Teens killed 6 people to avenge theft of X-Box

[BlackSnake]

Re: Re: Teens killed 6 people to avenge theft of X-Box

It's the kind of planet where G.W. Bush and Dick Cheney murdered +10,000 people (who are just as dead as Ms. Belanger) in order to steal their oil. Unfortunately, Mr. Victorino and company didn't realize that murder is solely the privilege of the super rich.

What Planet or Alternate world are you talking about? The President of the United States did not murder more than 10,000 people for oil. Anyone who fights against my country needs to die. I believe in the American way of life. There are flights leaving this country everyday for those who hold ill will against my country and its people. This sounds terroristic at best to me.

If you don't like the current administration, do like I will do this coming election. Vote against it. Use the system to fight for what you believe. I am from a long line of Americans who suffered, fought, and died for their family and their neighbors. Such statements are not helpful. Embrace the right that so many died to preserve for you, vote.

Vote! Vote with your mind and your heart. Think of your family and your neighbor. Do what you fill is best.

Now watch. More than half the people that complain will not vote.

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Re: Teens killed 6 people to avenge theft of X-Box

Embrace the right that so many died to preserve for you, vote.

Now watch. More than half the people that complain will not vote.

You're so right. That is so frustrating.

My husband's vote and mine won't even count in our grand state of Kansas because of the idiotic electoral college. But we'll still cast 'em!

Ah, for a system of popular voting!

(Now that's a whole 'nother thread!)

 

[BlackSnake]

Re: Re: Teens killed 6 people to avenge theft of X-Box

Ask the politically correct wankers who ban corporal punishment in schools, close down prisons, give offenders fucking rights, and generally fuck about with society to apease the bloody wrong doers and hopeless dossers.

Oh and don't forget the police, who are more interested in catching you for speeding than preventing murder and real crime.

They have pretty much banned corporal punishment in the home. Giving rewards for bad behavior.

I'm glad my mother beat the living shit out of me for fighting at school. Dared me to "so called" express myself. Fuck all who says that's abuse. I think its abuse not to beat the crap out of a kid for not doing what they are told.

Of course there are abuses out there, I believe its because they wasn't taught not to pick on the little guy.

 

[BlackSnake]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Teens killed 6 people to avenge theft of X-Box

...

Ah, for a system of popular voting!

(Now that's a whole 'nother thread!)

I'm with you on that. I don't think that politicans should be able to make laws. I thinking that it should be put to the people in a popular vote.

Let's do what's right for ourselves, family, and neighbor.

Oh, and being in the middle class really suck.

 

[OldnotDead]

Re: Re: Re: Teens killed 6 people to avenge theft of X-Box

There's another political correctness at work over here: the kind that encourages our state legislatures to act tough on crime by passing mandatory sentencing laws for drug possession. Our prisons are packed to overflowing with non-violent offenders and drug-related crime. If violent offenders were the primary users of prisons and criminal courts, there would be no need to make room on the judge's docket and clear out a cell by offering plea deals and early parole to repeat offenders.

It may not be politically correct to say this, but I blame mandatory drug sentencing, and in fact the entire stupid drug war, for the presence of people like this on the street. Decriminalize other drugs than just alcohol, prosectute drugged and drunk drivers alike, but stop overwhelming the justice system with prohibition. It didn't work the first time for anyone but Al Capone, and it's not working now. It's in the way.

Damn, Sher,

You're going to make me do more research. I do not have the facts to back it up, so take this as an unsubstantiated observation.

I personally feel like the increase in drug use and senseless violent crime is not completely unrelated. Crack, for one, definitely increases the likelihood that the user will become violent. There is anecdotal evidence for me that heroin has a similar consequence. The few teen age heroin addicts we have had to deal with were unusually violent compared to their pre addicted personalities.

I understand what you are saying about the ease with which legislatures pass tighter anti-drug laws. At the same time, tougher 'three-strike' laws that affect all criminals have also been passed. I'm just not sure that our prisons are overflowing with non-violent offenders.

There is also the aspect of how the prosecution system works. We recently had a very bad sequence of events that involved a student suspended from a parochial school for drug use. He decided to retaliate against some students that he thought may have 'turned him in'. After school he brought a large group from the public high school, detemined to assault at least one individual. In a gloved hand he held his car and house keys so that they projected not unlike brass knuckles. The student he attacked ended up hospitalized with cuts and damage that included a fracture to they eye socket.

