Mama Moonbat quits anti-war movement

[mburbank]

" it's easier then debating me."
-Alphabweiner

As I've said several times, you are not debateable, much as I might wish otherwise. You believe you have soul ownership of truths and you define all terms as 'agreeing with my definition entirely in every way or being incorrect'. Whoever taught you that in your high school debate squad did you a diservice. That is how sqaulid psuedo intellectual adolescents score points off each other and is nothing I am inparticularly interested.

I do not debate you. I mock you. I-mockery.com? I'm sure the speckled teen agrivators you're looking for have a forum somewhere.

And Mr. Perndog, sir professed Satanist; If I were a boob, my political and social arguments would not have weight because of my long years of life experience. I haven't been a boob since my early thirties at the very least. You are not a boob either, and I think if you take a moment you'll see that what life experience you have, you've gained from in terms of perspective. Are you wiser than you were at thirteen? I profoundly wish it so. I find as I grow older and do the things older people do, be it rasing a child or having difficulty making stool, that I am less sure of understanding anything, but more capable of compassion for other people, even when I don't agree with their actions. I think rock solid certainty is for whippersnappers, as is deeply felt hatred. Of course, many people get to be my age and far older and are still brats, tantrum throwing playground bullies, and self congratulatory debate squad dorks still smarting over dates long ago rejected. Only the body has no choice about aging. It doesn't cost me anything at all to feel sorry for Cindy Sheehan. On the whole, whoever she hugged, I think she did very little damage and even little bit of good by getting people to ask themselves what they'd feel if it was their boy. And of course she's a nutjob. Have you ever met anyone who's lost a child? She may have been a nutjob first, I don't know or care.

Alphabababyboy says she used her dead son as a weapon. That would be an interesting metpahor if the sound of all the non metaphorical weapons weren't drowning it out. Casey wasn't killed by a metaphor, and neither were the other three thousand some odd, who, you'll forgive me here, Mr. Perndohg, seem like children to me. But that's why they send children to war, because they haven't got the life experience to say "Go out there? For a reason you can't even succsesfully articulate? You know they're shooting bullets out there, not metaphors, right?"

[kahljorn]

I agree that people use emotions as weapons against people. That's how this entire war was started in the first.

[Perndog]

All I was saying, Max, is that you should expect people (such as Mr. Alphabet) to lack compassion for public figures in general, because that's the way people are, and that you should be well aware of the way people are by now.

And then I had to be snarky at Preechr, because, well, he disagreed with me.

[Preechr]

Lol... I thought that was what you were doing...

I still stand by my comment. The vast majority at any given point in history has always been stupid and reactionary, yet, somehow, logic and reason always find a way to win enough victories here and there to make the evolution of the human race at least somewhat a story that looks like it'll have a happy ending. If you can speak and think "above the fray," then I believe you should.

I understand you were just saying that "most people" think like fucking retards. All I'm saying is, what morons think shouldn't be a factor in what is eventually considered right or wrong.

[kahljorn]

"Being a face on television rather than a real live person in our individual experience goes most of the way to putting her beyond compassion for a lot of us. This is the way people tend to process things."

I completely disagree with this in every way. People might not go, "OH POOR MAMA MOONBAT AND HER POOR SON" but they would still at least see the underlying problem and feel something about it. If people didn't feel things about people on the television, nobody would watch it, and ratings would be nonexistent. Television, and news, doesn't "work" if it's not eliciting emotional response.
That's like saying nobody felt any "Compassion" for the victims of 9/11 and the Virginia Tech shooting. NEED I SAY MORE?

"All I'm saying is, what morons think shouldn't be a factor in what is eventually considered right or wrong."
It shouldn't be, but it is. In my opinion this is one of your biggest downfalls: that you think poor, stupid people's opinions don't have some effect in the real world. Like they don't exist or something. Regardless of whatever idealism you have, it's not very realistic -- especially in a "Democracy".

[Perndog]

I think that the emotional responses people get from the news are more abstract than focused. They can be sad or even compassionate in a general sense. But they don't really make an emotional connection with the subjects like they would if they met the people personally.

[kahljorn]

What is the difference? Are you sure about this?
What makes you so sure that you'd have an emotional connection that is any different than on television if you met a stranger on the streets and they started telling you their life stories and woes?

[Grislygus]

Virgina Tech got two days of television news coverage, and dropped off the newswires entirely after a week.

We had a bigger "emotional connection" with Anna Nicole Smith.

