Am I the only one sick of the 'villain with tragic backstory' shtick?

Discussion in 'Character Development' started by Link the Writer, Dec 15, 2015.

  1. DeathandGrim

    DeathandGrim Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    550
    Likes Received:
    95
    Location:
    Virginia Beach
    That seems a bit far too ridiculous to have no explanation why, for me
     
  2. jannert

    jannert Retired Mod Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2013
    Messages:
    17,674
    Likes Received:
    19,889
    Location:
    Scotland
    I haven't seen the movie yet. I'll wait for the furore to die down. However, there have been hints throughout the 'original' three movies that Luke would eventually need to face the Dark Side within himself. Remember that amazing scene in Empire Strikes Back, when he had to confront that cave and kill off the guy in the Darth Vader suit ...who turned out to be himself? The 'lesson' from that was never clearly resolved, was it?

    Please please have this be part of the new storyline! I was so disappointed in Return of the Jedi, with that saccharine ending. I did feel that Luke needed to be tested more strongly than he was, regarding the Dark Side within himself. In fact, during those years of waiting for the final movie in the series to come out (I think it was a 3-year wait) many of us had posited this would happen. He would 'win' his battle with Darth Vader, but would be tainted in the process. He has a power most others just crave, and very few can wield. And as Obi-Wan said (paraphrasing) that he would start out using it to do good, but that it would take him over. At what point will he use his power simply to achieve the things he wants to achieve, thinking a bad act will serve the greater good?

    That has got to be the central theme here, or it's just a good guys/bad guys story. That theme always was lurking in the original three movies. Let's hope the Disney juggernaut isn't afraid to take this on.
     
  3. X Equestris

    X Equestris Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,595
    Likes Received:
    3,186
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Conventional thinking is that in the finale of Episode 6, when he was very nearly overcome by the Dark Side but pulled back and was willing to die before submitting to it.

    I'm sure the theme will still be present in the new trilogy, but I think it's more likely they'll be focusing it on new characters instead of the old ones.
     
    jannert likes this.
  4. jannert

    jannert Retired Mod Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2013
    Messages:
    17,674
    Likes Received:
    19,889
    Location:
    Scotland
    From a writer's point of view, I totally totally agree with that last sentence you wrote. I'd like to dump 'antagonist' as well. While these are concepts that can be discussed, I think that deliberately creating them because a story must have them can lead to wooden, unbelievable 'bad people' who exist simply to give the protagonist the obligatory adversary.

    I think a story should grow more organically than that. Just constructing a dark character to joust against a light one is far too simplistic, in my view. I'd say put two people with opposing needs together in the same story. One of the needs doesn't need to be bad, and nobody needs to be a villain. It's working out how these kinds of competitions end in real life that makes a story interesting. Not watching some cookie-cutout bad guy with 'issues' get his comeuppance.
     
    xanadu likes this.
  5. jannert

    jannert Retired Mod Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2013
    Messages:
    17,674
    Likes Received:
    19,889
    Location:
    Scotland
    Yes, I 'got' that. I just thought it was too slick a resolution for such a strong theme. And not helped by the fact that the Emperor was such a twat. Scary? Not a bit. Just some old fart with tweedly fingers that shot lightning bolts. Darth Vader was a much scarier 'bad guy' because we couldn't see his face and didn't know what his game actually was. That Emperor was one of the most disappointing things in the whole series. A cackling male version of the wicked witch in Snow White. Aargh....
     
    Cave Troll likes this.
  6. X Equestris

    X Equestris Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,595
    Likes Received:
    3,186
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Yeah, the Emperor was a bit...passive. He certainly wasn't a physically oriented villain in the way Vader was. He was a plotter. Palpatine worked better in the prequels, with the kindly politician mask hiding what was underneath.

    I agree. With the antagonist of the novel I'm outlining, his goals are admirable ones. Ones that the vast majority of people would probably agree with. And many of the actions he takes aren't terribly extreme either. But there are sacrifices required for his plan to succeed that a lot of people would balk at, and his plan might fail anyway, making those sacrifices pointless. Still, some people might find him to be truly heroic, depending on their view of whether or not the ends justify the means. I'd personally describe him as an anti-villain.
     
    jannert likes this.
  7. Acanthophis

    Acanthophis ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Contributor

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    606
    Likes Received:
    340
    Location:
    Canada
    Luke turning to the dark side would literally go against everything the other six movies were all about. Despite your feelings towards the movies (the prequels in particular), having Luke become evil would be a disgrace to everything done in the six films.