By the time the police arrived, many of the involved students had fled, some of whom tried to get away and cross some land where there cars overturned or got stuck. Many of those ended up with reckless driving and property damage misdemeanors, but a significant number also got arrested on drug possession. The police admitted that without confessions or strong corroborated testimony, very few of the individuals will get arrested for criminal assault.

If there is good news it is that the ring leader is getting criminally prosecuted. At the same time, I don't completely discount that his inability to control his anger was possibly drug related.

The REALLY sad part is that he was an above average student and good athlete that had two significant college offers withdrawn. *sigh*

 

[Teenage Venus]

I think it wrong to blame Bush - he can't help being a bad President.

I think it wrong to blame what kids do on examples set by adults. It seems to me that adult Politicians follow teen trends in hopes of gaining their vote.

People cite the odd 10,000 killed in Iraq in the last ten years. Maybe this is a result of Bush wanting the youth vote, and so having a few Iraqi's killed to be 'with it', and 'young at heart'.

In LA, for instance - a small city by most countries standards - in the same ten years over 10,000 have been killed at the hands of gun-wielding youths. (Official Police Statistics.)

All the adults are doing is following the example set by their children. This is progress. Far better than hanging on to 'old fogy' outdated thinking a policies.

Why should parents be allowed to smack naughty children? Or -worse still - why should teachers be allowed to give the odd cuff? Let the KIDS do this themselves, they make a far better, and thorough job of it. And why make drugs legal? That's plain stupid! What excuse could the kids have for mugging, armed robbery, etc. if drugs were low-priced and legal?

It's time you pontificating adults stopped blaming each other and blaming violence on politics or anything thing else. Give the credit for 99% of the violence where it is due - your own kids, and those of your neighbors.

 

[SummerMorning]

Hm.

Don't really know what to say.

All I know (or at least fullheartedly believe) is that violence is bad.

Now - the difficult part is that things get a bit complicated. How to prevent violence? Does preventing violence with violence work?

And really - let's not simplify. Is it any less violent to deny somebody the possibility of the "good life" (whatever that may be) simply because they were born to poor parents. Is this any less violent than assaulting someone?

I say no - it's just a different kind of violence.

Difficult. Difficult.

 

[shereads]

OldNot,

I didn't mean to say that I think the world would be better off if more people took drugs. Only some people.



My take on drugs is that before we continue tossing money at the probem, we ought to determine some standard that defines when and to what degree society has a right to intervene in the decisions of adults. One thing i've learned from political debate here (WARNING: POLITICAL DEBATE), from you and others who explain their points of view with clarity, is that Americans on the left and right of center seem to have two different definitions of what it means to be free. I don't doubt that both have some validity, but there's only one that my own experience makes appealing to me: adults, of whatever random age we have to agree upon as the age of consent, should be free to accept risks for themselves, but not for others. Society has a right and responsibility to intervene when there is a reasonable likelihood that one person's choice will harm other people.

If you believe, as I do, that one of the reasons violent criminals are so often the beneficiaries of plea deals and unmerited parole, is an overburdened court system and overflowing jails, it makes sense to seek a partial solution by asking whether all of the people we jail are such a threat to us that we can't look for cheaper, more productive solutions.

There may be any number of reasons why the U.S. imprisons a higher percentage of our adult males than other developed countries. I'll grant you that part of it has to do with leniency by the courts and parole boards, if you'll accept that some of that leniency is due to an overburdened system (and not just compassionate judges who can't stand to see a grown man cry.)

No politician who takes his career seriously will risk being labeled "pro-drugs" by addressing the issue of decriminalization, unless a day comes when it's possible to have a reasoned debate about the benefits and consequences of the war on drugs.

I can't speak for everyone who favors decriminalization, but the reason I favor it is not that I crave a fix and don't want to risk getting caught - or that I have too much compassion for Crackhead Bob, who periodically breaks into my house and steals the first thing he can grab that's worth $20 on the street, like my laptop or my grandmother's wedding ring. (Crackhead Bob might be six people or one 14-year-old; if your real name happens to be Everette C. "Crackhead" Roberts, this is not an accusation, just a nickname.)



