• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Eighteen involved in gang rape of 11 year old girl in Texas

Arcadius said:
But I'm not trolling, at all, this is just how I think. I've entertained that I most likely have some sort of psychological disorder. I don't think i'm superior. I just think people are refusing to look at things from my perspective. I'm not saying my perspective is better, it just gives a certain insight that yours does not.
Click to expand...
I tried looking at it from your perspective but I'm not flexible enough to get my head up my....never mind.
 
Arcadius said:
No I'd say I worded it incorrectly. Which gave a much different impression than the one I was going for.
Click to expand...

If you can't express yourself clearly then perhaps it's because you haven't really thought the issue through sufficiently and just gave a half-hearted stab at creating some debate.
 
theplaydrive said:
1. Human beings also have reason. For example, when you're in an argument with a loved one, you will likely try to dissociate from the emotion for a limited amount of time in order to understand their point of view without letting your anger cloud your judgment.
Click to expand...

Which is why if someone said "I'm removing all logic and going to react just on emotion" I'd say that's equally ridiculous. As I said, there's a difference between attempting to approach an issue from a reasoned stand point and attempting to act like emotion doesn't or shouldn't exist and removing it from your view of the situation completely in all aspects.

2. Human beings can't do anything inhuman. It's a common logical fallacy. If a human being is doing it, it is by definition, human.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Similarly, it is impossible to truly be 100% logical or to remove emotion completley. As seen here, despite his attempts to be "logical" he has exhibited a number of things that are NOT logical. Thus he is attempting to do something that humans can not do....act completely logical and without any emotion.

3. I pointed out how my class looked at 9/11 sans emotion and I completely understand where Arcadius is coming from. He might not feel the same intensity of disgust I feel when I hear the story, but like him I don't see the point in getting violently worked up every time a story like this comes up. I would never be able to function otherwise.
Click to expand...

And people aren't having a huge issue that he's not getting worked up about it, or by him looking at the response to it in a "logical" means, but rather him taking a tact from start to finish where the most caring he has is a hollow repeating of the word "symapthizes". I'm not getting hugely worked up about it. You haven't seen me calling for castraction, suggesting we need to hunt people down, fire and brim stone, etc etc. This doesn't change the fact that I think its a disgusting and vile act that was absolutely horrible for that girl. No one is saying he needs to be worked up about it...they're saying there's something significantly wrong when you can look at "gang rape of a preteen" and go "meh".
 
theplaydrive said:
1. Human beings also have reason. For example, when you're in an argument with a loved one, you will likely try to dissociate from the emotion for a limited amount of time in order to understand their point of view without letting your anger cloud your judgment.

2. Human beings can't do anything inhuman. It's a common logical fallacy. If a human being is doing it, it is by definition, human.

3. I pointed out how my class looked at 9/11 sans emotion and I completely understand where Arcadius is coming from. He might not feel the same intensity of disgust I feel when I hear the story, but like him I don't see the point in getting violently worked up every time a story like this comes up. I would never be able to function otherwise.
Click to expand...

3. I pointed out how my class looked at 9/11 sans emotion
Click to expand...

Did they learn to look at it from the terrorists point of view?

Was it all well rationalized?
 
Grant said:
Did they learn to look at it from the terrorists point of view?

Was it all well rationalized?
Click to expand...

I can't tell why you're asking this so I get the feeling I'm about to be attacked, but I'll answer anyway.

Yeah, we looked at from their point of view and it seemed pretty rational to me. The best way I can explain it is this: Imagine if another country whose culture/general religious values were completely different and opposed to your own had troops in your country. You see these troops everyday, on your way to work, dropping off your kids. You hear rumors of them torturing your fellow citizens and committing other heinous acts and no matter what you or your government do, they will not leave and appear to be permanently set up to stay on your homeland. Some people would form a coalition of citizens and try to force them off by attacking them through terrorism. Terrorism is a last desperate resort whether its in the Middle East or Asia or Europe. Many sympathizers with 9/11 felt that the U.S. had killed many of their innocent relatives and that if they attacked U.S. innocents, the U.S. might leave their territory in the Persian Gulf.

The best book about suicide terrorism I've read is this: Amazon.com: Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism (9781400063178): Robert Pape: Books It's actually really interesting for those who are interested.
 
