Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
This is a very difficult question. Among the participants, there are a lot of children who are not able to realize responsibility for their actions. Either because of their age, or because the parents are not very interested in the life of their child, not considering it necessary to explain to them the principles of the world order.
Although on the other hand, with such an upbringing, it is unlikely that someone intelligent will grow out of them.
Half-answer, half-comment.
For many thousands of years, people have been subject to cultural selection. Not natural, but cultural.
This is natural among animals and plants, where there is no intelligence.
Societies that have tried to turn to natural selection (admiring the strongest), which is still cultural selection, since the conversion is conscious, do not survive.
Where is Sparta, where is the Third Reich?
And if society is aware of the cultural selection that is happening to it, the phenomenon of teenage suicides should be an important signal that there are some problems in society.
If some people want to live longer, and some want to live less, this is an objective indicator of problems.
Despite the fact that suicide itself is not news, Russia leads in Europe in the number of teenage suicides. I see the latest comparison data for 2014 and the authorities ' statement in 2016 that the number continues to grow.
From time to time, I see the opinion that the authorities should not punish”curators”, since teenagers who join such communities already have an initial tendency to commit suicide and there is nothing terrible in the fact that these people will die.
Disgustingly cynical pseudo-liberal negativism in its clearest manifestation (about the fact that no one is wrong in 100% of cases, read here)
Adolescent suicide is caused by a discrepancy in the level of neuropsychological development of the problems facing a teenager.
The rate of this type of maturation is determined by a combination of genetic and acquired factors, so there is no need to talk about “free will” (they say, this is a personal decision of a person and who we are to interfere with him).�
A teenager who, say, at 16 did not see any solution to his problems, in a few years will be able to look at everything with different eyes (since his brain has developed to a more mature perception of reality).
The role of the formal system (in particular, law enforcement), to eliminate the destructive influence of anti-social elements such as the aforementioned “curators”.�
And the role of the public is to counteract them to the best of its ability.
Or at least not support it.
Are needed. Why consider a person's “benefit” to society only by one very narrow criterion? And what makes them so different from those who don't play?Suicidal tendencies? So they have half of those who suffer from depression. The only thing that the game does is push in this direction those who have such inclinations. A healthy person will not play it seriously. And now very, very few teenagers have died from the whale. Not nearly as much as our news reports claim. That is, the question boils down to whether we need people who suffer from depression. You can ask a completely similar question. Do we need disabled people? Do we need people with a stroke? Cancer patients? Prisoners? Deaf and dumb? If you develop the idea, you get some kind of Abelist ideology. Which, if promoted in society, will lead to collapse, because a good third of the population will have to be imprisoned/exiled/liquidated.
About naivety and manageability. Unfortunately, these qualities are not shared by poor children who are driven to suicide, but by half of the country's population. As soon as the media throw a fishing rod, the fish itself jumps on the hook. Even if the bait is low-grade. Putting the blame for all suicides on a certain group that (probably) caused several cases – well, this could only work on those who completely forgot how to think. And it worked. And it's sad.
No one needs us, except for our loved ones. And no one needs you (except your loved ones). And no one needs children (except their loved ones).
It's overpopulated, you know. And a kind of social policy of the state.
And falling living standards. And hawthorn. And many more fun things to do.
Therefore, a couple of hundred stupid children is only a reason to raise the hype, assert yourself, show others your moral purity and all that.�
But in fact, society doesn't care.
Because if I didn't care, even stupid kids would feel it, and they wouldn't do that kind of shit.
I read the answers above and I'm shocked.
people, what are you talking about??? These are CHILDREN!!! These are not yet fully formed personalities, both physically and psychologically. Open any textbook from 30 years ago on child and early adolescent psychology and you will be able to do more than that with the fragile psyche of a child. You can put disadvantages, but this is a fact. Hence, the roots grow on the ban on propaganda of same-sex relationships. Hence the ban on alcohol and tobacco.
To the answer to the question. Yes, they do. And those who conduct such “games” should be imprisoned. For a long time.
Yes, yes. It's much easier to give up on a child than to deal with it. It's better to let it die, isn't it, Nadezhda? It is necessary to kick out of school, after the first two, because you will not be able to study well.
I would have fished you out on the street and played “natural selection”with you. That's what you're suggesting, isn't it, VICTOR?” I wonder who would have survived.??
Of course you do. Even if we omit moral principles (let's assume that we have forgotten about them), people who express the opposite opinion at least confuse the two categories. The first category is the subject here and now. The second is the subject considered in development. You, damn it, do not claim that infants are not needed, because they do not bring any benefit.�
In general, you should call a spade a spade – this is not a game, but a crime. Does society need people who commit crimes against them? If you don't need it, then who needs such a society?
As experimental objects, to test the manageability of people (young) using the Internet, we certainly need them. The data obtained in this game has not yet been fully processed, and therefore it will continue. From the point of view of natural selection, no, because the strongest survives, and these players are not such.