Current Events

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16

 ... 435

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next

Banana_Ninja

Banana_Ninja

West Vancouver, BC
May 2005

JUN 17, 2008 11:39 AM

mydogfarted said:

Gidgette said:
there were numerous men at the crime scene who couldnt stop this man!!!?? I just cant accept that.. I was a military police officer and conditioned and trained to kill people!



I was diagnosed with Intermittent Explosive Disorder in grade school - explosive, blinding rages that I have blacked out during a couple of times. At age 16, the police were called during one of my rages, fueled by cocaine, where I was assaulting my father. It took 5 police officers to wrestle my then 120 lb self to the ground and restrain me. FIVE trained professions.



Cocaine is a hell of a drug.

Towelly

Towelly

I'm lost
January 2007

JUN 17, 2008 11:46 AM

Mr_Matt_ said:
Remind me not to taunt mydogfarted.

wink



Mr. Matt, you're making him angry. You wouldn't like him when he's angry.

QuargWarrior

QuargWarrior

Norcross, GA
February 2008

JUN 17, 2008 01:49 PM

In spite of whatever rage, demon possession or whatever, that dirt bag may of had while beating his child to death, I personally believe a tire iron to the back of the fuckers head would have issued an immediate order to cease and desist.

Unfortunately in that situation the bystanders think it is horrible but have been conditioned to not interfere. Perhaps they are afraid of getting in trouble, retaliation on themselves by the perpetrator, etc. Sometimes they are just in shock and do not ever think to stop the incident. I do not condone their actions; however, I can see a bit of their thinking on this.

Gidgette

Gidgette

SUICIDEGIRL

Pennsylvania, USA

JUN 17, 2008 02:33 PM

Well Quarg unfortunately I just watched a few sick videos in the RigorMortis group and I think that people when faced with those types of predicaments are afraid for their own safety.. I watched a woman get stabbed 70+ times by a not so big man while people fucking recorded it!!!!!! and just ran up kicked him and ran away.. there were like 10+ people all around.. amazingly once she had a chance to get away she moved away fast! and even then no one called medical aid or offered assistance.. what the fuck is wrong with the world today man!

I just would hope that if I were the victim I would have more people like myself around... who cares if you get stabbed in the damn leg or foot, these people are being brutally beaten and stabbed in the chest neck... you could save their live.. but thanks to your fear of being minimally injured these people die unneccessarily... I guess thats the difference between soldiers and civilians.... selfless service! and its almost like our duty.. I dunno its scary to think people would just allow this shit to happen

I hope no one in my family or me is around whatever

Rusty_metal_ass

Rusty_metal_ass

I'm lost
October 2006

JUN 17, 2008 03:33 PM

Everybody done putting words in my mouth now?

Would this scumbag be crazy without religion? Maybe, maybe not. Did religion help fuel this persons psychosis and help him legitimize his actions? I would say most definitely, since he himself said he was "beating the demons" out of the child.

Would he have done the same thing without religion? Impossible to tell, fortunately for the rest of the world, this piece of shit is dead.

Do I personally believe that religion causes far more damage than good. Absolutely. I have a pretty extensive background in Christian religion, so It's not like I came to this decision from a position of ignorance, nor did I come to these beliefs overnight.

Do I think that religion is a mental disorder? I wouldn't go that far, because of the large amounts of social momentum behind it, lending it some kind of legitimacy from the general population, as opposed to he lone person "hearing voices" and such. However, without this tradition, the religious are somewhat indistinguishable from many classical disorders. I mean, adults with imaginary friends are kinda scary. The hypocrisy inherent in even the best religion completely nullifies them for me. Even the most fervent Christian holy-roller would never believe someone like Jesus if they met him today. He would be considered a dangerous radical, and in today's political climate, would probably be labeled a "terrorist". I mean, he was trying to destroy and replace the entire Social/Religious/Economical structure of the world, right?

motorfirebox

motorfirebox

Pittsburgh, PA
March 2004

JUN 17, 2008 03:39 PM

it's easy to be brave on the internet. as i said, i prefer to believe i would have acted. but then, who wouldn't like to believe that? the simple fact is that members of polite society, when confronted in a group with something outside the bounds of normalcy, frequently find themselves frozen by indecision. if i had to guess, i'd say it's because we tend to structure our minds to deal with types of stress that don't involve threats to our lives or safety; shifting modes to deal with life-and-death decisions apparently isn't as easy as it sounds.

which doesn't make it any less sad or any less wrong.

Shiny_Metal_Ass said:
The hypocrisy inherent in even the best religion completely nullifies them for me. Even the most fervent Christian holy-roller would never believe someone like Jesus if they met him today. He would be considered a dangerous radical, and in today's political climate, would probably be labeled a "terrorist". I mean, he was trying to destroy and replace the entire Social/Religious/Economical structure of the world, right?


the hypocrisy is not inherent in the religion, it's inherent in people.

Hooraydiation

Hooraydiation

Boston, MA
October 2005

JUN 17, 2008 03:42 PM

motorfirebox said:
it's easy to be brave on the internet. as i said, i prefer to believe i would have acted. but then, who wouldn't like to believe that? the simple fact is that members of polite society, when confronted in a group with something outside the bounds of normalcy, frequently find themselves frozen by indecision. if i had to guess, i'd say it's because we tend to structure our minds to deal with types of stress that don't involve threats to our lives or safety; shifting modes to deal with life-and-death decisions apparently isn't as easy as it sounds.

which doesn't make it any less sad or any less wrong.



You're also less likely to intervene on someone's behalf if you're part of a group of spectators, according to the bystander effect.



A common explanation of this phenomenon is that, with others present, observers all assume that someone else is going to intervene and so they each individually refrain from doing so and feel less responsible. This is an example of how diffusion of responsibility leads to social loafing. People may also assume that other bystanders may be more qualified to help, such as being a doctor or police officer, and their intervention would thus be unneeded. People may also fear losing face in front of the other bystanders, being superseded by a superior helper, offering unwanted assistance, or the legal consequences of offering inferior and possibly dangerous assistance. Another explanation is that bystanders monitor the reactions of other people in an emergency situation to see if others think that it is necessary to intervene. Since others are doing exactly the same, everyone concludes from the inaction of others that other people do not think that help is needed. This is an example of pluralistic ignorance and social proof. An alternative to explanations of rational motivation is that emotional cues to action can be as powerful as irrational ones, and the presence of a group of inactive others is a pre-rational emotional cue to inaction that must be overcome.

To counter the bystander effect when you are the victim, a studied recommendation is to pick a specific person in the crowd to appeal to for help rather than appealing to the larger group generally.[citation needed] If you are the only person reacting to an emergency, point directly to a specific bystander and give them a specific task such as, "You. Call the police." These steps place all responsibility on a specific person instead of allowing it to diffuse. Furthermore, pluralistic ignorance is countered by the implication that all bystanders are indeed interested in helping, and social proof kicks in when one or more of the crowd steps in to assist.

motorfirebox

motorfirebox

Pittsburgh, PA
March 2004

JUN 17, 2008 03:43 PM

indeed. s'what i meant by "...when confronted in a group...".

that advice amuses me. given the nature of the phenomenon, it seems a bit silly to assume that the person who received the advice will actually act.

Rusty_metal_ass

Rusty_metal_ass

I'm lost
October 2006

JUN 17, 2008 03:52 PM

motorfirebox said:


the hypocrisy is not inherent in the religion, it's inherent in people.



I think there's plenty of hypocrisy in both, actually. I mean, how much more hypocritical can you get than making people bow down and worship something that doesn't even exist?

motorfirebox

motorfirebox

Pittsburgh, PA
March 2004

JUN 17, 2008 04:10 PM

it's only hypocrisy if the entity forcing people to worship doesn't believe in what the people are worshiping. the opinion of some random guy on an internet forum regarding the existence of what they're worshiping is immaterial.

Rusty_metal_ass

Rusty_metal_ass

I'm lost
October 2006

JUN 17, 2008 04:17 PM

SO, if god exists, and he made up religion, then it's not hypocritical. If man made it up then it is. Is that what you're trying to say?

If so, that's why I think it's hypocritical, because it's not real.

motorfirebox

motorfirebox

Pittsburgh, PA
March 2004

JUN 17, 2008 04:23 PM

the existence of god is actually moot, in this case. for religion to be guilty of hypocrisy, the religion itself--however you choose to define such a nebulous concept--has to not believe what its worshipers believe. if the author(s) of the bible, for instance, didn't actually believe in god, that could be considered to mean that christianity is hypocritical--but then again, it might not, since the people who lead christianity today (religious authorities and scholars) probably do believe in god. bascially, your statement is too vague to really mean anything; what little meaning can be derived from it is factually incorrect.

and regardless of all that, your opinion that there is no god certainly doesn't make christians, or christianity, hypocritical.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next