[kahljorn]

I'm pretty sure it got more than two days... people are still discussing if teachers should have guns at schools or if there should be armed guards. Plus, there was weeks of, "HOW CRAZY WAS THE GUY" "WHAT WAS HIS LIFE LIKE" "LOOK WE GOT A VIDEO OF HIM TALKING ABOUT HIMSELF" "WHAT CAN WE DO TO PREVENT CRAZY PEOPLE IN THE FUTURE"? Maybe that's not what you guys would define as "Compassion" or "Emotional attachment" but as far as I'm concerned it either is compassionate or is more useful than compassion.

Regardless, if some random person accosts you on the street, "MY SON DIED IN IRAQ" how long are you going to be thinking about them? The next five minutes while you wish they would shut the fuck up? Sprinkle that on your cake and eat it.

[kahljorn]

Off the Wires

• Yankees donate $1M to Virginia Tech Reuters - Wed May 23, 10:05 PM ET
• Va. Tech panel fighting to get records AP - Wed May 23, 10:00 AM ET
• Va. investigator threatens court fight AP - Wed May 23, 12:31 AM ET
• Va. Tech gunman 'well-prepared' to go on AP - Mon May 21, 11:08 PM ET

» More Off the Wires

News Stories

• Virginia Tech honors and celebrates its 5,000 graduates for 2007 Fri, May 11, 2007
• Virginia Tech students graduating at BBC - Fri, May 11, 2007
• Celebration in Midst of Sadness at The Washington Post (reg. req'd) - Fri, May 11, 2007
• Tech to celebrate - and reflect at Richmond Times-Dispatch - Fri, May 11, 2007
• Learning from tragedy at Richmond Times-Dispatch - Fri, May 11, 2007

I bet I could find just as many stories about ENDING THE WAR IN IRAQ and a bunch of people who are fed up over itbecause 'think about the soldiers' or something. Weren't there like entire movements to try to end the war and isn't that what this is talking about? What the fuck do you people expect? "POOR MAMA MOONBATS KID WE SHOULD HAVE A MEMORIAL." "WELL ITS THE ANNIVERSARY OF MAMA MOONBATS KID TODAY SHOULD BE A NATIONAL HOLIDAY" "WELL MAMA MOONBATS KID DIED SO GAS PRICES ARE GOING DOWN FOR MOURNING" "NATIONAL CRY DAY FOR MAMA MOONBATS KID" "MAMA MOONBAT TO APPEAR AT STARBUCKS FOR FREE HUGS DAY: GIVE HER 700 HUGS GET A FREE PLUSH DEAD SOLDIER THAT SAYS, 'END THE KILLING'" "MAMA MOONBAT TO RECEIVE A PAT ON THE SOLDIER wink FROM PRESIDENT BUSH"

and even if it was only two days to a week that's a lot more care and compassion than most people will give someone else, even in a personal setting.

Anyway, this isn't about news coverage of a story but what type of responses people have to them. Personally, when the virginia tech shooting happened I was pretty pissed about it just like I am in real life when someone acts like a douche. I'm pretty sure when it happened there was a thread on this message board and everyone was like, "OMG THIS IS FUCKED UP." I bet we could browse some blogs and find people going, "OMG THIS IS FUCKED UP."

[Preechr]

Y'know, this conversation has gotten fairly interesting... We are all the time hearing about how violence or sex or whatever in movies, games and TV influence kids, but I'm wondering if maybe whenever anybody sees a person or a story in and audio/video presentation if there's not a natural disconnect.

Here's what I'm thinking: the popular thought is that our brains can be conditioned or programmed in various ways by negative images and audio, but has anybody spent any time studying the way the brain receives the incomplete sensory data received from a TV in general? This might be a good one for Seth... lol...

I'm wondering if there's a biological reason "most people" "don't really make an emotional connection with the subjects like they would if they met the people personally." Our brains were not built to understand TV. Sure, we can hash it out cognitively, but the parts of the brain related to real emotional response aren't located in or subject to the frontal lobes, are they?

Maybe we see images on TV like we would in a mirror. Max alluded to the idea that maybe some people put themselves in her place, but I wonder if that's the only way any of us can experience her story unless we know her personally. When we see reports about Va Tech or whatever, don't we filter it all through something along the lines of "What if I were there?" or "What if that was me?"

I don't think real compassion is even possible. Empathy, maybe, but even that is essentially self-serving, for lack of a better word. When you really feel compassion for someone, it's not about you.

Way off topic, but I thought I'd put it out there. I still think that logic and reason outweigh any emotional response morons might have to something as serious as a freakin WAR, but your discussion made me think of this other thing...