Zyphlin said:
Which is why if someone said "I'm removing all logic and going to react just on emotion" I'd say that's equally ridiculous. As I said, there's a difference between attempting to approach an issue from a reasoned stand point and attempting to act like emotion doesn't or shouldn't exist and removing it from your view of the situation completely in all aspects.



Exactly. Similarly, it is impossible to truly be 100% logical or to remove emotion completley. As seen here, despite his attempts to be "logical" he has exhibited a number of things that are NOT logical. Thus he is attempting to do something that humans can not do....act completely logical and without any emotion.



And people aren't having a huge issue that he's not getting worked up about it, or by him looking at the response to it in a "logical" means, but rather him taking a tact from start to finish where the most caring he has is a hollow repeating of the word "symapthizes". I'm not getting hugely worked up about it. You haven't seen me calling for castraction, suggesting we need to hunt people down, fire and brim stone, etc etc. This doesn't change the fact that I think its a disgusting and vile act that was absolutely horrible for that girl. No one is saying he needs to be worked up about it...they're saying there's something significantly wrong when you can look at "gang rape of a preteen" and go "meh".
Click to expand...

Okay, I get this sentiment. I guess my problem wasn't really with you but with earlier posters who were trying to get him and in some cases me (which makes no sense) to get outraged and all that. Gardner even insinuated that both of us were psychopaths and pedophiles. I think his comment is just making me extra sensitive to people's criticism because that's not something I want to be associated just for having a different opinion.
 
Arcadius said:
Did you see the following argument and all of the misconceptions that came of me trying to explain? Read some of Play drive's posts. He explained it much better than I did.
Click to expand...




I've read all theplaydrive i ever need too thanks.


What you are doin is trying to minimize all of hunanity based on remote african instances.
 
ReverendHellh0und;1059340276[B said:
]I've read all theplaydrive i ever need too thanks.[/B]


What you are doin is trying to minimize all of hunanity based on remote african instances.
Click to expand...

It's funny that you admit that you'll discount the message because of the messenger. It just proves that I'm more open to the truth than you are since even when I disagree with someone a lot, I'm willing to read their arguments. After all, it's hard to go through life without picking up some truth along the way.
 
theplaydrive said:
It's funny that you admit that you'll discount the message because of the messenger. It just proves that I'm more open to the truth than you are since even when I disagree with someone a lot, I'm willing to read their arguments. After all, it's hard to go through life without picking up some truth along the way.
Click to expand...




Hint: Never let the bully know he got to you.......


That was the grandest lesson the obama admin failed to deliver in his anti-bully campaign today. :prof
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Hint: Never let the bully know he got to you.......


That was the grandest lesson the obama admin failed to deliver in his anti-bully campaign today. :prof
Click to expand...

And this comment proves that you project grand delusions onto every post. What will you prove next?
 
How exactly is this an argument of rationality versus emotion? Arcadius himself gets this wrong, his view that worse things are happening on a grander scale worldwide is still an emotional response. We don't view genocides through a statisical prism, we relate to the individual stories that must occur within that and are horrrified (emotion) that this was a matter of policy or cultural circumstance where it happened. If we are detached from the individual cases that drive us emotionally we have no logical reason to disagree with systematic offences that may occur through our indifference. I feel a lot of people are misrespresenting this as support of moral deviancy in quite tactless ways but Arcadius' original dismissal of the smaller event in favour of larger ones would in of itself make it impossible to tackle the larger ones. We have no reason to oppose any of this without emotion, which we can only relate on smaller scales (that's what are brains are wired for).

Otherwise we're Stalin.
 
Zyphlin said:
You realize that removing all emotion is in and of itself inhuman as well.

Human beings have emotions. To seperate them out and attempt to remove them is in and of itself attempting to be something other than human. We are not computers, we are not robots, emotions do factor in.

One can definitely take a step back, view a situation logically, and still express emotion. Wake pointed out how his class tried to look at 9/11 sans emotion...he also pointed out utter disgust and rage was still had after that for the perpetrators.

That's NOT what you're doing. You're not attempting to remove emotion from your view of what should be done, you're trying to remove emotion completely. The most you give is a cold, heartless, hollow "sympathy" for the victim. While you refuse to allow emotion to enter in, you also act illogical by ignoring that humans by their very nature have a certain amount of emapthy in them and view situations based on that.