    Besides, the prequels and original trilogies were about the Skywalker family, which is why Luke, Han, and Leia are being phased out. It's highly unlikely the story is being rehashed, given that there are essentially no force users. If it were to follow a trend, the Jedi Order would be back and in control; and we know from interviews and whatnot that this isn't the case.

    But anyway...
     
  8. Lewdog

    Lewdog Come ova here and give me kisses! Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2012
    Messages:
    7,676
    Likes Received:
    3,056
    Location:
    Williamsburg, KY
    Well that kind of sucks, because the force and the Jedi are what made it interesting. I was planning on going Saturday to watch the movie, now I'm not so sure I want to go or not.
     
  9. X Equestris

    X Equestris Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,595
    Likes Received:
    3,186
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    There are force users, they just aren't present all over like in the prequels. Based on what we've seen in the previews, there are probably more force users in the movie than the original trilogy. At the very least, the Knights of Ren, at least one of our protagonists, and Luke compared to Obi-Wan, Yoda, Luke, Vader, and the Emperor in the whole trilogy.
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2015
  10. psychotick

    psychotick Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,526
    Likes Received:
    477
    Location:
    Rotorua, New Zealand
    Hi Lewdog,

    I'll respect your point of view. But I didn't say that they don't have reasons for what they do. I said that this push to give the villains tragic back stories is basically not real. They aren't all emotionally/physically/sexually abused. They didn't all see their father / mother brutally murdered in front of them. Etc etc. That's my point.

    Grim dark tries to explain the acts of the villains in terms of usually unspeakably terrible backgrounds. It tries to elicit sympathy / understanding from the reader. It often comes close to trying to excuse the act. But it's not reality. Most crims I've dealt with simply don't have that. What they do have is what you've mentioned - banal reasons. Peer pressure for example you mentioned. Yes it's a problem, but giving into it is a poor life choice. Likewise, poor education, poverty, fatherless homes. These things are sad, sure. They aren't tragic back stories that explain or fairly much excuse their actions. They do explain them being often unable to make good life choices as you yourself have said.

    And yes I know the stats, thanks. I'm an epidemiologist.

    Cheers, Greg.
     
  11. Acanthophis

    Acanthophis ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Contributor

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    606
    Likes Received:
    340
    Location:
    Canada
    It's more like they aren't trained force users. From what I can tell, the Knights of Ren want to take control of any force user they can find, preventing the Jedi from doing the same. Although, the Jedi are still extinct from the looks of it, as the trailers sort of point to them being characters of mythology instead of beings that actually existed in reality. "[...] It's true. All of it." - Han Solo
     
  12. psychotick

    psychotick Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,526
    Likes Received:
    477
    Location:
    Rotorua, New Zealand
    Hi Guys,

    Sorry to monopolise this thread, but I think this is germane to the discussion and sort of explains a little more clearly what I've been discussing with Lewdog etc.

    I'm going to relate to you an incident from my past which is unfortunately completely true, and in which to protect the innocent - one innocent anyway - I'm going to use only initials. The case is actually famous here in New Zealand for a number of reasons including the fact that it went to three re-trials and subsequent appeals. I think even the FBI's expert witnesses were grilled.

    Ok to set the stage, I went to school from form three to seven - aged 13 to 18 with a peer group of classmates as most of us do. And among that peer group was a boy - I'll call him D - who was bullied mercilessly. I was bullied myself being short and fat - but nothing like what was done to D.

    To add to D's woes, he was a kid built / shaped somewhat strangely and on the small / weak side, he was a boarder which meant he was stuck in the school twenty four seven with his tormentors, and the bullying had started in form one. Even by the time I arrived in the school he was showing signs of having been affected psychologically by his experiences. Innappropriate laughter, insular nature, lacking friends, though at the time I had no clue what that was about. I just thought he was strange. I didn't really get to know D well at any stage over those years, and I certainly did not ever contribute to his bullying, but I did witness some of the bullying he received, and once tried to step in and stop it - a miserable failure I'm afraid.

    To give you an idea of just how terrible things were for D, in the sixth form some of the class dug a grave for him on the sixth form lawn, then threw him in and started burying him alive. I cannot even imagine how terrible that must have been for him. I was not there and knew nothing of the event. What I do know is that after that he was what I would describe as broken.

