I have missed my CS friends in all their variety of flora and fauna since I have been working long hours..... so upon returning home at this late hour and open this thread, to read the last post first then backwards......
I stop, read, laugh, re-read, laugh harding.
I must bow down, and thank you for the tear-drop humor.
.... (now let me just forward this post to the confession authorities....)
I meant to say we are trying to find some clue, something that stands out, that we can point at, to say, ah so that what makes them different then us. Because otherwise, if we think about these monsters as us...... well that would warp our understanding of ourselves wouldn't it?
So the story goes that the mice got together to decide that the best thing to save them from the cat in the house, was to put a bell on it so they could hear him coming and scamper away from the cat. The question became who was going to bell the cat?
So in this case, it is a room full of cats, trying to figure out which cat is going to eat them, so that they could hear them coming and get out of the way......
I know, I know, don't quite my day job and become a storyteller.......
as joey has said in another thread ------- tru that!
I guess I was talking more about the stronger ugly side of human nature when dealing with overcrowding.
I haven't seen any studies about the effects of overcrowding since the work in the early 70s with rats in a cage, the more you put in, the more bad behavior you get, hoarding food, biting neighbors and brothers, killing young, very, very aggressive behavior - all this from rats in a too little cage, just imagine the sophistication of this transferred onto humans, in a too too small area, like a city.
True, true it is unfair to compare the first world with the third.
I would not get into a pissing contest, tho, with regards to America as anti-social and a-social ---- this coming from your country, a country that populated America......
America is a land of individuals - warm, loving families, vast lands, highly diverse... and other more competitive than cooperative. when you are talking about a population of 318,892,103 and counting a birth every 8 seconds and a death every 13 seconds......
Katherine Watson’s 2004 book on the subject, Poisoned Lives: English Poisoners and Their Victims, looked at 540 poison murder cases in England, from 1750 to 1914, a study that includes the killers I’ve cited above. (excepting Grinder). Her analysis found that the killers in these cases consistently split fairly evenly between men and women. It is a balance not so different from the justice department finding I cited earlier. Over the centuries, both men and women have chosen it to kill in at least equal measure. But because women seem to preferentially chose poison, when they do turn to murder, its reputation has come be that of an almost purely feminine weapon.
We can find plenty of explanations for the way that women use poison as a weapon. That they seek to avoid the risks of physical confrontation. Or that they seek to avoid the ugly, bloody havoc left behind by bullets or knives. But our woman’s weapon mythology, I think, obscures the more real portrait of all successful poisoners, all those killers counted up in the U.S. crime statistics, male and female alike. They are planners and plotters, killers who do their homework. They are cold, they are devious, and they believe that this is a method that will allow them to get away with their murder. It’s not, you see, that poison is a woman’s weapon.
Of course, most murderers, period, are male. The justice department’s homicide trend report I cited, finds, that killers are statistically 89.5 percent males and 10.5 percent females. And there’s another point, I think, to be gleaned from this criminal justice overview. In other violent crimes, male dominance is much more pronounced than in poison killings. Over all for felony murders? That’s 93.2 percent male offenders, 6.8 percent female. And if we consider our country’s weapon of choice, the firearm? Gun homicides stand at 92.1 percent male, 7.9 percent female. And this more extreme ratio holds across the other DOJ categories, from arson to workplace argument.
Because if you actually bother to scroll back through famous poisoners of history or to check the crime statistics you will realize first that 1) poison is a gender-neutral weapon and, 2) a greater proportion of poisoners are men. Let’s put this in the context of some relatively recent context. The U. S. Department of Justice’s report on Homicide Trends in the United States (1980 to 2008) offers up this statistical insight: of all poison killers in that time period 60.5 percent male and 39.5 percent female.
RE: Why do people develop into "Serial Killers?"
I have missed my CS friends in all their variety of flora and fauna since I have been working long hours..... so upon returning home at this late hour and open this thread, to read the last post first then backwards......I stop, read, laugh, re-read, laugh harding.
I must bow down, and thank you for the tear-drop humor.
.... (now let me just forward this post to the confession authorities....)
Hold, that thought, back in a minute.