Logically, yes. A girl that's 11 getting raped by 18 men is not as bad as say....an entire race of people being exterminated, or an entire country living in abject poverty, or a village where the women are raped daily. However, also, when you logically look at the context in which people are talking you realize they're speaking in a relatively micro level of crimes against individuals within a developed country rather than a macro version of the world at large. When viewing it that way, a gang rape at that age could be even worse than a grisley murder due to the emotional problems it could subject the woman to for the rest of her life. Its arguably worse than the majority of rape cases that happen to older individuals because the affects of it would be potentially longer lasting and the mind is less developed and more susceptiable to issues.

If someone in America got fired, had their house burned down, then called and told their daughter was just raped brutally for 2 weeks straight and then killed, their son committed suicide, their wife was divorsing him, and he has aids....you could still, using your twisted version of logic, go "eh, my sympathizes for him...but that's not THAT big of a deal" because hey, there's worse stuf theoritically going on somewhere in the world.

There's a difference between looking at a situation logically, and looking at it heartlessly. You sit here going on about how logical you THINK you are, while you then take peoples emotional reactions as if they are honest suggestions and not emotional responses to a horrible act in relation to the norm for their existance.

You say you strive to be logical, I say you're striving to be something other than a human.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I am. Don't think I haven't considered it. But, I still think your failing to see my perspective correctly. I don't think humans should be void of emotion. I'm saying that sometimes someone needs to separate themselves from their emotion and look at things purely with logic. Perhaps I've come to rely on it too much and have become somewhat separate from my humanity. Humans have the ability to ignore empathy and take the most logical course of action. My logical course of action is that I can't get so worked up every time I hear about such an abundant crime. And if I focus on smaller crimes that only effect one small group of people, I become distant from greater societal injustices. I honestly have sympathy for this girl, and I hope she can grow up to have some semblance of a normal life.

But the thing is, she still has that that life. She's still going to get the psychological help she needs, she most likely has the support of her family, and being an American she still has the ability to overcome this and still live her life to the fullest. I can be disgusted all I want, but the fact is it's already happened, and there's nothing I can do for her. There's no point in getting so emotional about it. We do in fact have the ability to help these people and give them the stability and safety that we enjoy. But instead of trying to do this we're too busy killing brown people and arguing about gay marriage.

I'm pretty sure I have some sort of Messiah complex, (although I'd say it's not the exact same thing) that's become much more plausible with age, but is still there. And I've spent a lot of time thinking about how to systematically create a better society. I'd have to say I'm nowhere close to coming up with an effective solution, without gaining a ridiculous amount of support. I have in fact realized, that no matter how much they bother me I can't focus on small crimes that only effect a few individuals. I've also realized that one has to prioritize, make sacrifices, and discern things with logic.

I don't think without emotion. When faced with a dilemma I just always turn to logic over emotion. I have a way of thinking of everything on a global scale, which makes me appear very distant from individuals. But don't think I don't care.

Anyway, I'm done with this thread.
 
theplaydrive said:
It's funny that you admit that you'll discount the message because of the messenger. It just proves that I'm more open to the truth than you are since even when I disagree with someone a lot, I'm willing to read their arguments. After all, it's hard to go through life without picking up some truth along the way.
Click to expand...

You flatter yourself to say you are more open to the truth. All your doing is offering an opinion, and a trite and stale one at that.

Your opinion is just that, and the truth will often be something quite different. It's not smart to confuse the two.
 
Grant said:
You flatter yourself to say you are more open to the truth. All your doing is offering an opinion, and a trite and stale one at that.

Your opinion is just that, and the truth will often be something quite different. It's not smart to confuse the two.
Click to expand...

I'm not flattering myself. I am open to other people's ideas even when we disagree and I don't stop myself from reading their ideas because I don't like them. If that were the case, I wouldn't have read your comment. ReverendH showed that he rejects ideas that come from people he does not like or agree with.

As a result, I am more open to the truth - in other words, I am willing to listen to everybody's version of it, particularly since truth is relative to experience and I have not had the experiences of every person on this board.

Work on your reading comprehension.
 
theplaydrive said:
I'm not flattering myself. I am open to other people's ideas even when we disagree and I don't stop myself from reading their ideas because I don't like them. If that were the case, I wouldn't have read your comment. ReverendH showed that he rejects ideas that come from people he does not like or agree with.

