• We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply

In the News

DeletedUser

Most of you have likely heard of Luka Rocco Magnotta, a Canadian man accused of killing and dismembering Jun Lin, a Chinese man who was studying in a Canadian university.

In the news recently was this article http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20120613/body-parts-video-Jun-Lin-murder-120613/. Briefly, a Montreal substitute teacher was suspended for showing Grade 10 students the very explicit video that shows the killing of Jun Lin.

The fact that there's a video of the killing rather horrifies me. The fact that this teacher chose to show his students the video sickens me.

Should he have been suspended? Apparently, the students asked to view the video. Should this be taken into consideration? Should the students be suspended, too? Is it indeed the same as watching a fictional account of a killing on tv or in a movie? Are we becoming de-sensitized to images of this nature? Thoughts?
 

DeletedUser

Yes he should have been suspended. Just because the students ask something of the teacher doesn't mean the teacher needs to comply. He/She is not their slave, and so it should not be taken into consideration. The students should not be suspended, as there is no real offense, or even an imagined offense for that matter.

The gap between watching a fictionalized killing and witnessing one is ever decreasing, as technology and filming are constantly improving to allow for more realistic and gruesome scenes. Because of this, society is already desensitized to all of this, and it will only continue.
 

DeletedUser34

I don't think the teacher should have been suspended. Today we treat 10th graders as adults. Teachers often don't have a say in their lives. Why should we penalize a teacher who took what we as a society planted, and went with it. At 16, they are far from children, and definitely old enough to make their own choices.

Secondly, to your point about de-sensitized, absolutely, so to have this to be so offensive when kids come face to face with much worse on a regular basis is the height of hypocrisy. We watch horrible things happen all the time on television and view it as news, ie: the towers falling, or the most recent, the miami zombie. Why should the teacher be held to a different standard?
 

DeletedUser

But you'd think a teacher would have a sense of authority or control in a classroom. The students asked to see the video. They didn't tie him up and demand that he show them the video. Really, if the teacher can't control himself as to give in to the demands of teenagers to watch a video of a REAL-LIFE MAN BEING KILLED, then clearly he should not be a teacher. What...if the students asked for no homework for the week or to randomly watch a movie instead of having class for a day, the teacher should comply? Because if a teacher could be talked into by a bunch of students to watch a person be killed, then there is no doubt the teacher would be talked into anything.

I absolutely agree that there is much worse on a regular basis, but there is a time and place for it. If this were outside of school, and it was a father showing a kid the video or something, then that is different. But schools have certain standards outside of society. There are certain dress codes, no weapons are allowed, drugs and the like are banned, and a whole plethora of rules and regulations. Swearing is frowned upon by teachers, fighting in school isn't allowed, you can't be late or you get a detention, and etc, and yet most of these things are not nearly as big a deal in the outside world, whereas in school you can get suspended for such things. A school has its own set of standards, so there isn't any hypocrisy in holding the teacher to a different standard. If the video was shown on the news and the news station was being criticized, then I'd agree that they shouldn't be held to a different standard.
 

DeletedUser3

I would say yes he should be suspended. You are referring to a video about a murder and then dismemberment of a human being. Clearly not okay to show to kids. It still stands, even in Canada, parental permission is dictated for under 18. These kids were underage. And I will firmly disagree with you Domino, it is not reasonable to make a sweeping statement that these 15/16 year olds were all "old enough to make their own choices." Chronological age is not a determinate, but regardless the laws clearly indicate that age is parent-dependent. If this teacher wanted to show this video, he should have received written parental permission, which I'm sure he would not have obtained.

As to de-sensitized, I'm not so sure. I have witnessed real death, real murder and nothing I've seen on television compares. There is just something bone-jarringly raw about knowing when something is real, witnessing true murder.

The sloppy beheading of a soldier, hands tied behind his back, as a serrated trench knife is thrust through his throat, the soldier's eyes opening wide as he emits a wet guttural yell that is cut off when the killer tears across the larynyx. It continues, the killer slowly struggling to saw through the muscles, tendons, ligaments and veins, until all that is left is the neck bone.

The man laying in the parking lot, his eyeballs dangling as paramedics attempt to put them back in the sockets, only to realize the sockets are now too inflamed, so they wrap the eyes carefully across his forehead with moistened gauze, only to be interrupted as he starts choking, a mixture of vomit and blood now blocking his airway. They quickly suck it out, check his vital signs, then thrust a tube down his throat, wrap his broken limbs carefully and rush him to the ER. The man was a victim of a jealous husband.

The 11 month old child, a small indentation on her forehead, laying in a hospital bed with tubes down her throat and monitors indicating no brainwave activity. You touch that little indentation to feel a portion of the skull collapse inward, the skin cold to the touch as this little girl is brain-dead, eyes intentionally left closed, although they're still slightly open and you see only the glistening wetness of lifeless white bulbs, all muted by the smell not unlike that of excrement from a dirty diaper, compounded by a stench of vomit and urine, as fluids slip from her little body.

Even the simple scene of a drunk motorcyclist laying on the ground, deeply snoring as the remnants of a 2" thick fence post extrudes from his exposed leg, along with a fractured femur that had pushed itself through the still-taut skin. And then your nose tells you what your eyes already see, a brown stain running down the side of his leg from his underpants.

These sights remain in your mind decades later. Longer if you know the victims. So no, we're not desensitized. We're simply being treated to a faux version of death in the movies, and thus posed to think we're desensitized. But, when we deal with real death, we're lost, confused, and we try to harden ourselves to no avail, because reality trumps fantasy and a 16 year old, mature or otherwise, should not be subjected to that, even willingly. They simply don't know what they're going to experience until they go there and then they just wish they never went there in the first place, but it's too late.

There is nothing desensitizing about seeing shows with fake gore and blood splashing the walls, it's just morbid entertainment and it doesn't compare to the real thing. This teacher should receive more than a suspension.
 

DeletedUser34

It still stands, even in Canada, parental permission is dictated for under 18. These kids were underage. And I will firmly disagree with you Domino, it is not reasonable to make a sweeping statement that these 15/16 year olds were all "old enough to make their own choices." Chronological age is not a determinate, but regardless the laws clearly indicate that age is parent-dependent.
I disagree. As a society, a 14 year old can go to a doctor, and that doctor doesn't have to, actually legally CAN NOT discuss anything with the parents. Really? I think it is a double standard which confuses things. So if they are treated as independents, they should also in that logic have a say so in what they see.
As to de-sensitized, I'm not so sure. I have witnessed real death, real murder and nothing I've seen on television compares. There is just something bone-jarringly raw about knowing when something is real, witnessing true murder.

These sights remain in your mind decades later. Longer if you know the victims. So no, we're not desensitized. We're simply being treated to a faux version of death in the movies, and thus posed to think we're desensitized. But, when we deal with real death, we're lost, confused, and we try to harden ourselves to no avail, because reality trumps fantasy and a 16 year old, mature or otherwise, should not be subjected to that, even willingly. They simply don't know what they're going to experience until they go there and then they just wish they never went there in the first place, but it's too late.

There is nothing desensitizing about seeing shows with fake gore and blood splashing the walls, it's just morbid entertainment and it doesn't compare to the real thing. This teacher should receive more than a suspension.

I agree and disagree on this because while I agree that it is something that stays with you forever, ask me, I saw it, I saw the blood on the floor, knowing it was a gang thing. I think the youth is very much immune to it. They don't take life seriously, it is a commodity. Death is just a thing. Why do you think juvenile violent crime is on the rise from years ago...or gang violence. Look at the music of the day. No it isn't like watching it on TV, but, until they have seen it in reality, that is all they got, and it makes them curious, and once they do it, they have the taste. This is the society we have raised. Why not let them see the video? I mean, I saw the pics of the Miami Zombie victim, and that was pretty freaking gnarly. It is news....who are you to say they can have babies, get benefits you so support, and keep medical issues secret, but they can't decide if they want to see news?
 

DeletedUser

Again, as I mentioned before, a school is not a place for such things.
 

DeletedUser

I would say yes he should be suspended. You are referring to a video about a murder and then dismemberment of a human being. Clearly not okay to show to kids. It still stands, even in Canada, parental permission is dictated for under 18. These kids were underage. And I will firmly disagree with you Domino, it is not reasonable to make a sweeping statement that these 15/16 year olds were all "old enough to make their own choices." Chronological age is not a determinate, but regardless the laws clearly indicate that age is parent-dependent. If this teacher wanted to show this video, he should have received written parental permission, which I'm sure he would not have obtained.
Agreed, I really don't think it's the teacher's decision to make. Even if left up to the student, I don't believe anyone in that classroom had the chance to make a rational, thought out decision. If the teacher got "peer" pressured into showing the video I am sure many of the students were peer pressured into watching it. Really, if you actually want to see someone die, you're probably not the mature type who ought to watch the video anyway :p

I disagree. As a society, a 14 year old can go to a doctor, and that doctor doesn't have to, actually legally CAN NOT discuss anything with the parents. Really? I think it is a double standard which confuses things. So if they are treated as independents, they should also in that logic have a say so in what they see.
A double standard does not justify either viewpoint, if anything it merely invalidates both. I fail to see how this argument proves the one scenario is more correct than the other. You're also assuming every fourteen year old kid is identical, thinks the same way, has the same reasoning and logic. I know some teenagers I'd trust with just about my life, others I think should be set loose on the front line as a weapon of mass destruction :p The parents are the most reliable source we've got to play judge on each child, cutting them out of the picture entirely would be foolish.

As to de-sensitized, I'm not so sure. I have witnessed real death, real murder and nothing I've seen on television compares. There is just something bone-jarringly raw about knowing when something is real, witnessing true murder.

...

These sights remain in your mind decades later. Longer if you know the victims. So no, we're not desensitized. We're simply being treated to a faux version of death in the movies, and thus posed to think we're desensitized. But, when we deal with real death, we're lost, confused, and we try to harden ourselves to no avail, because reality trumps fantasy and a 16 year old, mature or otherwise, should not be subjected to that, even willingly. They simply don't know what they're going to experience until they go there and then they just wish they never went there in the first place, but it's too late.

There is nothing desensitizing about seeing shows with fake gore and blood splashing the walls, it's just morbid entertainment and it doesn't compare to the real thing.
This. We're desensitised to animated pixels on a screen and bad actors lying on the ground, sure. Hollywood isn't exactly renowned for being perfectly accurate and realistic, let's not pretend their death scenes are any more so.

I agree and disagree on this because while I agree that it is something that stays with you forever, ask me, I saw it, I saw the blood on the floor, knowing it was a gang thing. I think the youth is very much immune to it. They don't take life seriously, it is a commodity. Death is just a thing. Why do you think juvenile violent crime is on the rise from years ago...or gang violence. Look at the music of the day. No it isn't like watching it on TV, but, until they have seen it in reality, that is all they got, and it makes them curious, and once they do it, they have the taste. This is the society we have raised. Why not let them see the video? I mean, I saw the pics of the Miami Zombie victim, and that was pretty freaking gnarly. It is news....who are you to say they can have babies, get benefits you so support, and keep medical issues secret, but they can't decide if they want to see news?
Hmm, youth are allegedly desensitised, and it's a bad thing, so we should desensitise them more? Well done mon ami, I award you a 2/10! You may have gotten a four were I not in such a pleasant mood :p

trollscale.jpg


But seriously, this alleged spike in juvenile crime is largely due to increased reporting, increased access to cash and in many places increased availability of items such as firearms, drugs, etc. (These things raise the profile of occurrences since "Drunk teen shoots rival gang member, left in emergency ward" sells more papers than "Back alley fist fight between teens, both seriously hurt", particularly when one story is alot easier for journalists to track down.) I think you'll find there is minimal correlation between people who watch violent movies/television or play violent video games; these people (wannabes, hehe) are generally inside doing just that.

Again, as I mentioned before, a school is not a place for such things.
Here's my two cents food for thought troll to add to the topic. School is a place to prepare for life, no? Why not prepare children emotionally for the trauma of a death? Why better in the skin later down the line than in a safe, closed and physically removed environment? Is there a boundary between desensitisation and a mature experience?
 

DeletedUser

I think you may just be out-debated on this one, Dom.

I was thinking about peer pressure also, Diggo. A show of hands resulted in a 22 to 3 vote in favour of watching the video. How many of those 22 actually genuinely wanted to watch the video or were pressured into raising their hands by the others around them? And why did the 3 who voted against remain in the classroom?
I approve of the school board's immediate action. It will be interesting to see if they can uphold that decision.

I like your assertion, Hell, that people only think that they're desensitized to extreme images. I'm reminded of the series "Scared Straight" where young wannabe criminals are given a taste of what prison life is really like and it's not quite what they had imagined it to be. The real thing shocks us out of our cosy little fantasies.
Where I see the desensitizing coming in is from the people who have viewed this video and others like it. Set up a future scenario where one of those students is a member of the jury on a murder case. It's perfectly conceivable for that juror to compare the severity of the case before him with the images he's retained from watching the Luka Magnotta video when considering the degree of punishment.
 

DeletedUser

Here's my two cents food for thought troll to add to the topic. School is a place to prepare for life, no? Why not prepare children emotionally for the trauma of a death? Why better in the skin later down the line than in a safe, closed and physically removed environment? Is there a boundary between desensitisation and a mature experience?

