"From the last three lines of your post, I'm assuming you are applying the "better safe than sorry" mentality to life-rights over all of time. This addresses points 3) and 5) of my post on Wed 5/15, but does not address points 1),…"
I Power
Scientific Research & Self-Development Activism
Why I argue so "aggressively" | Distorted views can kill | Teenager kills herself after researching 2012 doomsday theories
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by SparTom007 - Tom on -
-
Permalink Reply by Richard Lennox on -
Well you need to remember that arguing aggressively is always wrong. And arguing aggressively in such case is a little bit hypocritical if you criticise people for just sharing such stories to scare others, or interest them but doing nothing to help. You do nothing to help as aggressive is never a way to convince, and thats why people argue. Aggressive arguing just expresses your emotions, lets your anger go away but won't fulfill the main goal. You subconciously stop focusing on being reasonable and switch to emotional mode (which i hope isn't too admired in this community) Just think how do you react when someone argues aggressively with you, that just makes him look like a fanatic, and most certainly won't make you change your mind if you are so attached to it, just as those conspiracy theory fans are.
-
Permalink Reply by SparTom007 - Tom on
-
Maybe I used the wrong word here. I argue persistently. I don't just give up when people call me closed minded for not accepting their views.
-
Permalink Reply by Tim Young on -
Well, as you suggest - there is really nothing any of us can do to stop those who like to believe the end of the world is nigh - from doing so.
And certainly there are those among us who might hear/read such predictions and be heavily affected by them.
Agreed this sort of speculation does not help. But what concerns me is that some people are so vulnerable that such stories can affect them in such a dramatic way. I do wonder how this came to be - what has gone on in their lives for them to be this way.
That being the case, if it was not the doomsday predictors who got under their skin then it would have most likely been something or someone else.
Perhaps the best we can do is to offer an alternative philosophy to the doom and gloom. But as to whether or not anyone will listen (who perhaps needs to) - who knows?
-
Permalink Reply by Charlie Klonowski on -
While I agree that spreading panic is a detriment to society, it is the responsibility of the reader to choose to accept or reject the ideas presented in any article. The internet has granted everyone the near infinite access to information. Without belittling the tragedy and emotional turmoil involved with the suicide of this young woman, it was her responsibility to check reliable sources, and react rationally to a perceived threat on her future.
Additionally, it is in no way appropriate to use this sorrowful incident as a rallying cry for your side of an argument.
-
Permalink Reply by SparTom007 - Tom on
-
How am I using this as a rallying cry for my side of the argument? I'm not saying that they shouldn't express their views, I'm saying they should put them somewhere vulnerable kids won't find them and possibly cause stuff like this to happen.
-
Permalink Reply by SparTom007 - Tom on
-
Lol thanks :) I guess it was considering the amount of crazy retard conspiracy theorists I have on my facebook xD
-
Permalink Reply by Nick Stephenson on -
The problem with your argument is you're trying to censor people from the freedom of speech. It is important to let people say what they say, even if you don't agree with it. If you start shutting up conspiracy theorist, then you begin to tread down a slippery slope. As was said earlier. It is up to the individual to take in the information and make rational conclusions on what the information implies. Taking a preemptive strike on your own life to avoid what may come is not anyone's fault but that person. It is a confusing world we live in, and people kill themselves every day for a variety of reasons. Just recently in Ft. Collins, where I live, a transient man walked up to a slow moving train that goes through town, and crawled under the last car on the tracks in front of many witnesses. Should we outlaw trains because it killed this man? Quite clearly no. The same can be said about all these dooms-dayers. They have the freedom to claim what ever non-sense they want, and many groups pray on vulnerable people. Do what you can to present the other side of the argument, but taking their right to say it isn't going to fix anything, it will merely cause more problems.
-
Permalink Reply by SparTom007 - Tom on
-
Watch the video I posted bro. I'm definitely not suggesting censorship :) I'm suggesting that the people who make this content put warnings and shit on it so it's not available to younger people or sensitive people. I label shit as my opinion if I think that it's a touch subject, see my newest video on the front page of ipower about rape vs regret, very touchy issue xD
-
Permalink Reply by Nick Stephenson on
-
That is still censorship. Not allowing certain individuals to view such content because they might not have the filters and common sense to know that these are merely theories and opinions. I would liken this to the War of the Worlds, in which Orson Wells aired a broadcast that was meant to entertain but people heard it out of context and killed themselves. Is it Orson's fault for creating such a convincing broadcast? Or is it the idiots who killed themselves without seeing any direct evidence of such a thing actually occurring? Disclaimers and warnings rarely slow anyone down from viewing these things. In fact, warnings usually peak more interest. You want to be mad at the people creating the conspiracies, but the little girl, as sad as it is, is still at fault for taking her own life, no one else.
-
Permalink Reply by SparTom007 - Tom on
-
That's a bad example lol. That's like saying you shouldn't put filters on porn so that kids can't watch it because that's censorship...
There are other ways than age gates that can stop kids getting to sensitive shit :)
Tbh part of this post was just me expressing my discontent for these idiots that feel the need to spread their lies. This was more of a blog post than anything but I put it in the forum because I wanted the /reply features :)
And I'm not saying there is no blame on the child for her decision, but she was just a child and children need extra protection from the real world sometimes and I feel like the content creators or whatever need to realise that they could have this effect inadvertently. There are too many factors in this case for someone to be blamed outright anyway lol
Btw, that is not censorship because people can still post stuff and it is available to everyone. It's just adding a level of protection for young or sensitive people
Forum
The ethical implications of "Temporal Isolation"
Started by Aya in Off-Topic. Last reply by Aya 11 hours ago. 34 Replies 1 Like
Condemning others to validate ourselves.
Started by Lore in I Power: Self-Development Activism. Last reply by Anthony D 21 hours ago. 7 Replies 0 Likes
Lexical argumentation and its merit
Started by Anthony D in Off-Topic. Last reply by Anthony D on Thursday. 21 Replies 0 Likes
Latest Activity
Isaac Renshaw joined The Shiznit's group
Creating Your Own "Crew"
This is a Group for people who are interested in the idea of expanding I-Power by encouraging our members to create I-Power/SDA related cell groups, or "Crews" in their own communities.See More
Isaac Renshaw joined The Shiznit's group
The Transition Movement
The Transition Movement is a grassroots Network of communities that are working to build resilience in response to peak oil, climate change, and economic instability. Utilizing various concepts such as Permaculture and Local Currency systems, the…See More
Anthony D replied to Lore's discussion Condemning others to validate ourselves."An issue in the context of your reply is the so-called "mad/bad debate". And it very much plays into the perception of these rather extreme forms of criminal behavior.
From a legal and forensic psychological standpoint a…"
Lore replied to Lore's discussion Condemning others to validate ourselves."Interesting. I think that just being aware that our behavior is not always justified and taking on some personal responsibility can go a long way."
Lore replied to Lore's discussion Condemning others to validate ourselves."Maybe I take empathy and attempting to understand such actions by people to the extreme, but I think it is important to understand the causes of such behavior. You do bring up a good point about school shootings Nathaniel, in that the media makes…"
Nathaniel Mortazavi replied to Lore's discussion Condemning others to validate ourselves."I agree with the principle to an extent. However, in the case of school shooters, I don't think it can be justified. Same with rape. There's definitely a line, but like you said, those are the most extreme cases.
On the topic of mass…"
Graham James Collins posted a status"The serious consideration of the Mars-one application. What extreme ramifications this new world discovery will play."
Rob replied to Lore's discussion Condemning others to validate ourselves." Taking the time to understand someone is harder to do when the behavior can be considered abhorrent. What is being discussed in the comments section is very…"
© 2013 Created by Reese Leysen.
