Tribal girl stripped over 'affair', molested by hundreds in Bengal

[IamChiChi 10]

Yes, I would and do switch over, it's hardly edifying, is it? As far as I'm concerned, it's the same mentality as those who watch and enjoy snuff movies.

 

Are those that continue to watch, 'sick'?

[SHsheff 10]

So you're saying you've never craned your neck whilst passing a road accident?

 

Humans are curious creatures and crave to see things that they shouldn't. The 13yo boy who looks at the lingerie section of his mum's catalogue, for example. We want to know gossip about other people and will talk behind backs, even though they know it's wrong to do so. We've all done it.

 

I'm not saying IamChiChi is right to want to watch the video, but I respect that he is only human and, as such, has the same compulsions as everyone else, including curiosity.

 

To use one of his examples - the next time you watch a person on CCTV on a news story getting his head kicked in, are you going to switch channel because it's sick to watch it? Or, are you going to watch so you can form your opinion, and feed your rage via curiosity?

 

It's 'sick' because he seems to have gone of out his way to look at scenes of violence:

 

The same reason I have seen many videos such as Americans killing Iraqis, torture, Saddams hanging.... curiosity.

 

I'd say the same if it were someone complaining about how many videos they've watched of animal cruelty. If you're going to do something about it because you're so enraged/upset, then fair enough. If all you're going to do is somehow get off on the voyeurism, then I think it's fair to call it sick.

[IamChiChi 10]

Does that mean that you have to read picture books or can you cope with reading a novel purely in its textual form?

 

Of course I can read a novel in its textual form. When reading a novel, you can rely on your own imagination to interpret it however you want

 

When there is a news story, your own interpretation and/or imagination is not factual.

 

I would rather see a goal on match of the day, rather than read about it.

[IamChiChi 10]

Enquiring about a video is hardly going out of ones way.

[SHsheff 10]

Someone that understands. Thank you.

 

I fully realise that my curiosity is a lot higher than the norm. That doesn't make me sick. It merely means that I have a higher cut off point when it comes to what I don't mind seeing.

 

Also, I am very much a person that understands more via visual stimuli. I find it much harder to grasp a story through textual means alone.

 

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. People with learning difficulties do have problems fitting in with society - what they consider 'normal' is often not what the rest of society consider 'normal'.

 

The problem comes when these people go further than 'society' considers acceptable. Take, for example, the boys who killed James Bulger. They were perhaps only acting out what seemed 'normal' to them - ie, seeing how much violence it was possible to enact on a smaller child. To the rest of society, they were way out of bounds and suffered punishment as a result of their actions.

 

I guess it's difficult for people who don't see things as the rest of us do, and I apologise for judging you by our standards. However, you live amongst us and so it is only right that we are on our guard against those who have different boundaries.

[Suffragette1 10]

Of course I can read a novel in its textual form. When reading a novel, you can rely on your own imagination to interpret it however you want

 

When there is a news story, your own interpretation and/or imagination is not factual.

 

I would rather see a goal on match of the day, rather than read about it.

 

That is a very poor analogy, spectator sports are entirely different to actually going out of one's way to watch hangings, acts of violence and murder, unless of course you consider such graphic scenes to be a spectator sport. The article in the OP told me all I needed to know and was distressing enough, why anyone would go out of their way to way to watch the horrific video footage is beyond me, unless they have a warped mind and it fuels some kind of vicarious sadistic fantasy.

[IamChiChi 10]

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. People with learning difficulties do have problems fitting in with society - what they consider 'normal' is often not what the rest of society consider 'normal'.

 

The problem comes when these people go further than 'society' considers acceptable. Take, for example, the boys who killed James Bulger. They were perhaps only acting out what seemed 'normal' to them - ie, seeing how much violence it was possible to enact on a smaller child. To the rest of society, they were way out of bounds and suffered punishment as a result of their actions.

 

I guess it's difficult for people who don't see things as the rest of us do, and I apologise for judging you by our standards. However, you live amongst us and so it is only right that we are on our guard against those who have different boundaries.

 

I think you actually raise some good points. I clearly don't see things the same as more 'normal' people do, just differently. Different doesn't = wrong though. So I fully take on board your learning disabilty comment.

 

The differnce between me and the Bulger killers, is that my curiosity doesn't harm anyone, and neither would I want to.

[IamChiChi 10]

That is a very poor analogy, spectator sports are entirely different to actually going out of one's way to watch hangings, acts of violence and murder, unless of course you consider such graphic scenes to be a spectator sport. The article in the OP told me all I needed to know and was distressing enough, why anyone would go out of their way to way to watch the horrific video footage is beyond me, unless they have a warped mind and it fuels some kind of vicarious sadistic fantasy.

 

It is a perfectly valid analogy. I was comparing the fact that both sport and the story are real events. And in order for me to get a true picture of both events in my mind, I would need visual stimuli. I was not comparing the actual act.

 

Surely you understand this?

[Suffragette1 10]

It is a perfectly valid analogy. I was comparing the fact that both sport and the story are real events. And in order for me to get a true picture of both events in my mind, I would need visual stimuli. I was not comparing the actual act.

 

Surely you understand this?

 

I do not see it as a perfect analogy at all. One is about enjoyment and deriving pleasure from watching a sport and the other is a need for 'visual stimuli' of graphic violence and being witness to a fellow human being's pain, suffering and humiliation, whether real or fictional.

[IamChiChi 10]

I wasn't referring to the enjoyment. I was referring to the need for visual stimuli to paint a clear picture of what has happened for me.

[leviathan13 350]

That is a very poor analogy, spectator sports are entirely different to actually going out of one's way to watch hangings, acts of violence and murder, unless of course you consider such graphic scenes to be a spectator sport. The article in the OP told me all I needed to know and was distressing enough, why anyone would go out of their way to way to watch the horrific video footage is beyond me, unless they have a warped mind and it fuels some kind of vicarious sadistic fantasy.

 

So you believe everything you read? You only read one newspaper and rely on them to supply ALL of the facts and ALL of the angles?

 

I thought it was a very good analogy, if a little basic. But the point is, you can be at the match and watch one game, yet the sports reporter publishes a report that is completely different to the game you've just seen for yourself. Then another newspaper prints a report that is different to both your experience and that of the first reporter.

 

The only way to form a true opinion of a story would be to see it for your own eyes. The only way for any of us to do that would be to watch the video. Someone had to to publish the report, are they sick? Or is it ok because of their position in the media?

[Suffragette1 10]

I wasn't referring to the enjoyment. I was referring to the need for visual stimuli to paint a clear picture of what has happened for me.

 

Then I stand by the fact that it was a poor analogy as you compared something which I assume you enjoy with something that involves human suffering.