    Take this as a cautionary tale by the way for those of you with kids at school. Bullying is a truly terrible thing and needs to be stamped on early and hard.

    Anyway another of my form mates was a kid called G and while again we were not close, I know he was involved in the bullying and the burial.

    Now roll on a few years, I've completed my studies and am working in Gisborne. G is working with his father in a money financing business and D I believe was working for a Ministry. I'd had no contact with any of them for ten years at least. Then comes the news on the telly, G and his father were gunned down in their offices, assassination style on a Friday night. (I did say this was a well known case.)

    Naturally my first thought, and I would guess half of my form mates, was that D had done it. I understand that calls were made by others to the police on the matter.

    As it turned out another man, I'll call him B, had done it. B had been running a furniture business, had used up all his money and his wife's money, grown desperate, borrowed money from G and his father, was out of credit with them, and was going to lose his business. He was going to be bankrupt. So he decided that murder was his answer.

    So here's where the point comes - sorry it's taken so long. Both B and D are white, middle class, educated people. There's no drugs or alcohol or gambling or any of those other excuses for what happened in their past. They differed really in only one respect as regards this thread. D had the tragic past, had ample reason for hating the victim, and did not do it. While B had no tragic past, just a series of poor business decisions that ultimately led to his deciding to carry out a cold blooded double murder to simply get out of debt.

    That's why grim dark is such a problem in my view. It's presented as being more "real" than the heroic fantasy that came before. But it is just as flawed and just as lacking in reality. Plenty of people grow up suffering horrible tragic events and upbringings and do not go on to commit crimes. In fact statistically, most people in those shoes don't.

    Meanwhile B was described as reasonably well liked, a little bit arrogant, and certainly not a recognised sociopath. He was in the end a victim of his own poor choices.

    So to present this sort of tragic background as not just a reason but even an excuse for turning into a monster etc, is not valid in my view. I mean the problem is that it sounds good and reads well. People will believe it in the same way they'll believe any other story. But at some point you have to realise these sorts of back story are just as much fantasy as anything else.

    Now I know some of you will be googling this, and unfortunately it won't be hard to find the players. But I must stress this heavily. There are innocents involved - not just D but most of the other kids who were in our form over those years - so whatever you find or think you find, kindly don't print it.

    Cheers, Greg.
     
    jannert likes this.
  13. Mckk

    Mckk Member Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,541
    Likes Received:
    4,776
    What does your heart tell you? :supercheeky:
     
  14. Lewdog

    Lewdog Come ova here and give me kisses! Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2012
    Messages:
    7,676
    Likes Received:
    3,056
    Location:
    Williamsburg, KY
    Your argument is flawed as in you are only seeing and representing the side of the innocent ones that avoid destruction despite having horrible events early in their lives, when you should be looking at the ones that have become monsters and what THEIR upbringings were. More often than not, the villains, as I'll call them, DID in fact have something that went terribly wrong during childhood or later in life.

    Your argument is like saying most U.S. Presidents didn't go to prestigious schools because there are so many people that graduated from prestigious schools that didn't become Presidents. It isn't logical.
     
  15. psychotick

    psychotick Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,526
    Likes Received:
    477
    Location:
    Rotorua, New Zealand
    Hi Lewdog,

    First thing you should know about us epidemiologists is that we are statisticians. You're comparing apples and oranges.

    For your argument to make sense you need to compare the two groups of people who did have tragic back grounds - thos who went on to commit horrible acts and those who didn't. Then do a simple numerical comparitive.

    And the fact remains - most people who grow up as victims of various horrible circumstances do not go on to commit horrible acts. Their lives may be ruined, but that does not make them bad for want of a better term.

    All that your argument shows is that those with these backgrounds are at higher risk of later on committing violent acts.

    Allow me to give you just one example. There is a widespread belief - you hear it in the media and from people like Doctor Phil etc, that there is a link between those who were sexually abused as children and those who then become sexual abusers. The victim grows up to become the perpertrator.

    Unfortunately the stats - and in every study I have ever read they are problematic - do not bear this out. There is an association, but it is minor.

    http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/179/6/482

    In the cited study - and its fairly typical - two conclusions are obvious. First the majority of male sexual abusers were not previously victims of sexual abuse. And second most victims of male sexual abuse do not go on to become sexual abusers.

    From this it becomes obvious that to simply blame a prior history of say sexual abuse as the reason that someone went on to become an abuser is short sighted and ignores the facts.

    Cheers, Greg.
     
  16. Lewdog

    Lewdog Come ova here and give me kisses! Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2012
    Messages:
    7,676
    Likes Received:
    3,056
    Location:
    Williamsburg, KY
    Well as a person who has a background in the corrections field, and as a person who is studying Criminal Justice in college, I still say you are looking at the statistics incorrectly. You can't say that because a majority of people that have horrible backgrounds don't go on to become criminals, that those who do are against the norm therefore their background should be ignored. It just doesn't work that way.
     
  17. psychotick

    psychotick Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,526
    Likes Received:
    477
    Location:
    Rotorua, New Zealand
    Hi Lewdog,

    And when did I say you could simply ignore these tragic backgrounds?

    Please read what I write, not what you think I wrote so you can then rail in justifiable fury against me.

    I said you cannot use these tragic backstories as an explanation or an excuse for the montrous acts committed by people. To do so is a horrible mistake. They are just one factor in a variety of factors that go into an act.

    Look my point is that monstrous acts - all monstrous acts whether in reality or fiction - are the culmination of a series of decisions and conditions. It's like baking a cake. You cannot simply get a bad cake at the end and say it's the ingredients, you have to go through the entire process, starting with the ingredients and then examining each step along the way, the mixing, measuring, cooking etc, and seeing where everything went wrong.

    What you seem to want to do is simply use these tragic backgrounds as an excuse. A reason to understand or forgive the act. Thta's not right. That's what Grim Dark mentality is about.

    But think about it. If it was your mother (assuming of course) that was raped and murdered, how would you feel about a verdict by the judge that said - "well the poor sprat was raised badly. He had a horrible start in life. He didn't really have a choice in the matter. So what he needs is to be forgiven. Maybe given a little therapy."

    I'm betting that you wouldn't think that was right.

    But in Grim Dark that's what's being done.

    There is a process control technology in food safety called Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP). It goes through every step along the way in creating safe food and analyses it. Where it can go wrong. What will be the outcome. How it can be fixed. What checks should be made, where and when. And used correctly the astronauts - who it was intended be fed and not food poisoned through it - have a good mission.

    You need to use that sort of thinking in examining criminal acts, whether ones in reality or fiction. If you're going into criminal justice you seriously need to approach every crime from this perspective. You cannot simply look at a crime as the inevitable outcome of one factor.

    Cheers, Greg.
     
    cutecat22 likes this.
  18. Lewdog

    Lewdog Come ova here and give me kisses! Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2012
    Messages:
    7,676
    Likes Received:
    3,056
    Location:
    Williamsburg, KY

    Have you ever heard of things called mitigating and aggravating circumstances? Being an addict, having been abused during childhood, and other factors that I have already pointed out, are called mitigating circumstances and a judge will actually sometimes say as you put it,
    And instead of simply saying forgiven, he may be given a suspended sentence, community service, or probation.

    I dunno what to say to you at this point in time. Maybe things are different in your country, but here a person's history matters when they commit a crime.

    I'm not "going into" Criminal Justice. I AM in Criminal Justice. I'm a senior and will be graduating soon, and as I have said before, I have plenty...plenty of field experience already.

    I'll respond to this one more time then I'm done.

    I have never at one point said that a person's history is the only reason for someone to commit a monstrous act. I have only been responding to your false acclivity to say people's terrible history isn't a factor in a person's acts, simply because other people go through the same type of terrible history and don't commit monstrous acts. It's just incorrect and I have the laws of my country that back me up on that.
    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Mitigating+Circumstances

    Other mitigating circumstances to be considered are:

    http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/mitigating-circumstances-sentencing.html

    So I have no clue what it is like in your country, but a person's history here in the U.S. is considered when someone commits a monstrous crime.
     
  19. psychotick

    psychotick Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,526
    Likes Received:
    477
    Location:
    Rotorua, New Zealand
    Hi Lewdog,

    Your ignoring your own posts. In case you missed it, you wrote:

    "More often than not, the villains, as I'll call them, DID in fact have something that went terribly wrong during childhood or later in life."
    Than I pointed out that even in the cases of male sexual abusers, the one where the link between prior abuse leading to causation of abuse is strongest, that wasn't the case. I gave you a fairly typical paper to back this up.