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

"All I'm saying is, what morons think shouldn't be a factor in what is eventually considered right or wrong."
It shouldn't be, but it is. In my opinion this is one of your biggest downfalls: that you think poor, stupid people's opinions don't have some effect in the real world. Like they don't exist or something. Regardless of whatever idealism you have, it's not very realistic -- especially in a "Democracy".

I didn't say "don't" I said "shouldn't." Remember, also, please, that this is NOT a Democracy, no matter how many people are trying so damn hard to fool you into believing that. Maybe this country can only operate under that presumption anymore, but I'm not gonna be embracing that concept any time soon

[kahljorn]

I think when people feel "Compassion" they are essentially feeling outraged by injustice. When I see something on television I don't like, I feel the same.

When people walk up to me on the street and tell me their life story I don't care. Bums do this all the damned time to try to get money from me. I don't attach to them on an emotional level. I don't connect with them on a personal level. People on the television are the same as people on the street because I don't even know them, yet I sometimes find myself feeling more compassion towards them. Possibly because their position actually merits compassion.
What about if someone random came up to you on the street and told you their whole family died in a car wreck and started crying? Would you be thinking about it for weeks and ways you could help them feel better? Honestly is there anybody who didn't feel horrible when 9/11 happened? Didn't it move an entire country to pursue a war? Isn't the definition of COM-PASSION to feel bad for people's misery and attempt to alleviate it? Feeling PASSIONATE for another person? Considering that the people who appear on television are complete strangers who I will never meet I think that I'm having quite a bit of an emotional attachment to them...

When you guys say personal level I think family and friends. I think it's dumb to compare the compassion and emotional attachment to someone you actually know on a personal level to the compassion you'd feel for strangers who you don't know. Regardless, if I hear something i interpret as injustice I still think, "WHAT THE FUCK? WHY? AND WHAT CAN BE DONE TO FIX THIS? MAYBE THEY COULDVE DONE THIS." Just the other day my friend was telling me about how her husband is suing her for half her belongings-- this guy's a complete douche. I felt outraged. It's the same feeling I get from watching stupid shit on television.

I think comparing movie violence influence to compassion/outrage for real events is impossible, mostly because they are two entirely separate emotions and situations -- maybe. I don't know, I think videogames if anything just encourage people to act on their feelings, because you can do that in videogames, almost as if it makes you "God" and outside of/above humanity. I think it may also aid in exaggerating emotions for the same reason.
But i think it would be interesting to note that some people CRY WHEN THEY SEE SAD SCENES IN MOVIES and sometimes men HOLLER when they get excited over football and other times people laugh when jokes are made on television. God this is a retarded conversation. Aren't there some movies that the problem with them is stated as, "I couldn't feel attached to any of the characters. I just didn't care about them. They were dumb" etc?
How are there good guys and bad guys in movies and television? How are there heros and villains?

Anyway, none of you has even remotely demonstrated that people don't feel compassion for people on television. And what makes the compassion you feel towards people in real life any different? I doubt you guys show that much more compassion in real life. I kind of agree with preechr when he says that compassion doesn't even really exist, or not in the way people think it does. You guys seem to be defining it as like crying with other people and having some severe emotional crippling because of something you see on tv. How often does that happen in real life when someone tells you their boyfriend broke up with them? Isn't the only difference that you have direct contact with them so you try to comfort them? Does that make the feelings you have stronger? I don't think it does, and if it does it's just because they are sharing more of their hardship with you, and through the back-and-forth conversation they are giving you more and more reasons to be outraged -- some that the person knows may outrage you in particular, and usually people hide flaws from their side of the story. News stories often develop in a similar way, though, it just takes time.

[kahljorn]

" "Democracy"."

"Remember, also, please, that this is NOT a Democracy, no matter how many people are trying so damn hard to fool you into believing that."

It might not be a technical democracy but it often functions along those lines. A lot of policies are created because of the often irrelevant and ignorant complains of people across America, even when there is scientific evidence to suggest the opposite. Would war in Iraq even have been possible if nobody in America thought it was justified?

"I still think that logic and reason outweigh any emotional response morons might have to something as serious as a freakin WAR, but your discussion made me think of this other thing..."

I agree, but I think the fact that we went to war over 9/11 shows that people create emotional attachments to people on television. People even felt justified in going to war. Remember when everybody had flags and hated ISLAMIC people and would beat them in the streets?
Yea, no emotional attachment or compassion, though.

I also swear that there was tons of uninvolved random people on television crying and sharing their opinions about 9/11.
I think if LOGIC AND REASON were used in this instance there would have been a different reactione than going to war. Don't you think?

[kahljorn]

"but the parts of the brain related to real emotional response aren't located in or subject to the frontal lobes, are they?