As a result, I am more open to the truth - in other words, I am willing to listen to everybody's version of it, particularly since truth is relative to experience and I have not had the experiences of every person on this board.

Work on your reading comprehension.
Click to expand...

The good rev is a pretty good judge of character.
 
I know I said I was done. But it seems kind of strange that this discussion has become so oriented on my personal philosophies. I don't really understand why everybody cares.
 
dontworrybehappy said:
And I would support the death penalty for you, lib. You kill someone in cold blood and DNA can prove it, absolutely, I would be happy to put the needle in your arm. You are no more "worthy" of living than anyone else who commits murder, sorry to tell you. Where DNA can prove guilt, I am supportive of the DP, all other cases, I am not. What jury would convict you? One that followed the laws of the land, that's what.
Click to expand...
There are very few juries who would convict her and none that would sentence her to death. I think it's telling that you more vehemently condemn someone like Liblady who says she'd kill her daughter's attackers than you condemn the attackers themselves. You seem downright empathetic with molesters and rapists, not wanting them, in some cases to even be charged. Rather than make assumptions about why that could be, I'll ask, why?
 
theplaydrive said:
I'm not flattering myself. I am open to other people's ideas even when we disagree and I don't stop myself from reading their ideas because I don't like them. If that were the case, I wouldn't have read your comment. ReverendH showed that he rejects ideas that come from people he does not like or agree with.

As a result, I am more open to the truth - in other words, I am willing to listen to everybody's version of it, particularly since truth is relative to experience and I have not had the experiences of every person on this board.

Work on your reading comprehension.
Click to expand...

here's what i read, and if I missed the meaning, please let me know.

"It just proves that I'm more open to the truth than you are"

That certainly seems to me that you are closer to the understanding of 'the truth' than others, while others are a little further from it than your good self.

What you may be closer to might be the truth or it might not be. It is often a matter of opinion. And of course it also 'proves' nothing.
 
Arcadius said:
I know I said I was done. But it seems kind of strange that this discussion has become so oriented on my personal philosophies. I don't really understand why everybody cares.
Click to expand...
Well, you know, it's like watching a train wreck. Horrific, yet fascinating.
 
liblady said:
removing them from society IS punishment, at least for most people it would be. punishment is valid, retribution is not, unless she was my daughter. then i would kill them. twice.
Click to expand...

Punishment at its very core is retribution. It is about causing someone pain for causing you pain. Fear inclines us towards that defensive reaction.

Zyphlin said:
You realize that removing all emotion is in and of itself inhuman as well.

Human beings have emotions. To seperate them out and attempt to remove them is in and of itself attempting to be something other than human. We are not computers, we are not robots, emotions do factor in.
Click to expand...

Actually I think his point was more that people should control their emotions and not let their emotions control them. Seriously saying, over and over, that you would kill someone and feel good about it is not controlling your emotions. I doubt most of them would actually do it, but that desire is by itself not a good thing.
 
Grant said:
here's what i read, and if I missed the meaning, please let me know.

"It just proves that I'm more open to the truth than you are"

That certainly seems to me that you are closer to the understanding of 'the truth' than others, while others are a little further from it than your good self.

What you may be closer to might be the truth or it might not be. It is often a matter of opinion. And of course it also 'proves' nothing.
Click to expand...

That's not what I meant. I don't think that I'm closer to the truth than anyone; if you knew me in person, you would know that's not true. For that very reason, I am genuinely interested in and open to understanding other people's points of view on reality because I, like everyone else, has only had a limited amount of experiences. Therefore, understanding other people's beliefs and experiences gives me more relative truth to work with. (For example, if reality was a cube, I want to understand every side of it and I leave myself open to understanding every side.)

My comment to him was based on him implying that he won't read my posts because he's disagreed with other things I've posted in the past. I was saying that I'm more open to accepting other people's opinions because I would never limit myself from reading other people's posts because of past disagreements. I hope that makes sense.

Bottom line: I do not think that my opinions are more valid or truthful than others. I do think I'm more open to listening to other people's opinions than RevH is though based on his comment. (Perhaps that doesn't show sometimes, I get frustrated in here.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom