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

[SHsheff 10]

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.

 

In which case, I consider my life's overlap with your life as enriching

 

What do you do for a job (not meaning to pry, just curious)?

[IamChiChi 10]

As surprising as this may be, I am a lecturer.

[leviathan13 350]

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

 

 

 

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.

 

We all do - we watch films depicting violence. We also watch films depicting violence based on real events. Here's a scenario:

 

This girls life is made in to a film. She sells her story to highlight the atrocities that go on in the world. People will watch the film so they can see a depiction of what she went through - why is it not wrong to watch that, but it's wrong to watch the actual footage? Would Live Aid have worked if Geldof had only showed a depiction of people suffering as opposed to the actual, hard-hitting, full on horror of what was actually happening?

[Suffragette1 10]

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?

I try to read from a variety of sources but have no inclination whatsoever to watch footage of the nature of that referred to in the OP, I would find it distressing in the extreme.

 

Yes, 'the only way to form a true opinion of a story would be to see it for your own eyes', however, you don't always have to be there or witness it to be able to make an informed opinion. If that were case, then the whole of history until the advent of the camera and cine-film would have to be consigned as being totally unreliable.

 

Furthermore, at times even video footage lends itself to a variety of interpretations.

[leviathan13 350]

I try to read from a variety of sources but have no inclination whatsoever to watch footage of the nature of that referred to in the OP, I would find it distressing in the extreme.

 

Yes, 'the only way to form a true opinion of a story would be to see it for your own eyes', however, you don't always have to be there or witness it to be able to make an informed opinion. If that were case, then the whole of history until the advent of the camera and cine-film would have to be consigned as being totally unreliable.

 

Furthermore, at times even video footage lends itself to a variety of interpretations.

 

Hence why we have constant debates about whether the Bible is right or not. Why there are Holocaust deniers who don't believe the "evidence" that they've read.

 

If YOU find something distressing, then simply don't watch, don't click on the link, change the channel. But censorship is one of the most harmful things that can be done in the modern age. If we censor atrocities from the population then what next? I can't listen to Satanic black metal because we're in a Christian country? So what I can listen to is censored? Just because the content might upset a few people?

[Suffragette1 10]

Hence why we have constant debates about whether the Bible is right or not. Why there are Holocaust deniers who don't believe the "evidence" that they've read.

 

We do, however, with historical events what we do is form an opinion based on as many sources as possible. Holocaust denial is anathema to me as there is plenty of evidence, including physical, visual as well as first hand testimonies.

 

Even video footage can be interpreted in numerous ways. This is one example which springs immediately to mind and engendered a debate as to whether Bush wiped his hand on Clinton's shoulder or gave him a friendly pat.

 

A more obvious example would be the conspiracy theories that abound about 9/11, even when the events unfold on live TV, there are still people who are not prepared to believe what they saw or have interpreted the 'facts' in a wholly different manner.

 

I think that the holy scriptures are slightly different however for a variety of reasons, however, that is a whole other debate.

 

If YOU find something distressing, then simply don't watch, don't click on the link, change the channel. But censorship is one of the most harmful things that can be done in the modern age. If we censor atrocities from the population then what next? I can't listen to Satanic black metal because we're in a Christian country? So what I can listen to is censored? Just because the content might upset a few people?

 

Quite so and I would certainly not go out of my way to watch anything that would distress me or depicted graphic violence. I never mentioned anything about censorship however, but people taking amateur footage of the kind of event referred to in the OP, then posting it on the internet for people to watch for some form of gratification is just abhorrent, as far as I'm concerned.

[leviathan13 350]

We do, however, with historical events what we do is form an opinion based on as many sources as possible. Holocaust denial is anathema to me as there is plenty of evidence, including physical, visual as well as first hand testimonies.

 

Even video footage can be interpreted in numerous ways. This is one example which springs immediately to mind and engendered a debate as to whether Bush wiped his hand on Clinton's shoulder or gave him a friendly pat.

 

A more obvious example would be the conspiracy theories that abound about 9/11, even when the events unfold on live TV, there are still people who are not prepared to believe what they saw or have interpreted the 'facts' in a wholly different manner.

 

I think that the holy scriptures are slightly different however for a variety of reasons, however, that is a whole other debate.

 

 

 

Quite so and I would certainly not go out of my way to watch anything that would distress me or depicted graphic violence. I never mentioned anything about censorship however, but people taking amateur footage of the kind of event referred to in the OP, then posting it on the internet for people to watch for some form of gratification is just abhorrent, as far as I'm concerned.

 

How are scriptures different? They're all about individual interpretation, why do you think there are so many religions and divisions within them.

 

And everyone has jumped to the conclusion that IamChiChi is some sort of sexual deviant who wants to watch it for gratification. At no point as he given any indication that that is the case, so I think people have got their knickers in an almighty twist for no reason other than total overreaction!

[Suffragette1 10]

How are scriptures different? They're all about individual interpretation, why do you think there are so many religions and divisions within them.

 

And everyone has jumped to the conclusion that IamChiChi is some sort of sexual deviant who wants to watch it for gratification. At no point as he given any indication that that is the case, so I think people have got their knickers in an almighty twist for no reason other than total overreaction!

 

I think that the scriptures (without going into a very long debate about, so will precis) are different as there is a lot of ambiguity, contradiction and metaphor; there may be a lot lost in translation and differing translations can totally alter meanings, which is why they lend themselves more to different interpretations, which is slightly different to historical records reporting fact or reading someone's journals or personal papers and other primary source materials, studying artefacts etc.

 

As for IamChiChi, perhaps if s/he had said 'it helps me to contextualise the event if I can use visual sources to inform my views' there would have been a slightly different response.

Edited August 12, 2010 by Suffragette1

[Bassman62 10]

To say only Indian people mistreat women is racist.

Very true mistreatment of women is also a major part of islam as well.

[leviathan13 350]

I think that the scriptures (without going into a very long debate about, so will precis) are different as there is a lot of ambiguity, contradiction and metaphor; there may be a lot lost in translation and differing translations can totally alter meanings, which is why they lend themselves more to different interpretations, which is slightly different to historical records reporting fact or reading someone's journals or personal papers and other primary source materials, studying artefacts etc.

 

As for IamChiChi, perhaps if s/he had said 'it helps me to contextualise the event if I can use visual sources to inform my views' there would have been a slightly different response.

 

Or maybe if people weren't so quick to assume that everyone is a paedophile, and they are guilty until proven innocent, and actually thought for more than a split second about it, he wouldn't have to explain himself. Maybe he thought you were all rational people who could think rationally instead of jumping straight to the most horrendous assumption.

[Bassman62 10]

Please DON'T put the link to said video on here. Remember - this is a family forum.

Spoilsport...............:

[Suffragette1 10]

Or maybe if people weren't so quick to assume that everyone is a paedophile, and they are guilty until proven innocent, and actually thought for more than a split second about it, he wouldn't have to explain himself. Maybe he thought you were all rational people who could think rationally instead of jumping straight to the most horrendous assumption.

 

My bold - huh?

 

He was asked why he would want to watch it, fair enough, don't make such statements on a public forum if you don't want to be asked questions as to why. If he is curious to watch such stuff then have other posters not got a right to be curious as to why he is curious?