Maybe we see images on TV like we would in a mirror."

Uh? seriously, this is retarded preechr. it's not like when we see things in real life it's immediately translated into emotions. It goes through the same process. This is like the last thing I'd expect you to say... an image is an image is an image and the brain pretty much interprets them similarly.
Would you be less emotional if your wife or parents were vicously murdered on videotape than if you saw it with a pair of binoculars? OR MAYBE THE BINOCULARS REWIRE THE BRAIN OR SOMETHING LIKE THE TELEVISION DOES.
if anything, again, the only difference is immersion in the actual situation. The only thing that would probably change is feelings of panic and fight and flight mechanisms because you're actually in danger.
Some people never even see or have evidence that their family or friends died, yet they are sad about it. It's not directly seeing or being present that makes emotional attachments, it's the act itself, and the consequences of the act. All being directly involved does is subject you to the rigors of actually directly responding to the situation and being subject. But that doesn't mean that if you aren't immersed into that situation that you don't feel anything about it.
You might say, "WELL EXACTLY ITS MORE ABSTRACT BECAUSE YOU"RE NOT DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN IT." For one that's stating the obvious! For two almost every situation in which compassion has a chance to be expressed is going to be an abstract situation, such as a friend's wife being murdered. You're not actually in that situation. You have nothing to do with it. Technically your input and compassion is abstract. So how is it any different than television? And that is with a FRIEND who you actually have a personal relationship with -- it's StilL "abstract compassion". What if it's a stranger like 99.9999% of the people on television are going to be? Isn't that EXTRA abstract? So, again, how is it any more or less abstract or more or less emotionally attaching or whatever in real life than on television?

Back to Preechr. Here's a better question: If your wife or parents were murdered in the same room/house as you but you could only see it in a mirror or on a television would you not feel any emotional attachment? Might you not feel immersed into the situation and like you might die next, as well, probably triggering fight or flight? lol. seriously. this is dumb. Do security guards lack responses to crimes because they are watching them on closed circuit cameras? CAN BLIND PEOPLE NOT FEEL EMOTIONS? Maybe SOUNDS from television go through a separate brain process than real life sounds right? THE LACK OF SMELL MIGHT HAVE SOME EFFECT?
Images in real life are basically the same as images on the television. It's not like they are that much more real to the brain. Aren't there entire philosophies on how what we see/sense isn't a direct representation of reality, anyway, and that the brain interprets them after seeing it, usually by basing it on previous experiences etc. That the IMAgeS we see are just reflections of light and little else, and the brain has to interpret these beams of light?

"Our brains were not built to understand TV. "

I think that this would indicate that the brain treats TV similarly as images in real life, if it isn't designed to tell them apart.

[Perndog]

Let me clarify that when I say "know someone personally" as opposed to seeing them on TV, I mean having at least a familiar acquaintaince with the person, not just seeing their face like some random bum on the street.

[kahljorn]

so basically what your argument boils down to is that you don't care that much about people you don't know but you care more about people you know :O
thats what i thought and there's somewhere in my post that i called that retarded and then drew attention to the fact that despite having no acquaintance with people on television, people still somehow manage to feel compassion towards them -- which is probably more than they would feel for some random person on the streets.

Also i compared the compassion you'd feel towards friends and family to other "Abstract" forms of compassion and said they really aren't that much different. That, in fact, compassion for friends and family is actually "Abstract." You're not feeling compassionate for them, per se, as much as you are feeling passionate about the injustice of their situation.
Someone mentioned the, "WHAT IF IT WAS ME" thing and I pretty much feel the same way. Why would you feel compassionate about someone anyway if you think that the situation they are in isn't that bad? You probably wouldn't. That's the defining factor of being compassionate for a person. The situation they are in. Otherwise you just go, "QUIT WHINING BITCH!"

[Perndog]

Yeah, that's what I meant. Except for the "passionate about injustice" bit. I'm talking about compassion as in just plain sympathy: caring that someone is hurt and wanting to do something about it. Indignance at injustice can be completely separate from compassion. And of course, I disagree with all of your criticism of my opinion.

[kahljorn]

so you mean sympathy as in like maybe donating money to help the victims of hurricane katrina

going to war to prevent terrorists to attack in the future and to get revenge

giving the kids who died in the virginia tech shooting their degrees

discussing how to prevent problems like killer gunmen at school

discussing how to detect and help "psychopaths" before they kill everyone

etc.etc.

basically everything i said about mama moonbat hug day/mama moonbat cryday is what you expect from the media and from people's response to the media.