    At which point you turned around and said:

    "You can't say that because a majority of people that have horrible backgrounds don't go on to become criminals, that those who do are against the norm therefore their background should be ignored. It just doesn't work that way."

    To which again I responded that I had not at any point said you could simply ignore these tragic backgrounds.

    And now I get this?:

    "I have never at one point said that a person's history is the only reason for someone to commit a monstrous act. I have only been responding to your false acclivity to say people's terrible history isn't a factor in a person's acts, simply because other people go through the same type of terrible history and don't commit monstrous acts. It's just incorrect and I have the laws of my country that back me up on that."

    When exactly do you think I've said that? I've even specifically said that they are a factor - one in many.

    Do you even read my posts?

    Enough said.

    Cheers Greg.
     
  20. Ben414

    Ben414 Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2013
    Messages:
    971
    Likes Received:
    785
    Can you point out where he said or implied this?
     
    Lewdog likes this.
  21. Lewdog

    Lewdog Come ova here and give me kisses! Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2012
    Messages:
    7,676
    Likes Received:
    3,056
    Location:
    Williamsburg, KY
    Shall I go back to your first post where you said that from your experience going into prisons and interviewing inmates, that YOU found that in "a lot" of cases they did not have terrible backgrounds but instead were just bad people that made bad decisions?

    YOU said this. Now you are saying that, yeah they probably had bad stuff that happened in their history but it wasn't the only factor for them committing their crime. YOU said it shouldn't be used as any type of excuse for their actions.

    I showed you in concrete form that your original statement was incorrect with SEVERAL links with SEVERAL studies. I then went on to show you that the United States government and the law system backs up what I have to say about a person's terrible history, or even their current poor life conditions, being used by the court as a mitigating circumstance for their crime.

    What the hell more do you want to show your opinion is wrong? Do you want a call from the President himself? How about a call from a U.S. Supreme Court Justice?
     
  22. psychotick

    psychotick Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,526
    Likes Received:
    477
    Location:
    Rotorua, New Zealand
    Hi Lewdog,

    What I actually said was this:

    "And while there seems to be a strong push towards wanting to believe that bad people have real reasons for doing bad things, in a lot of cases they don't."

    The term "a lot" does not mean all. And as I have subsequently established several times, in the majority of cases people who do bad things do not have tragic back stories. Certainly no more tragic than those of most others with the same backgrounds who do not go on to commit serious crimes.

    What is however true in nearly all cases however, is that people who get jailed for committing serious offences have a very poor ability to make good choices. This is not exactly a revelation. To go to the literature Yochelson and Samenow in 1976 working in a secure unit in Washington said that the choices an individual makes related to their criminality, and in particular the thinking patterns of prisoners varied from the norm in that they lacked empathy, had a poor perspective of time, saw themselves as victims and had a general concreteness in the belief in their own rightness. Blackburn (1999) went on to say that they showed poor decision making skills, had a lack of trust and generally didn't like to honour obligations.

    In short they make bad choices. The bad choices get them into trouble, necessitating more choices which they also make badly and the whole thing snowballs. It's not nearly as sexy as saying that they were emotionally destroyed by some tragic event in their past and really couldn't help themselves. It just happens to be reality.

    And then you came out with this:

    "YOU said it shouldn't be used as any type of excuse for their actions."

    I did not say it could not be used as "ANY TYPE" of excuse. I said that it should not be used as an excuse.

    And then further:

    "I showed you in concrete form that your original statement was incorrect with SEVERAL links with SEVERAL studies. I then went on to show you that the United States government and the law system backs up what I have to say about a person's terrible history, or even their current poor life conditions, being used by the court as a mitigating circumstance for their crime. "

    You do understand what a plea in mitigation is? Because it is not "an excuse". The time for an excuse in court would be during the trial. So an example of an excuse would be an insanity defence. As in I must be excused for committingthe crime as I was insane. A plea in mitigation is an appeal for clemency AFTER guilt has already been determined.

    And there are many reasons why clemency may be appealed for including early admission of guilt, compensation to victims and remorse. Mitigating factors of the type you're talking about would include things like "that the offence was committed under significant coercion or provocation, the offender's conduct resulted from a significant lack of capacity for judgement, or the crime was motivated by strong human compassion or severe need." (From the New Zealand Law Gazette.)
    Cheers, Greg.
     
