telling us about Breivik's motives. It seems the whole story is another variation of the evil white supremicist skinhead that went on a rampage because a member of another race stole his girlfriend. I mean, doesn't it seem like the media uses the same fictional story as a guide to start with? Then, changes it gradually as anomollies contradict the facts previously given? The people he set out to kill were his countrymen and women. Hmmmmmm. How can we make that fit into the paradigm? Inject emotion and psychology? Immho, the man was weaponized by a large cult or militia. And I would not rule out the use of hypnotic drugs. According to some disciplines in medicine and human behaviour, the only things that cause insanity are neurotoxins that pass through the blood/brain membrane (a protective barrier). Under normal hypnosis, a person can't be made to do something that is that morally wrong. However, there are a few (unless's) that should be inserted here if I wanted to be long winded. Let us just hope the competent authorities have researched all possibilities.

 

[Evo]

Yes, but I thought the guideline here was that they also have to be adequately sourced. Glad to be corrected on this and will remember that for future reference.

No, opinions do not need citations, only if it is stated as fact. I forgot the Imo, you questioned me and I corrected my statement to be merely opinion.

and then you told me

You are making a ridiculously sweeping statement in claiming a social situation is unfixable. You should provide a better argument than IMO if you want to be taken seriously.

That is a violation of the guidelines, but I'm going to let it go.

In addition to content already prohibited by our global forum guidelines, the following are specifically NOT permitted in Politics & World Affairs:

3) Assigning truth values to opinions. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and feelings.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=113181

 

[apeiron]

Hmmmmmm. How can we make that fit into the paradigm? Inject emotion and psychology? Immho, the man was weaponized by a large cult or militia. And I would not rule out the use of hypnotic drugs. According to some disciplines in medicine and human behaviour, the only things that cause insanity are neurotoxins that pass through the blood/brain membrane (a protective barrier). Under normal hypnosis, a person can't be made to do something that is that morally wrong. However, there are a few (unless's) that should be inserted here if I wanted to be long winded. Let us just hope the competent authorities have researched all possibilities.

More crazy unsupported nonsense. But I guess this is the internet.

 

[Evo]

More crazy unsupported nonsense. But I guess this is the internet.

Now this is where the "overly speculative/personal theory rule comes into play.

 

[apeiron]

That is a violation of the guidelines, but I'm going to let it go.

Judge and jury as usual.

If you check what you wrote, you said this. Gangsters are the result of societal failure. Fixing that failure is impossible.

If you don't feel capable of developing that thought further, given its relevance to the OP, then fine. Yes, we'll just have to call it your "opinion".

 

[Evo]

Judge and jury as usual.

If you check what you wrote, you said this. Gangsters are the result of societal failure. Fixing that failure is impossible.

If you don't feel capable of developing that thought further, given its relevance to the OP, then fine. Yes, we'll just have to call it your "opinion".

Do you seriously want to do a battle of "and you don't think this is my personal opinion?" In the words of WhoWee, Imo. Judge and jury huh, because you asked for the guidelines and I gave them to you? Ok, I'll retract my opinion and give you that infraction, will that make you happy? :tongue2:

You seriously need to chill out. I cut people slack all of the time, if I didn't, we wouldn't have any posters in P&WA.

You made false accusations against me, you made snide remarks, and I have taken no action against you. Yeah, I'm horrible.

Also in our guidelines

Consistent with our general forum guidelines, if you disagree with what someone is saying, feel free to dismantle their arguments, but do not resort to ad hominem or personal attacks. Be mindful and respectful of others' feelings.

Have you read the guidelines?

Can we get back on topic now?

 

[hbjon]

More crazy unsupported nonsense. But I guess this is the internet.

What exactly do you disagree with? Obviously you feel offended by these statements? At the very least, you feel uncomfortable by the information. Perhaps you have information that is different or maybe you can correct the statement by a fact of your own? If your the wisest person on the internet, there is still some things that you can gleen from even the craziest of information. Please excuse my spelling as I have no software that corrects me.

 

[Willowz]

Can we get back on topic now?

I'm not too sure about the topic now. There has been a lot of speculation made (by me and others). Just waiting for the trial. I hope this doesn't appear like some "OJ Simpson" sickish entertainment. Maybe it is... *wonders*

 

[Evo]

I'm not too sure about the topic now. There has been a lot of speculation made (by me and others). Just waiting for the trial. I hope this doesn't appear like some "OJ Simpson" sickish entertainment. Maybe it is... *wonders*

As long as there is nothing more spine tingling to report, it will be, unfortunately.

I'm afraid that this atrocity will soon be replaced in the news by something else.

 

[Willowz]

Well the report is in on Breivik; he is officially insane.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15936276

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Well the report is in on Breivik; he is officially insane.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15936276

There is a thread for discussing this new development.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=555011

 

[shashankac655]

Why then did he lose his faith in democracy? That's the mystery.

How can democracy and religious extremism go together?
They are exact opposites of each other.
a true Democracy respects all religions,cultures.

He is an extreme case of brainwashing by right wing groups ,he has been made to get paranoid about Islam ,people can't become like that overnight ,i think he has been under bad influence from a very long time.

Right wing groups are present in all the countries ,they try to attract young teenage minds and brainwash them but they differ from country to country .

 

[MarcoD]

How can democracy and religious extremism go together?
They are exact opposites of each other.
a true Democracy respects all religions,cultures.

He is an extreme case of brainwashing by right wing groups ,he has been made to get paranoid about Islam ,people can't become like that overnight ,i think he has been under bad influence from a very long time.

Right wing groups are present in all the countries ,they try to attract young teenage minds and brainwash them but they differ from country to country .

I agree with the democracy part.

The silly thing is that I think, even partly know, that it is the result of the Internet. I've been looking around on some of the right wing sites, and -apart from that most of them are just megalomaniac idiots- it's easy to see how someone with a gullible mind can fall for it. Those sites are just cocomanias of distorted representations of facts and world views. So you have some idiot sitting at home playing counterstrike -or whatever,- training with guns, already into a nutcase environment with free masons, while buying into the megalomaniac Internet paranoid plots and in full solitude developing his own theories of how the world works.

I know the police is baffled, but his ideas are mostly copycatted from whatever is out there on the Internet. He's not even the only knight's templar around, there are more of them.

They guy is a lunatic somewhere, but I don't buy into the paranoid schizo part. To be honest, to me it feels more akin to whatever drives football hooligans again driven to an extreme: just people who have their heads filled with idiocy.