I favor legalization for two reasons. One of which is that my own concept of freedom is offended by the idea that society has the right and/or obligation to protect adults from themselves. Because if that's the case, we might as well prohibit skydiving, scuba diving, french fries and sex between two people who've just recently met. And of course we'd bring back Prohibition.

Not only is it illogical to selectively prohibit certain risks while allowing others - it's so illogical that any child can see it. I can't help but wonder, when I hear my brother-in-law deliver a drug lecture to his son while sipping the first vodka of the day, what he expects the kid to learn from that. What I learned when I first tried marijuana and found it less disorienting than my roommate's grain alcohol punch, was that adults were not only hypocritical, but had apparently lied about marijuana. You've got to admit, society sends a confusinig and contradictory message about what is and isn't acceptable behavior, when we selectively jail people for risks comparable to the ones we embrace.

Risking harm to innocent bystanders by driving under the influence, or selling any mind-altering substance to children, are clearly things that society has to address. But again, unless you can demonstrate that a drug user is more likely to get in his car and run over you than a scotch-drinker, there's a logic disconnect that weakens the credibility of the justice system.

The other reason I favor legalization is that the drug war, which ostensibly protects society from the consequences of drug use, hasn't stopped Crackhead Bob from stealing to feed his habit; and if you think about it, the drug war may be the reason he steals to begin with.

No, that's not a bleeding-heart liberal defense of crack addicts, not that I might not try one of those too another day. (Just to fan the flames.)



For now, I'll stick with why I think Crackhead Bob steals from me, not why he uses crack.

If Bob's crack addiction didn't cost him any more, per fix, than his friend the corner drunk pays for a gulp of the tasty beverage in that paper bag, Bob might have less incentive to steal. He does, after all, risk breaking into a house with a noisy dog and a burgar alarm and a nearby patrol car, whose occupants urgently don't want to spend time with me after I come home to another kicked-in door.



Unfortunately for Crackhead Bob and the patrol officers and me (and for my dog, who was so terrified when a police dog was sent in to make sure the house was empty, that she had an unfortunate digestive tract accident on the rug) Bob's addiction of choice is not Happy Times Peach Schapps but a blackmarket product whose price is set by a businessman in Bogota. This fellow has to figure in a profit for each person in the distrubution stream, some of whom must be bribed and others who will risk their lives by swallowing 20 chemical-filled condoms that might open during the flight to Miami. These people understandably don't come cheap. Neither does Bob's crack habit, even at $10 to $20 a hit.

Corner-Drunk Larry might commit a petty theft now and then when the Peach Schnapps Cartel raises the price of crude, but he mostly seems to get by on spare-changing drivers at his intersection. (BTW, a pot smoker could make a much fancier cardboard sign that Larry's.)

So is the answer to organize a special enforcement division to identify Crackhead Bob, hunt him down, prosecute him under Florida's tough minimum-sentencing guidelines and throw him into Ted Bundy's old cell? Economically, that makes sense only if you limit the number of crack addicts to something manageable, but we've already tried that.

I think we'd be better off eliminating the blackmarket, and letting Bogota Crack Co., a Division of Halliburton, Inc., complete in the free market for their share of Bob's limited disposable income, right alongside R.J. Reynolds, Happy Times Peach Schnapps and United Poppy Growers of Afghanistan.

I think it was Einstein who defined insanity as doing the same unsuccessful thing, over and over, with the hope of eventual success. Add invasion-of-privacy and a bottomless pit of funding requirements to the insane repetition of unsuccessful behavior, and you've got the War on Drugs.

You must know that the War on Drugs is one of the primary reasons why our prisons and courts are so crowded that they lack sufficient time and money to deal with murderers, rapists and pedophiles. One of the things they're crowded with is Crackhead Bob. And the one solution we haven't tried is to elimiminate the reason he steals. If crack were just one more taxable product with a warning label, and a distribution system that didn't require smugglers, bribe-takers and disposable private jets, Bob could hang out with Corner Drunk Larry instead of breaking into my house to find money for crack. It might not work, but we'll probably never find out. The drug war is worth billions, not just to the drug lords but to the bureaucracy and industries who are the recipients of the drug war budget. So we'll continue to lure businessmen with the near-certainty of enormous wealth if they can manipulate Bob's weaknesses, and those of middlemen who accept most of the risk. And after we lock up this most recent Crackhead Bob, there will be more to take his place.

I'm sure I can google up some statistics about the percentage of the U.S. prison population sentenced for drug-related crime. I don't know how I'd break it down into the numbers of those who are doing time for simple possession, those who committed crimes to support an addiction to a product whose price is fixed by the blackmarket, and crimes within the blackmarket itself: drug rings against competing drug rings, dealers vs. law enforcement, corruption in drug enforcement among the few who can't resist the enormous potential for quick, easy wealth.

Apart from the issue of incentive to commit a crime, is the question of whether society gains more than we lose by incarcerating someone whose drug use hasn't resulted in any crime except drug use. How do we justify locking up someone for smoking marijuana instead of having a few beers after work? A substance you ingest to relax or loosen up is a drug, whether you drink it, smoke it, inject it or swallow a pill.

I've had this debate with people who can't be budged from one of two answers:

1) "Drugs are illegal, and people who use them are breaking the law." I realize that, Mr. Limbaugh, but I'm asking whether the law ought to exist, not whether it's okay for you to break it; and if you do break it, should we really lock you up and throw away the key? Or should we stop spending so much on the Drug War that we can't afford to offer Crackhead Bob a chance at rehab, like you got."

2) "Drugs are bad for you; legalizing them sends the wrong message to children." Hypocrisy Alert! Thank you for playing, but that answer just doesn't make sense in light of the countless things adults can do for entertainment that entail risk to their health. Who wants to live in a country that protects adults from making informed choices, including those that involve some degree of risk. Also: jail is not so good for you, either. Please protect me from prison as vehemently as you protect me from Demon Weed.

Personally, I think our resources would be better spent on protecting those who didn't choose and aren't enjoying someone else's risky habit, but are likely to be harmed by it. If there's reason to believe that heroin addicts are more likely to drive under the influence than alcoholics, there's reason to restrict heroin use. But a standard of zero-risk-to-any-innocent-bystander can't be applied without making alcohol and skydiving illegal. (If I'm no better at skydiving than most people are at driving, my plummeting body might land on your child.)

When Prohibition was repealed, we accepted the known risk that some drinkers will become addicted, and others will drive drunk and hit schoolbuses. We accepted the risk, in part because it seemed less than the risk of blackmarket-induced crime. It makes sense to apply the same standard to drug crime, and to accept that those whose drug use harms no one but themselves have the same rights as those who drink responsibily.

It's fair. It would free the justice system to concentrate on violent crime. It would save billions every year that could be spent on drug-and-alcohol prevention and treatment programs, or Bush's moon base. And it would give parents one less awkward moment when they're caught with their credibility-pants down, by a kid who's too shrewd to believe that Daddy's sixpack-a-day is morally superior to the neighbor's marijuana use. Dad's habit is already handicapped before the argument even starts, because the neighbor has a bong shaped like a skull.

Your thoughts?

 

[CrimsonMaiden]

Will someone please explain to me why those of you who don't want to read certain posts feel compelled to read them anyway? Is the scroll function that difficult to use?

I have never seen so many people victimized by words as I have here in this Authors Hangout. Thread space is treated like a limited commodity that is being used up by interlopers. People whose interests are different from your own are accused of spoiling your good time, by "shouting in your faces."

Most amazing is the epidemic inability to recognize irony, as when you read a thread entitled "Bloody hideous murder of six people" and then claim that you came here for a bit of escapist fun, which has now been ruined by politics.

Bludgeoning 6 people doesn't dampen your spirits, but my politics do? Even if I wanted to do things your way, I'd need a tutor before I'd understand what qualifies as entertainment to you and what's off limits.

As for the shouting, I apologize. Now that I know you have the special sound feature that means you hear my posts even when you don't choose to read them, I'll try to post quietly.

I can't believe there was a time when I was in awe of everyone here because you'd had the courage to post your stories. I'm still grateful for the free porn, but c'mon, this isn't the Library of Congress and I'm not stopping you from posting and reading and ignoring anything you please. Thanks to our hosts, there's more thread where this came from.

Watch this demonstration:





















Look at all the thread I wasted, and yet there's still more! There's plenty of thread for flirting and games and jokes and issues of life and death, for those of us who happen to enjoy all those things. For those who enjoy one or more but not all, there's the scroll feature. For those who haven't yet figured out that when I post, there may be politics in the fine print, there is the Ignore Button. For me, there is virtual ignore, which Og recommends and which I find is working just fine lately. I've even learned to sort of get along with Amicus. He, at least, never suggested that I had no right to post my opinions here among The Authors.

In summary: to those who have asked that some of us resist posting on topics you don't enjoy, you're not going to like my answer. So I'll make it tiny and extra-quiet, out of consideration for whatever condition you may suffer from that prevents you from looking away.

No. This is a free speech site, and I happen to like porn with my politics. As long as there are people here whose company I enjoy and whose opinions I respect, I'll write what I please. By the way, your president is an idiot.

I don't give a damn if you post political shit in political threads. It would be nice though if you didn't post political shit in threads that AREN'T. I DON'T read the political threads, but I still get all of y'alls political views thrown in my face because you post them in threads that have nothing to do with politics when they are started.

 

[Clare Quilty]

What Planet or Alternate world are you talking about? The President of the United States did not murder more than 10,000 people for oil. Anyone who fights against my country needs to die.

Apparently I'm on planet Halliburton in the Carlyle Group galaxy. Shrub did kill +10,000 people in Iraq, not to mention the close to 1000 Americans whose lives he pissed away for nothing. He lied to the nation, the congress and the world in order to fulfill his personal fatwa against Iraq--and in so doing, transfer hundreds of billions of tax payer dollars into the hands of his friends.

Moreover, what does "anyone who fights against my country needs to die" have to do with Iraq? Iraq didn't attack the United States. Was there even a single Iraqi on jets that crashed on 9/11? There was a shit-load of Saudis though. But, of course, the Bush family has long had financial ties to The Sauds, so there was no chance of actually attacking the source of the money that finances terrorism. China has, on many occasions, threatened to destroy the U.S., but Shrub has his ass up China's butt. Why? Perhaps because Shrub Sr., former envoy to China, made millions marketing Chubb insurance to China.

I chuckle whenever I hear jingoistic crap like this, as it is usually from the mouths of people who, unlike myself, are not combat veterans of the United States military. The constitution is sacred to me. That is what I swore to defend when I joined the army. This usurper president, on the other hand, I couldn't give less of a shit about. He is a disgrace.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Drugs, Bush, and all that jazz.

I find this humorous.

Here, there is all this talk about all these tangental things when basic questions go unanswered. Like how the media is so desperate to shape video games as the new "Satan corrupting our youth" that an article about a senseless slaughter spends a good 75% of the article repeating that an X-Box was part of that which the squatters killed for?

Or how about the ineptitude of the police to understand that a clear threat was occuring?

Or why a simple handoff of goods could not occur if the squatters were that psycho about them?

Or simply the extremely big question that no one wants to touch on stories like these: What makes us so much better than animals again?

 

[shereads]

Drugs, Bush, and all that jazz.

I find this humorous.

Here, there is all this talk about all these tangental things when basic questions go unanswered. Like how the media is so desperate to shape video games as the new "Satan corrupting our youth" that an article about a senseless slaughter spends a good 75% of the article repeating that an X-Box was part of that which the squatters killed for?

Or how about the ineptitude of the police to understand that a clear threat was occuring?

Or why a simple handoff of goods could not occur if the squatters were that psycho about them?

Or simply the extremely big question that no one wants to touch on stories like these: What makes us so much better than animals again?

Why don't you tell us what you think, Luc, instead of laughing at our humorous tangents? I think your 75% count is a bit high re: X-Box mentions, but if they had killed for a Hello Kitty tricycle that would be newsworthy as well.

The ineptitude of the police has been covered pretty well in today's follow-up in the local papers. The 9-11 tapes of this woman's TWO calls earlier in the week include the sound of the ringleader screaming threats at her through her locked bedroom door after he broke into her apartment. Four hours before he came back to do what he'd threatened to do, he had a meeting with his parole officer. Somehow the system broke down. I'm on my drug-war tangent because I think it's one of the main reasons the justice system is so overwhelmed its a joke.

The handoff of goods didn't occur because the police had told the woman it was okay to throw the stuff away. She actually agreed to meet with the guys at her grandmother's house so they could go in and collect the rest of their things. From what they were yelling on the 9-11 tape, they were apparently furious that she called the police the first and second times they kicked in the door. The third time, they returned with baseball bats.

I feel so sorry for her, knowing she begged for help and that saving her life and her friends' would have been as simple as revoking his parole.

Edited to add: Since you asked what makes us better than these animals, here's a clue: so far, I've never beaten anyone to death. That makes me six human lives and one dog life better than these animals.

 

[RenzaJones]

delete

 

[RenzaJones]

Will someone please explain to me why those of you who don't want to read certain posts feel compelled to read them anyway? Is the scroll function that difficult to use?

I have never seen so many people victimized by words as I have here in this Authors Hangout. Thread space is treated like a limited commodity that is being used up by interlopers. People whose interests are different from your own are accused of spoiling your good time, by "shouting in your faces."

Most amazing is the epidemic inability to recognize irony, as when you read a thread entitled "Bloody hideous murder of six people" and then claim that you came here for a bit of escapist fun, which has now been ruined by politics.

Bludgeoning 6 people doesn't dampen your spirits, but my politics do? Even if I wanted to do things your way, I'd need a tutor before I'd understand what qualifies as entertainment to you and what's off limits.

As for the shouting, I apologize. Now that I know you have the special sound feature that means you hear my posts even when you don't choose to read them, I'll try to post quietly.

I can't believe there was a time when I was in awe of everyone here because you'd had the courage to post your stories. I'm still grateful for the free porn, but c'mon, this isn't the Library of Congress and I'm not stopping you from posting and reading and ignoring anything you please. Thanks to our hosts, there's more thread where this came from.

Watch this demonstration:





















Look at all the thread I wasted, and yet there's still more! There's plenty of thread for flirting and games and jokes and issues of life and death, for those of us who happen to enjoy all those things. For those who enjoy one or more but not all, there's the scroll feature. For those who haven't yet figured out that when I post, there may be politics in the fine print, there is the Ignore Button. For me, there is virtual ignore, which Og recommends and which I find is working just fine lately. I've even learned to sort of get along with Amicus. He, at least, never suggested that I had no right to post my opinions here among The Authors.

In summary: to those who have asked that some of us resist posting on topics you don't enjoy, you're not going to like my answer. So I'll make it tiny and extra-quiet, out of consideration for whatever condition you may suffer from that prevents you from looking away.

No. This is a free speech site, and I happen to like porn with my politics. As long as there are people here whose company I enjoy and whose opinions I respect, I'll write what I please. By the way, your president is an idiot.

It's an easy question to answer, what happens is this. Someone posts a thread about a tragedy and says the world is fucked up. A very true statment, then they go on to tell how grief stricken they are, again a very logical reaction. Then all of a sudden without warning the thread changes to six people and a dog were killed not because these kids were sick and the ring leader is most likely a physcopath (and yes even the police defaulting on their duties) but because of the war in Iraq or some such thing. By the time you're into reading what people post you can't very well know via physic means that it's going to go political it's not about the damn thread space. It's quite impossible to know something is political without reading it so scrolling doesn't help because by the time I've realized it's all a bit of trickery to force political veiws on me it's too late.

 

[shereads]

It's an easy question to answer, what happens is this. Someone posts a thread about a tragedy and says the world is fucked up. A very true statment, then they go on to tell how grief stricken they are, again a very logical reaction. Then all of a sudden without warning the thread changes to six people and a dog were killed not because these kids were sick and the ring leader is most likely a physcopath (and yes even the police defaulting on their duties) but because of the war in Iraq or some such thing. By the time you're into reading what people post you can't very well know via physic means that it's going to go political it's not about the damn thread space. It's quite impossible to know something is political without reading it so scrolling doesn't help because by the time I've realized it's all a bit of trickery to force political veiws on me it's too late.

Renza, there's no intentional effort to force political views on anyone. It's just that some of us don't see a line that divides things like politics and crime and violence. In fact, it's hard for me to imagine a discussion of violence in America and the problems with the justice system, without politics being involved. Some of you see politics as a topic. Others see it as something that's interwoven with our lives, from how crimes of violence are prevented or punished, to whether we'll be able to use this forum without breaking the law.

I don't blame George W. Bush for the deaths of those 6 people, either, and I didn't like having it implied that caring about these murders means we don't care about dead people in Iraq. But I understand the anger behind the thought. And I do think that society has so many contradictory standards of what's right and wrong, that a lot of young people have grown up thinking there are no standards.