  23. psychotick

    psychotick Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,526
    Likes Received:
    477
    Location:
    Rotorua, New Zealand
    Hi Ben,

    Yes. Note the use of the word "seem" in my post. As in that is what his position seemed to be to me. And my opinion is based on comments like this in Lewdog's responce to Brainiff:

    "I'm sorry, but the number of villains and real life bad guys out there that have a reason for what they do given their past, is going to overwhelmingly out number the guys that are just psychopathic assholes who do harmful things without reason."

    Does that not "seem" to you to be an example of "What you seem to want to do is simply use these tragic backgrounds as an excuse. A reason to understand or forgive the act."

    And in addition please note the implied polarity fallacy in the statement - ie that all crimes are either committed by sociopaths or people who have reasons vested in their past. It does not allow for the concept that there are many other reasons that people commit crimes as in the case of B who murdered my classmate. He just made a series of bad choices, each one leaving him in a worse position and forcing him to make another choice, which he made equally badly, ultimately resulting in assassination. There were a great many times and places at which B could have got off the train as they say, accepted his losses and moved on. He simply never did.

    Cheers, Greg.
     
  24. Lewdog

    Lewdog Come ova here and give me kisses! Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2012
    Messages:
    7,676
    Likes Received:
    3,056
    Location:
    Williamsburg, KY
    No, no ,no. Just no. I have never in this entire discussion with you, EVER said that if a person does a bad thing and if they have a horrible upbringing or something horrible has happened in their life, that it should be an excuse for their actions. In fact I made sure to point that out in one of my posts, despite you accusing me of it.

    You continue to say that:
    I've already posted scientific evidence that proves otherwise. Whether they come from broken homes, were abused as children, grew up in homes with alcoholics or drug users, or grew up addicts themselves, these are all factors, that an overwhelming high percent of incarcerated individuals have in common. These are not excuses, but they are factors to as to why they are behind bars.

    I never said mitigation was an excuse, you are making a strawman argument. In fact I pointed out to you what mitigation is, and showed all the things that a judge and jury take into consideration when it comes to mitigating circumstances.

    I'm not going to debate this with you anymore. I think your agenda is pretty obvious. You are one of the aristocrats that want to think that everyone has a choice in life where they can either succeed or fail no matter what their circumstances, and if a person does fail despite being up against tough odds, it's their fault. I'm sorry but I think you're wrong.... You think I'm wrong. If in this world, after everything I've read and lived through, and if I have to just to deal with you thinking I'm wrong, then I'm still feeling pretty good about myself.
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2015
  25. Lewdog

    Lewdog Come ova here and give me kisses! Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2012
    Messages:
    7,676
    Likes Received:
    3,056
    Location:
    Williamsburg, KY
    You ever think that your buddy was maybe mentally unstable? As you describe him, he had a perfect life outside of his business failing. So then with his business failing he was going to loose everything. That can cause a person to snap. So yeah, that would be a factor in doing what he did, not just poor decisions.

    At one time in my life, I owned a house, a brand new car, had plenty of money in the bank, had a great job working for the state of Ohio as a Corrections officer, and could do about anything I wanted to. In fact I took a nice trip to Europe. Well despite my success at work, where I was a member of several groups including the SRT, which is a special response team that does tactical training on how to handle riots, escapes, and other serious events, I decided to quit my job after five years and start a company. I cashed out my retirement early, took out a couple loans including a second mortgage on my house, and I opened a custom framing business in a near by mall. Well traffic in the mall was horrible. The mall had made promises to me that they were going to be doing some improvements on the mall and that they had all these great potential stores moving in and that traffic would be going up. Well none of that happened and in the end my business went under. Not only did I lose my business, I lost my home and pretty much everything in it. On top of which is ruined my credit which I'm still dealing with all these years later. I really didn't have a support system and I went into a deep depression and attempted suicide but it didn't work. Like a hundred crappy sleeping pills didn't do the trick. I was broke so I couldn't afford the good stuff, and I guess I'm just too much of a coward to hang myself. I just always pictured the best death as just going to sleep and never waking up again.

    So the point is, and I don't know how many times I have to say this, yes people might make bad decisions but there are factors behind it most of the time, which is the opposite of what you are saying.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice