[General Battuta]

Maybe the real problem is disaffected youth let down by the political process.  I notice he was 22 years old.  You just can't trust anyone under 30.

It would behoove you to justify that comment.

According to most statistics the average age of a terrorist is less than thirty.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2039865.ece

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_age_of_a_terrorist

The average age of a soldier is less than thirty, it's meaningless.

Plus that doesn't say a damn thing about the people motivating them.

[Polpolion]

Maybe the real problem is disaffected youth let down by the political process.  I notice he was 22 years old.  You just can't trust anyone under 30.

It would behoove you to justify that comment.

According to most statistics the average age of a terrorist is less than thirty.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2039865.ece

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_age_of_a_terrorist

it looks like on average terrorists are also professionals or semi-professionals. I guess you can't trust those guys either.

[iamzack]

Aren't they also usually male? And they're *always* human, so..

[el_magnifico]

Maybe the real problem is disaffected youth let down by the political process.  I notice he was 22 years old.  You just can't trust anyone under 30.

It would behoove you to justify that comment.

According to most statistics the average age of a terrorist is less than thirty.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2039865.ece

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_age_of_a_terrorist

Woah! You've opened my eyes! Now you know people, the next time you see someone in their mid-twenties, from a caring family, married, with children, and graduate, SHOOT THE HELL OUT OF THOSE MANIAC TERRORIST BASTARDS!
I'll explain something to you that may surprise you: All members of B may belong to A, but not all members of A necessarily need to belong to B.

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_theory

You should have studied that in high school, but maybe you were too busy being a terrorist or something...

While I'm at it, would you please explain me how are you supposed to train future politicians if they don't get involved in actual politics until they are 30? And you're still wondering why you're electing those that do the less damage instead of those that do the more good?

[Flipside]

It's largely to do with phsychology, it's the same reason that Fundamentalist Mullahs encourage other people to go strap bombs to themselves and die for the cause, because they are mostly older men who feel their mortality, and whilst they'll happily preach a heaven filled with virgins, they aren't in any noticeable rush to go and find out for themselves.

[NGTM-1R]

I'll explain something to you that may surprise you: All members of B may belong to A, but not all members of A necessarily need to belong to B.

All elephants are grey, but not all grey is elephants.

[Solatar]

Solatar; that's an excellent point, I challenge you to expound further.

I'm conflicted, quite honestly.  On the one hand, it appears to me that the news is putting more importance on the life of this congresswoman than on the lives of the people actually killed.  On the other, she survived (thus far), so focusing on her may be appropriate - since talking about people that have been killed won't make them any less dead.  I know I probably sound like I'm fence sitting, but I'm trying not to take a real "position" on it without evaluating all the nuances, since it's obviously not a binary thing and I hate to be hasty (plus, I study social history and linguistics in school, so I over-analyze the crap out of anything thrown in front of me).  And should I be upset at the media for placing this importance on her, or the audience they're doubtlessly catering to?

I'm leaning towards being pissed at the media, because quite honestly I heard something on the local news and then heard something about it from my younger sister.  It was only a few hours later, after my sister and I got back from an art museum today that I even HEARD about there being others injured.  The fact that the headline focused so intently on the woman herself meant that anybody trying to quickly paraphrase the situation was very likely to leave out the other people, simply because the articles they were sourcing from only mentioned them in passing.  I would have been much happier had a single headline had put ANY emphasis on the other people killed - I'll admit I haven't read every article in the world on it though.  For Christ's sake, one of them was a 9 year old girl!

It's a matter of the emphasis of the details, not a lack thereof.

[Macfie]

I'll explain something to you that may surprise you: All members of B may belong to A, but not all members of A necessarily need to belong to B.

All elephants are grey, but not all grey is elephants.

But if it's not grey then it can't be an elephant
or
if it's not A then it's not B

[Unknown Target]

It's largely to do with phsychology, it's the same reason that Fundamentalist Mullahs encourage other people to go strap bombs to themselves and die for the cause, because they are mostly older men who feel their mortality, and whilst they'll happily preach a heaven filled with virgins, they aren't in any noticeable rush to go and find out for themselves.

Please relate this back to the topic at hand, either through an edit or follow-up post.

el_magnifico, I'm watching your posts in this thread, please tone down the rhetoric. You haven't technically crossed any lines, but you're inching a bit close.

[Flipside]

It's largely to do with phsychology, it's the same reason that Fundamentalist Mullahs encourage other people to go strap bombs to themselves and die for the cause, because they are mostly older men who feel their mortality, and whilst they'll happily preach a heaven filled with virgins, they aren't in any noticeable rush to go and find out for themselves.

Please relate this back to the topic at hand, either through an edit or follow-up post.

el_magnifico, I'm watching your posts in this thread, please tone down the rhetoric. You haven't technically crossed any lines, but you're inching a bit close.

I'm referring to the comment that, statistically, most Terrorists are under 30, which is why it is directly under the posts about it. It's not to do with dissasociated youth, in my opinion, it's about the fact that the concept of mortality rests lightly on the shoulders of younger people, whereas the concept of fighting for a cause tends to be appealing, I've personally found as I've aged that I have one life, but you can find a new cause on pretty much any street corner.

[NGTM-1R]

Please relate this back to the topic at hand, either through an edit or follow-up post.

You're talking to a global mod. Maybe an admin.

Also, I have to ask why the hell this thread gets the ultra-strict moderation regime over any other? Nobody else has ever remotely tried to moderate a thread this closely in the entire time I've been at HLP.

[General Battuta]

Yeah, why is this thread being microed like an all-in roach push? 

[el_magnifico]

el_magnifico, I'm watching your posts in this thread, please tone down the rhetoric. You haven't technically crossed any lines, but you're inching a bit close.

Yes, sorry. I assure you I'm usually more calmed, but when people imply X demographic group is naturally dangerous for democracy/society, I just hear an alarm inside of my head (especially, but not exclusively, when I'm also part of that group). I will tone it down.

I'd also like you to know that, while you're overacting it a bit , I like the way you're moderating the discussion, in the true spirit of the word, keeping your interventions neutral and encouraging the discussion to proceed further, in a respectful and yet assertive way. This is the way authority should be handled and I respect you for this.

[el_magnifico]

Also, I have to ask why the hell this thread gets the ultra-strict moderation regime over any other?

Maybe because of its volatile nature. Seems reasonable to me, even when I do admit he's exaggerating it a bit.

[iamzack]

Yeah, why is this thread being microed like an all-in roach push? 

Unknown Target knows something we don't

[Flipside]

I think it's pre-emptive. I just had to read the title to think to myself 'This is probably going to end up as one almighty argument."

I'll makes observations on the phsychology of the matter, but I'm not going to comment on the politics of it, mainly because what I know is that someone shot someone, beyond that, conjecture and pointing fingers is pointless.

[Unknown Target]

Please relate this back to the topic at hand, either through an edit or follow-up post.

You're talking to a global mod. Maybe an admin.

I'm a global mod too, what's your point?

Also, I have to ask why the hell this thread gets the ultra-strict moderation regime over any other? Nobody else has ever remotely tried to moderate a thread this closely in the entire time I've been at HLP.

It's getting strict treatment because it's something that would provide a great discussion, but it's also something that could pop pretty easily since there's so many tempers going around. Within the first few posts it already got an inflammatory comment.

Yeah, why is this thread being microed like an all-in roach push? 

Because of the reasons listed above. The whole reason GD got pushed down to the bottom of HLP is because the discussions got too hot too fast too often. I'm trying to keep this discussion civil and moderated.

el_magnificio, thanks for agreeing to tone it down - I would point out that I don't agree or disagree with you on your assertion that the Tea Party is dangerous for a democratic society, I'm just telling you that you should explain why that is and back it up with logic, rather than with a general assertion.

Flipside; I think the psychology of this is the most interesting and relevant part.

[General Battuta]

Well speaking of psychology I can tell you that you just activated some contrauthoritarian goals right here.

[Flipside]

Look on the bright side, can you imagine if Liberator and Kazaan had seen this thread?

[el_magnifico]

el_magnificio, thanks for agreeing to tone it down - I would point out that I don't agree or disagree with you on your assertion that the Tea Party is dangerous for a democratic society, I'm just telling you that you should explain why that is and back it up with logic, rather than with a general assertion.

Actually, what I was trying to say is that anyone pointing a finger at any party/age group/religion/whatever and automatically stating "they are the problem! don't trust in them" is probably going to negatively impact society sooner or later (like, every xenophobic ideology, for example). I wouldn't judge Republicans, Democrats or Tea Party members as this or that, simply because I don't have the necessary knowledge. I haven't lived under their governments. Ask me about Radicals or Peronists, those I know.

In this particular case, I also wanted to point out how ridiculous and counterproductive the concept of "dangerous youth!" is.