And how do people even help people in real life? They sit there and spout off their irrelevant opinion, usually. Or they talk shit on the person who has wronged them and sit there and hug the person. That's sympathy and compassion in real life. "OMG I CANT BELIEVE RYAN BROKE UP WITH YOU WHAT A JERK. I NEVER LIKED HIM ANYWAY" etc.

[Perndog]

No, none of those is an example of what I mean. The first one is just "being a good person", the second one is patriotism, the third is institutional public relations, the fourth and fifth are social improvement. No personal compassion is required for any of them.

[kahljorn]

Why don't you define and give an example of compassion/sympathy in real life, then.
because you said feeling bad for a person and trying to alleviate the problem, and that is basically what i thought of :O
being a good person and sympathy/compassion aren't the same i guess or SOMETHING.

When they helped the victims of hurricane Katrina, didn't they "Care that people were hurt" and then try to "Do something about it?" Yes.

Isn't trying to improve society basically "Caring that people get hurt" by society and then "Trying to do something about it?" Yes.

i think you're splitting hairs and that you're retarded.

here's your original statement:

Being a face on television rather than a real live person in our individual experience goes most of the way to putting her beyond compassion for a lot of us. This is the way people tend to process things. It only matters when it's close to home.

[Perndog]

Okay. Back to the fact that my original statement referred to the majority of humanity, and I'll put it in terms of actions, as you seem to prefer:

For most people, helping with disaster relief, whether you send money or go help build a house, is "being a good person" rather than compassion. People do it because it's the thing to do, not because they feel in any significant way for the victims themselves. Everyone's doing it, society expects it, it feels good, and it gives you a shiny Good Guy Badge to show your friends if you're into that sort of thing. Some people feel compassion for the random people on TV and act on it, and these people help push the social expectations. But they're the minority.

Now in today's situation, acting out of compassion would be reading the article at the top of this thread and sending the woman money to pay her hospital bills. She's in a bad place, and she could use some help. How many people do you expect will do that? Some, sure. The same small minority who put everything they had into hurricane relief because they felt sorry for those people. But in this case, there's no social expectation, so compassion is the only motivator, and what do you know, most people aren't going to help, because they don't really care about her.

[kahljorn]

"For most people, helping with disaster relief, whether you send money or go help build a house, is "being a good person" rather than compassion."

So you're not, "Being a good person" when you're being compassionate towards friends? I'm not saying they are the same thing, just you know, pointing out a couple of similarities in traits...

"People do it because it's the thing to do, not because they feel in any significant way for the victims themselves."

Being compassionate towards friends and families isn't the, "Thing to do?"

"Everyone's doing it, society expects it, it feels good, and it gives you a shiny Good Guy Badge to show your friends if you're into that sort of thing."

YOU GET THE BEST FRIEND EVER BADGE. Seriously, don't people feel "Good about themselves" when they act compassionate towards their friends? Aren't their other friends impressed by their compassion?

"Some people feel compassion for the random people on TV and act on it, and these people help push the social expectations. But they're the minority."

OH LOL OKAY

"Now in today's situation, acting out of compassion would be reading the article at the top of this thread and sending the woman money to pay her hospital bills."

So like uh in real life people are always paying for eachothers bills because they are compassionate? How are there ever poor people who have problems paying for eachothers bills, if it real "Personal" settings everyone always buys eachother the shit they need?
lol
Who the fuck does this, other than parents, anyway? And not even that many parents.

Wouldn't this be considered, "Being a good person?" Isn't this basically the same as giving the victims of hurricane katrina money? By the way, I dont think there was only like 100 donaters, i think there was a lot more... but anyway. Is the difference you're going to point out here to be that they would be PERSONALLY donating to mama moonbat? So your argument would turn from compassion in personal settings is different than compassion for strangers, because you know people personally in a personal setting?
aren't you kind of begging the question in a way?

"She's in a bad place, and she could use some help. How many people do you expect will do that?"

I don't know, would you pay for somebody's hospital bill who basically put themselves there because of their own stupidity? Is there a justifiable reason to feel compassion towards her for not eating for over a month and somehow getting dehydration?

"The same small minority who put everything they had into hurricane relief because they felt sorry for those people."

OH thAT MINISCULE MINORITy of SINCERITY

"But in this case, there's no social expectation, so compassion is the only motivator"

Isn't compassion for friends a social expectation?

"most people aren't going to help, because they don't really care about her."

MOST people aren't going to help. There might be like 100 or something but what does that mean? In real life whenever I have a problem every single person I've ever known in a personal setting rushes to my aid and buys me roses, pays all of my bills and cooks my dinner for me.
I'm perndog.
Sometimes I use my brain.