I'd love to agree with you, but as it stands, high school really just teaches you how to be social and interact with others. It doesn't go too deep in the areas of preparing you for life. Perhaps some schools do it better, but I suppose that's a debate for another time. But getting to the point, schools try to have almost a shielding effect of sorts on students. For example, in my statistics class, my teacher did not allow students to swear. What 17/18 year old hasn't sworn thousands of times by then, and even then, what good is preventing swearing in the class? It was a notion that I found stupid. Schools are a "safe, closed and physically removed environment" because they enforce it so much. But at the same time, because it is a safe environment, things like this can not and should not really happen.

Not only this, but shouldn't a line be drawn between what's decent and what's a bit extreme? I think there's a difference between letting students swear in class and showing them a video of someone being murdered, no matter what other kind of viewing material is already out there that everyone may have seen. Everyone may swear at one point or another in their life, but not everyone is going to have to go through witnessing someone being murdered. Some things should be kept out of schools for decency, and I'd like to think that this is one of them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser34

You guys bring up a good point...a Jury will convict him based off of a video and pictures yes? What is the difference?

AND, what is the difference in this and snuff films? Not much.

I am NEVER out debated :p
 

DeletedUser3

You guys bring up a good point...a Jury will convict him based off of a video and pictures yes? What is the difference?
Let's see, one major difference is that a jury consists of adults. Want more?

AND, what is the difference in this and snuff films? Not much.
When you have to ask, you don't know. --- http://www.snopes.com/horrors/madmen/snuff.asp

Snuff films are an urban legend. Welcome to the snookered. ;)

I am NEVER out debated :p
You need an oar for that boat you're on?
 

DeletedUser34

Let's see, one major difference is that a jury consists of adults. Want more?
it still brings back my point that "children" today, and I don't consider 10th graders "children" are treated as an adult in almost every major decision in their life at this point, to draw a line due to an "age" for this is just plain stupid.

When you have to ask, you don't know. --- http://www.snopes.com/horrors/madmen/snuff.asp

Snuff films are an urban legend. Welcome to the snookered. ;)
now who misses the point, the point is, snuff films are as real looking as what they watched. Both were on a screen, both were as gory as each other. Unless they saw it in person, there is absolutely NO difference in the the video and what they are bombarded with on a regular basis.
You need an oar for that boat you're on?
no, I have a life jacket :D
Called reality.

EDIT: as an after thought, hell, snuff films are not an urban legend, after all, isn't a snuff film what we are discussing :p
 

DeletedUser3

EDIT: as an after thought, hell, snuff films are not an urban legend, after all, isn't a snuff film what we are discussing :p
Indeed, this would be the first reported instance of a snuff film. All previous instances were, in fact, fakes. So, the difference here is that this is real, while all previous "alleged" snuff films were fake.
 

DeletedUser34

ahhh yes, but you didn't answer my question, on film, what is the difference?
 

DeletedUser

the point is, snuff films are as real looking as what they watched. Both were on a screen, both were as gory as each other. Unless they saw it in person, there is absolutely NO difference in the the video and what they are bombarded with on a regular basis.
Yeah, perhaps it's no different if you're a three year old child unable to distinguish between fake and fiction. How many people do you think would go to the cinema if the mass death and destruction they would be watching was real?
 

DeletedUser34

But your comment goes against Hellstromm's. The comment was made that death on the screen is not real, it is the seeing it in real life that changes a person. Snuff films do not exist, and so anything on screen is not reality. Not having known the victim, nor any emotional attachment to the victim, watching this movie was absolutely no different than watching a well done movie that includes graphic death. That IS my point. Both are on film, the substance matters not, as in the eyes of a teen, it is just plain yuk. Pictures of Dale Sr. were not allowed to be posted because gore is what is on the internet, in the movies, etc. There is an audience for it, right wrong or indifferent. It is there. And the TEENS, not children, had every right to watch it if they wanted. It is no different than seeing any other death on film. If they had seen it through physical eyes, I'd agree the teacher should be suspended, but otherwise, it was a simple movie.
 

DeletedUser

But that kind of level of gore in school? Fiction or not, it doesn't belong.

And it's quite different when you know it's real. Even if you're watching a video of it.
 

DeletedUser34

Schools watch all sorts of gore, don't give me crap about that, it is called history. Did you never see documentation on Pearl Harbor? How about the Atom bomb?
And how popular are sites like rotten? How many people cued in to see the pics of the zombie? That is a bogus argument.
You can't have a double standard.
 

DeletedUser

We're keeping it to only school, what students do in their own time is not a part of this.

Teachers have students sign waivers and forms informing them that they are going to watch R-rated movies or violent films, and many times the parents must approve with a signature. Yes, I've seen the war videos and documentaries, but not without getting approval or signing a form first.
 
Top