McDonalds Beating

Friday two african american girls, 14 and 18, attack and cause a 22 year old transsexual female to have a seizure, all of which was recorded by an employee on his phone.

It is believed that the two girls attacked the other woman over an issue with her using the women's restroom. The attack on the poor woman lasts at least 3 minutes while employees are recording the whole attack and can be heard laughing. In the video you see that the manager "tries" (pfft) to stop the attackers at the start, and then an elderly women comes to try and help the girl. At one point when an employee goes to pull off one of the attackers after the elderly woman gets involved you can here another employee telling him to stop trying to help. The attack ends with the 22 year old on the ground having a seizure while the employee that was filming the whole thing is telling the two attackers to leave before the police get there.

The two females have been caught, and the 22 year old is O.K., the charges right now are Second Degree Assault, but can be expected to be increased for hate crime. No news about the employees has been released that I know of, or if the one telling the girls to leave before the police get there will be charged for aiding the attackers.

Here is a news story
Here is the full video of the attack(This video is extremely disgusting and shouldn't be watched by anyone with a weak stomach)

Not being stupid but I don't find this particularly interesting. There's nothing further to be said about it that isn't completely obvious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Not being stupid but I don't find this particularly interesting. There's nothing further to be said about it that isn't completely obvious.

---

I find something almost interesting. A question: Are public toilets desgined for what you physically are, or what you think you are or would like to think you are?

Yeah, I was just talking about a similar topic with some people at the rec center: should gay men be allowed to change in the mens locker room? These guys I was talking to said no, they should make 4 locker rooms, straight women, straight men, gay men, gay women. This was all sparked because these guys think one of the lifeguards is gay and looks at them when they change while he walks through. I think it's kind of ridiculous; people are just insecure abuot their bodies and their sexuality. It's funny how some macho chauvanistic guys are afraid of being/turning gay. Seperating men and women makes some sense, to protect women form rape.

But there's a lot that's interesting about this. It may be obvious to anyone with any kind of compassion that this is "wrong", that people should have done something. But it's very interesting to think about why they didn't. What is it about our culture that creates this attitude towards violence. That it's not just ok or a part of life, but it's funny. Someone being beaten is funny. America is fucked up. Not the Carlin video I was looking for but still somewhat relevent.

We have a culture that is aggressive, it promotes aggresion. It promotes cutting someone else down in order to raise oneself up. This leads to physical violence ineveitably, it always will, like how 2+2 will always make 4. We do not have to live this way but don't ask me how we go about changing this on a large scale. The only thing I can think of is education and open discussion. But there are so many negative forces feeding back into each other at the moment that it really seems we may be fucked.

Wow, the first 5 comments for the video all contain some variation of the n-word, and not the ends in a variety.

Garbage in garbage out I suppose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

I find something almost interesting. A question: Are public toilets desgined for what you physically are, or what you think you are or would like to think you are?

---

http://www.meh.ro/wp-content/uploads...meh.ro4585.jpg

bathrooms are designed for what you are. That's why men have urinals, whereas women only have stalls. If you're a transexual and have both parts, then I think you're allowed to choose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raphael

bathrooms are designed for what you are. That's why men have urinals, whereas women only have stalls. If you're a transexual and have both parts, then I think you're allowed to choose.

---

Dude you're thinking of a hermaphrodite. Not transsexual.

Woops, I get them confused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raphael

Woops, I get them confused.

---

Now there is a double pun if I ever heard one.

In an event like that it's Policy to call the police immediately. If that happened in my workplace I would have slapped those bitches.

NEVER slap a woman, you loco??? :wtf: Best thing you could do as being physically more powerful is to restrain them until authorities arrive, otherwise, you you'll be charged and convicted of aggravated battery or assault and battery with intent. Either way both imposes fines and prison time. Think before you act. The two girls in the video will get justice served to them, let the law handle it.

Well if a woman is being violent to me or someone else, I'll slap a woman. psh. Gender wars are for the stone age anywho.

Well I guess that's how stuff gets done in Canada but in the U.S. we don't play that. You put your hands on someones, mother, daughter, girl or whatever, you better believe, someone's gonna see about you and yes at that moment it's worth catching a case. Slap my daughter it would be the last person you ever slap.

How sexist.

Call it whatever you want, come to this country and abuse a woman and I guarantee you that you'll get dealt with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Well I guess that's how stuff gets done in Canada but in the U.S. we don't play that.

---

http://reddogreport.com/wp-content/u...xasperated.jpg

So if you walk in on a woman attacking an individual and she's armed with something like a knife, you'd stand there and politely ask her to go away? Restrain them instead of beating them, of course, but entirely ruling out any and every form of psychical aggression is plain stupid. I'm not advocating violence against women, nor men for that matter, but if the most efficient way to deal with a situation is a swift kick or a well aimed tackle, then go for it. If you can deal with the situation without resorting to violence - great, but if the situation calls for it (regardless of the aggressor's gender) then by all means, get it over and done with. I'd abstain from violence - even if it was a man - until absolutely necessary. The same stands true if it was a woman. I wouldn't use excessive force, just the bare minimum; enough to subdue the individual, nothing more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WinRic

Friday two african american girls, 14 and 18, attack and cause a 22 year old transsexual female to have a seizure, all of which was recorded by an employee on his phone.

It is believed that the two girls attacked the other woman over an issue with her using the women's restroom. The attack on the poor woman lasts at least 3 minutes while employees are recording the whole attack and can be heard laughing. In the video you see that the manager "tries" (pfft) to stop the attackers at the start, and then an elderly women comes to try and help the girl. At one point when an employee goes to pull off one of the attackers after the elderly woman gets involved you can here another employee telling him to stop trying to help. The attack ends with the 22 year old on the ground having a seizure while the employee that was filming the whole thing is telling the two attackers to leave before the police get there.

The two females have been caught, and the 22 year old is O.K., the charges right now are Second Degree Assault, but can be expected to be increased for hate crime. No news about the employees has been released that I know of, or if the one telling the girls to leave before the police get there will be charged for aiding the attackers.

Here is a news story
Here is the full video of the attack(This video is extremely disgusting and shouldn't be watched by anyone with a weak stomach)

---

Apparently the attackers are 14 and 18 years of age. I would give them the electric chair. I am not kidding. I would.

^ The chair? For a second-degree assault...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GavinGill

So if you walk in on a woman attacking an individual and she's armed with something like a knife, you'd stand there and politely ask her to go away? Restrain them instead of beating them, of course, but entirely ruling out any and every form of psychical aggression is plain stupid. I'm not advocating violence against women, nor men for that matter, but if the most efficient way to deal with a situation is a swift kick or a well aimed tackle, then go for it. If you can deal with the situation without resorting to violence - great, but if the situation calls for it (regardless of the aggressor's gender) then by all means, get it over and done with. I'd abstain from violence - even if it was a man - until absolutely necessary. The same stands true if it was a women. I wouldn't use excessive force, just the bare minimum; enough to subdue the individual, nothing more.

---

That's a different scenario. If a woman is armed with a knife and someone's life is in danger than you do what needs to be done. However, we're not discussing a situation like that. We're discussing the situation as it has unfolded in the OP's video. The women in this video are not armed. If you walk over to them and punch them, slap them or do any kind of physical harm to them, you will face the exact same assault charges that they are facing and yes they can file charges against you. Like I stated, maybe it's not like that in Canada but here in the U.S. battery is battery. Like if I were to walk over to you and spit in your face, that's battery.

^ My post was mainly a response to your "never slap a woman" comment. :P As for Canadian law, it'd work the same. If you use excessive force to subdue an aggressor, you'll be charged too.
-----
Wouldn't every employee there need to be charged since they made no attempt to stop it? They should be disciplined in one way or another, even if it just means they lose their job.

I understand but if a woman hasn't done anything to you and you walk over and slap her just because she's fighting with someone else you just put yourself in a dire situation. Which is what I was trying to convey to Man of Shred.

As for the employees. From what I understand the guy who streamed the video has been fired. However, I think he should be charged with instigation of hate crimes and punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Also, take a close look at the the girl getting beat by the two girls because you're looking at a millionaire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeff777

Apparently the attackers are 14 and 18 years of age. I would give them the electric chair. I am not kidding. I would.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GavinGill

^ The chair? For a second-degree assault...?

---

http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/2084/m7b049.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GavinGill

^ The chair? For a second-degree assault...?

---

I know what you're thinking. Not cruel enough of a punishment for them. What would you suggest that's harsher?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeff777

I know what you're thinking. Not cruel enough of a punishment for them. What would you suggest that's harsher?

---

I'm so appalled by a display of irrational violence that I want to use the MOST irrational violence available to "punish" them. This is how we'll solve America's irrational violence problem.

Yes! Give the state the power of torture! Fantastic idea!

Actually no what is wrong with you.

Well the person in the blue shirt looks like a manager to me. He was all over them, and broke up the fight. Then when he was getting rid of two people, the other two sneaked back over and started fighting again. Then he broke it up again, and he got hit multiple times trying to break it up. Can't put anything on him for not trying. He did the best he could without entering into the fight himself, which would possibly have legal consequences if he did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Well I guess that's how stuff gets done in Canada but in the U.S. we don't play that.

---

Domestic Violence: Fast Facts on Domestic Violence

http://www.change.org/petitions/dema...-a-trans-woman

n_____n

Stupid haters.

What can we do to enlighten people like that? giving them prison time will only make them more hateful. Duct taping them to a tree and dosing them with a vial of LSD might work, or not. Sending them to an island full of transsexuals might be the best, so they can get to know them as people. Maybe give them a half-sex change. Feed them hormones.

Stupid haters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Stupid haters.

What can we do to enlighten people like that? giving them prison time will only make them more hateful. Duct taping them to a tree and dosing them with a vial of LSD might work, or not. Sending them to an island full of transsexuals might be the best, so they can get to know them as people. Maybe give them a half-sex change. Feed them hormones.

Stupid haters.

---

I hope your brain doesn't function like that all the time.

If a half dude walked in on you in the pisser you wouldn't think twice about it, right?
If you were a woman, though, and a half dude even hinted at coming into your pisser...

This "crime" has nothing to do with hate, hero.

Dear weirdoz,
What did you think would happen, you moron.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Domestic Violence: Fast Facts on Domestic Violence

---

And your point is what exactly? I never said domestic violence against women doesn't exist here in the U.S. It exist all over the world and the U.S. is not immune to it. The point I was making went straight over your head :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Stupid haters.

What can we do to enlighten people like that? giving them prison time will only make them more hateful. Duct taping them to a tree and dosing them with a vial of LSD might work, or not. Sending them to an island full of transsexuals might be the best, so they can get to know them as people. Maybe give them a half-sex change. Feed them hormones.

Stupid haters.

---

Why would you "duct tape" someone to a tree and force them to take LSD. It wouldn't "might work", it just wouldn't work. You should know that.

Forcing a sex change upon them? -_- How arbitrary and pointless.

Seriously, their parents just failed at raising them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Stupid haters.

What can we do to enlighten people like that? giving them prison time will only make them more hateful. Duct taping them to a tree and dosing them with a vial of LSD might work, or not. Sending them to an island full of transsexuals might be the best, so they can get to know them as people. Maybe give them a half-sex change. Feed them hormones.

Stupid haters.

---

HAHAHAHA, duct tape someone to a bodhi tree and give them a vial of LSD. "This is for your own good. You WILL be enlightened."

I don't think the duct taping them down part would likely help in most cases. Giving these people LSD sessions could work to help them stop being like this, but it would have to be done with good intentions for both them and all people. It couldn't be a form of punishment, it couldn't be a "this is what's best for you" thing or something forced on them. Otherwise they'll just go insane. But LSD forces you to look deeply at yourself. Something about it's effects sort of bring you into the moment and you see yourself in a fresh light. When most people see the mechinism of hate it stops, but not always. Hate is very wasteful, it's bad for you and it's unjustified.

Now I can see your point that this is not a hate crime(they did this because she was a he, not because she was transgender), it is still an overreaction, it is still fueled by hate. Kicking someone repeatedly while they are on the ground is fucking sick. Anyone who would do that is seriously fucked in the head in my opinion. Aggression like that is a sickness. These people view the world(rightfully so in a some ways) as an enemy. This in my opinion is because of companies like mcdonalds who basically take advantage these people. What the aggressors are doing is a reflection of way that they have been treated all their lives. Like useless trash. Like a commodity to be used profited from. It's not just corporations, it's teachers, parents, "friends".

Side effects of a diet high in red meat and sodium maybe. These people are so far from an enlightened perspective I;d guess it's almost useless to try to "enlighten" them, to get them to wake up. Trying to get them to do it is almost just reisting what is, you almost always have to wait for people to come around on their own. The best way to do it would have to be crazy wisdom. Just do something that makes them see the reality of what they are doing. The problem is you couldn't really do that in the moment of violence, you'd have to know them personally and even then it'd be hard. Just show them how absurd and overblown their perceptions are, that's what's causing this behaviour, an overeaction to a situation. An oversized ego. "You dare walk into MY batherroom while I'M in there??!!!?! You don't belong in here." You are wrong so I will make you right by beating the shit oout of you so you don't ever fucking step out of line again. The reality of the situation is that they could act like adults and use words but they were probably raised in a violent environment so they've imprinted violence as the best way to deal with the situation.

-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franklin

http://www.change.org/petitions/dema...-a-trans-woman

n_____n

---

So I can't read that page cause it doesn't seem to work in my firefox, but... what? How about the idiot intolerants who actually did the attack be held responsible? What's the argument on there? The manager guy did the best he could - it's not easy holding back TWO feral cunts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Replicon

So I can't read that page cause it doesn't seem to work in my firefox, but... what? How about the idiot intolerants who actually did the attack be held responsible? What's the argument on there? The manager guy did the best he could - it's not easy holding back TWO feral cunts.

---

It's a petition and under the video, the overview says,

"OVERVIEW

After an unidentified trans woman tried to use the bathroom at a Baltimore McDonald's, two patrons started attacking her in full view of other customers and employees.These employees can be heard on the video shouting words of encouragement to the attackers. Its time we DEMAND that justice be served and that EVERY McDonald's employee on duty at this time, be terminated AND charged with accesory to a Hate Crime (at the very least).

The April 18 assault, took place at a McDonald’s location in the 6300 block of Kenwood Avenue in Rosedale, Maryland, a Baltimore suburb, according to the Baltimore County Police Department. A 14-year-old girl has been charged as a juvenile in connection with the assault, charges are still pending against an 18-year-old woman. “The incident remains under investigation and the State’s Attorney’s Office is reviewing the case,” added investigators. McDonald's has release a statement on their website concerning this incident which can be viewed at Media Contacts - About McDonald's .

This is not enough! The employees that stood by (and encouraged!) this attack should also be terminated immediately and face some type of criminal charges...this was a HATE CRIME, after all. Please sign this petition in hopes that justice can and will prevail for this trans woman.

Also please contact the Maryland States Attorney's Office - Violent Crimes Division at 410-887-6610 and express your concerns about this matter."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franklin

This is not enough! The employees that stood by (and encouraged!) this attack should also be terminated immediately and face some type of criminal charges...this was a HATE CRIME, after all. Please sign this petition in hopes that justice can and will prevail for this trans woman.

---

The person who did the recordings and who was taunting the hate remarks has been terminated. I think charges should be brought against him as an accessory. I'm pretty sure every employee in that video will be canned maybe with exception to the manager who tried to intervene. I agree with you on that, they all need charges brought up against them.

Legally I believe only the one recording telling the girls to leave can get in any trouble. In my legal studies class we went over that "No one has a duty to warn, protect," (wasn't able to write down the whole thing), so the only way the other employees could get in any real trouble would be if cops could prove that they encouraged the attackers or told them to flee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

And your point is what exactly? I never said domestic violence against women doesn't exist here in the U.S. It exist all over the world and the U.S. is not immune to it. The point I was making went straight over your head :p

---

The United States aren't any more respectful to women than any other place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Stupid haters.

What can we do to enlighten people like that? giving them prison time will only make them more hateful. Duct taping them to a tree and dosing them with a vial of LSD might work, or not. Sending them to an island full of transsexuals might be the best, so they can get to know them as people. Maybe give them a half-sex change. Feed them hormones.

Stupid haters.

---

Dannon, I think your answer was the smartest one on here..and your absolutely right....enlightenment is the only thing that can and will stop the hate/violence, though i wouldn't agree with your exact solution of duct taping them. But it was creative. I've been to jail before, jail/prison does NOT help. It can rehabilitate some people, but for a lot of others it doesn't.....85% people in prison are drug abusers..the solution isn't incarceration at all...your just removing them from society where the cycle will continue with the younger generation. I just think most people are too conservative, and close-minded to realize this. They don't care about a solution for crime long-term, they just want to remove all the bad people so they can feel safe with their S.U.V.'s, computers, and t.v.'s that they take for granted.

The problem usually lies within the individuals childhood. 9 times out of 10 people who are incarcerated grew up in a broken home. People are violent and angry because they want attention. I'm telling you, this is the root of ALL conflicts. This is why people commit suicide( because they were to cowardly to act aggressively to steal energy ), this is why people abuse drugs(because they have no energy ), and act out aggressively. That's why people have ego schemes like criticizing others all the time, to complaining all the time, and even acting aloof. Even on a bigger scale as far as countries invading other countries. "I want you to believe what I believe or agree with MY point of view..and if you don't we'll bomb you" It's all to get people to pay attention to you and ergo gain energy.

I just shook my head at whoever said the two girls should get the electric chair. Not only is this cold and cruel but it is not a solution to the problem. It's not as simple as "kill all the bad people" that makes absolutely zero sense, your no better than them. Hypocrites. Eye for an eye? The whole world is blind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Well I guess that's how stuff gets done in Canada but in the U.S. we don't play that.

---

My god. It's like you're talking to a dog and saying "Well maybe in the animal kingdom it's okay for you to just walk right up to someone and fuck them, but we humans prefer to use witty chat-up lines and alcohol".

Wait, why was anyone at mcdonalds? :shock:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franklin

It's a petition and under the video, the overview says,

"OVERVIEW

After an unidentified trans woman tried to use the bathroom at a Baltimore McDonald's, two patrons started attacking her in full view of other customers and employees.These employees can be heard on the video shouting words of encouragement to the attackers. Its time we DEMAND that justice be served and that EVERY McDonald's employee on duty at this time, be terminated AND charged with accesory to a Hate Crime (at the very least).

The April 18 assault, took place at a McDonald’s location in the 6300 block of Kenwood Avenue in Rosedale, Maryland, a Baltimore suburb, according to the Baltimore County Police Department. A 14-year-old girl has been charged as a juvenile in connection with the assault, charges are still pending against an 18-year-old woman. “The incident remains under investigation and the State’s Attorney’s Office is reviewing the case,” added investigators. McDonald's has release a statement on their website concerning this incident which can be viewed at Media Contacts - About McDonald's .

This is not enough! The employees that stood by (and encouraged!) this attack should also be terminated immediately and face some type of criminal charges...this was a HATE CRIME, after all. Please sign this petition in hopes that justice can and will prevail for this trans woman.

Also please contact the Maryland States Attorney's Office - Violent Crimes Division at 410-887-6610 and express your concerns about this matter."

---

Ah, thanks for posting the details. I didn't have audio when I watched some of the clip. If they were really egging them on, that's even sicker.

Here is the victim's response.

YouTube - Chrissy Lee Pollis - McDonalds Beating Victim Baltimore Speaks


*sigh* This kind of stuff makes our race look so bad. Not only is the management , the girls, and the people filming this black and encouraging the fight, but they have it on video AND it's on youtube. And the only one that tried to help was that old lady.

It honestly made me cry.

Stuff like this makes me so sad for humanity. It's sickening. It hurts.
I can't even watch the news anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Majestic

Here is the victim's response.

YouTube - Chrissy Lee Pollis - McDonalds Beating Victim Baltimore Speaks


*sigh* This kind of stuff makes our race look so bad. Not only is the management , the girls, and the people filming this black and encouraging the fight, but they have it on video AND it's on youtube. And the only one that tried to help was that old lady.

---

What's sadder is the overflowing torrent of extreme racism in the comments for pretty much every single video about this. Still, I'm relieved that the girl seems to be back on her feet and pretty strong about it all. I'm also glad that the camera man was fired. I hope both those girls get sentenced for hate crimes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Majestic

Eye for an eye? The whole world is blind.

---

Except for one guy with one eye.... And everyone is trying to be that one guy.

This is just horrible.

How can they eat that crap?

I know I hate mcdonalds...Wendy's or even Captain D's is MUCH better.

I meant fast food in general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer

I'm so appalled by a display of irrational violence that I want to use the MOST irrational violence available to "punish" them. This is how we'll solve America's irrational violence problem.

---

I'm not against capital punishment. In some instances, I think it's great. Therefore, I wouldn't consider it a "problem". Executing a devilish bastard sounds more like a solution from where I'm standing.

Cleaned up the thread. Back on topic, everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

Except for one guy with one eye.... And everyone is trying to be that one guy.

---

Or kill him cause he's different from everyone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeff777

I'm not against capital punishment. In some instances, I think it's great. Therefore, I wouldn't consider it a "problem". Executing a devilish bastard sounds more like a solution from where I'm standing.

---

Do you even realise how asinine that is?
I honestly thought you were joking before so I ignored it.
Those two girls, and people like them, think that it would be okay to electrocute the transsexual or people like her.
Exactly the way you think that it would be okay to kill the two girls, or people like them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Majestic

Or kill him cause he's different from everyone else.

---

No. Everyone loves him.

BTW, did anyone else think there were 4 girls in the video?
It seemed to me like the manager got the first two off and then two more came in?
But everywhere only mentions two.

Philip Defranco talks about the video: YouTube - Bree Olson Wins the INTERNET! & everything else that mattered (4.25.11)

Why do so many people insist that only "the old lady" tried to help. There was one guy throughout the entire video trying to break it up (the one others assume is the manager?)
Am I missing something?

I would definitely want the punks fired and sued, possibly serve some jail time for instigating/encouraging/enjoying! the attack.

It makes me sad to see stuff like this still happening. Where's human decency?

Firstly: Anybody here who reckons this wasn't a hate crime needs to die instantaneously and reincarnate into something intelligent. Secondly: I seriously hope that all who were a part of this attack (yes, that includes all who encouraged it) are swiftly punished. Those who were physically part of it should be removed from this earthly existence immediately so that they can explain their vile actions to their maker, who will then deliver a fate worse than death. Those who egged the attack on should experience what happened from the transgenders perspective, in full detail, both emotionally and physically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zhaylin

Why do so many people insist that only "the old lady" tried to help. There was one guy throughout the entire video trying to break it up (the one others assume is the manager?)
Am I missing something?

---

I agree. Some people think he didn't do enough. But he probably thought he would get sued if he did anything more than what he did.

Which is exactly what is wrong with Neyo's point of view. So much "oh don't lay a finger on a woman" bullshit. That you can't even touch them without being looked down upon and/or sued for millions of dollars.
Shit like this ends up happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LucidJuggalo

Firstly: Anybody here who reckons this wasn't a hate crime needs to die instantaneously and reincarnate into something intelligent.

---

Chill, dude. The girl already said it wasn't because she was transgender. She said the girl told her "not to look at her man" or something like that. It was in the video someone posted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LucidJuggalo

Those who egged the attack on should experience what happened from the transgenders perspective, in full detail, both emotionally and physically.

---

I agree with this though. Sort of. If there is going to be any sort of punishment for "evil" people, which society seems intent on, even though it is useless most of the time.
If we really think we need punishment, the punishment should fit the crime.
i.e Beat someone up, you get sent to trial and if found guilty you get beaten up.
Rape someone and are found guilty, then you get raped.

It would definitely make people see things from the other persons perspective.

The exception would be murder though I guess. Those people should just be put in jail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

I agree with this though. Sort of. If there is going to be any sort of punishment for "evil" people, which society seems intent on, even though it is useless most of the time.
If we really think we need punishment, the punishment should fit the crime.
i.e Beat someone up, you get sent to trial and if found guilty you get beaten up.
Rape someone and are found guilty, then you get raped.

It would definitely make people see things from the other persons perspective.

The exception would be murder though I guess. Those people should just be put in jail.

---

The problem with this would be people who are actually innocent being found guilty of something they didn't do. The way we do things now, the person found guilty would go to jail for however long a time. Which, if you're innocent, isn't good, but it's not the worst things that could happen. But if we use the system mentioned above, someone who is accused of rape, but is actually innocent, would be raped for no good reason at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

The problem with this would be people who are actually innocent being found guilty of something they didn't do. The way we do things now, the person found guilty would go to jail for however long a time. Which, if you're innocent, isn't good, but it's not the worst things that could happen. But if we use the system mentioned above, someone who is accused of rape, but is actually innocent, would be raped for no good reason at all.

---

I think jail would fuck you up as much as being raped. Even if you disregard the fact that you could be raped in prison. Or beaten up, or pretty much any crime you could think of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

I think jail would fuck you up as much as being raped. Even if you disregard the fact that you could be raped in prison. Or beaten up, or pretty much any crime you could think of.

---

Lol, I was thinking the same thing. Hope I never go to jail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

Do you even realise how asinine that is?
I honestly thought you were joking before so I ignored it.
Those two girls, and people like them, think that it would be okay to electrocute the transsexual or people like her.
Exactly the way you think that it would be okay to kill the two girls, or people like them.

---

No, I was not joking. I was outraged. My initial post was made purely out of emotion and disgust. After cooling off, I think life in prison is best suited for the adult female and 3 years of juvie + 5 - 10 years of community service + probation for the "little one". This is just my opinion of what I think is "fair". And for what it's worth, yes, I am still a heavy supporter of the death penalty. Just not for the women in the video.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

Lol, I was thinking the same thing. Hope I never go to jail.

---

Jail =/= Prison

Jail beats prison any day of the week. Most of that raping you hear about occurs in the penn.. not jail.

this 2 bitches , i would kill them :@ . . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeff777

No, I was not joking. I was outraged. My initial post was made purely out of emotion and disgust. After cooling off, I think life in prison is best suited for the adult female and 3 years of juvie + 5 - 10 years of community service + probation for the "little one". This is just my opinion of what I think is "fair". And for what it's worth, yes, I am still a heavy supporter of the death penalty. Just not for the women in the video.

---

I think the fact that you support the death penalty should require swift execution so that you don't persuade anyone else to think the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeff777

Jail =/= Prison

Jail beats prison any day of the week. Most of that raping you hear about occurs in the penn.. not jail.

---

You know what people mean. Stop being a nitpick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

I think the fact that you support the death penalty should require swift execution so that you don't persuade anyone else to think the same.

---

I support the death penalty therefore I deserve to die even though I have not infringed upon anyone elses rights? My, aren't you clever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

You know what people mean. Stop being a nitpick.

---

As soon as you stop being a prick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeff777

Jail =/= Prison

Jail beats prison any day of the week. Most of that raping you hear about occurs in the penn.. not jail.

---

Actually no. Prison is better because you have more freedom and privileges ( i.e. weight room/gym , outside rec yard, sockets in your cell for cable t.v., more items on commissary, cafeteria. )

In jail, your pretty much locked down in a tier all day, with an hour outside for rec. sometimes your rec is only once a week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Majestic

Actually no. Prison is better because you have more freedom and privileges ( i.e. weight room/gym , outside rec yard, sockets in your cell for cable t.v., more items on commissary, cafeteria. )

In jail, your pretty much locked down in a tier all day, with an hour outside for rec. sometimes your rec is only once a week.

---

I was purely talking about where most sexual assaults occur.

^ As well as violent assaults.

Jail's pretty much just mind-numbingly boring, prison life is dangerous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Karlitaki

this 2 bitches , i would kill them :@ . . .

---

I almost had to like this post for it's creative use of grammer.

DEATH TO FANATICS!

Seiosly though, will killing people fix societies problems(which mainly stem from violence and other forms of aggression) or wiill it just make us more violent?

I think that instead of spending about 25,000 bucks a year making lawbreakers suffer, we should be treating first-, second-, and third- time offenders with psychiatric therapy and behavior modification, in addition to making them do a whole lot of community service to make up for their crimes. Only repeat offenders should be incarcerated. Of course, however, they will have to be initially incarcerated until their punishment and treatment is figured out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stonedape

I almost had to like this post for it's creative use of grammer.

DEATH TO FANATICS!

Seriously though, will killing people fix societies problems(which mainly stem from violence and other forms of aggression) or wiill it just make us more violent?

---

I'm not sure, but allow me to put forward a question to you. Will quietly eliminating repeat offenders from the face of the planet make society even more violent? If so, how?? This seems to be the notion some of you are implying and I fail to see how someone in Missouri that's injected with a lethal poison would somehow prompt someone in Idaho to kill another person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MindGames

I think that instead of spending about 25,000 bucks a year making lawbreakers suffer, we should be treating first-, second-, and third- time offenders with psychiatric therapy and behavior modification, in addition to making them do a whole lot of community service to make up for their crimes. Only repeat offenders should be incarcerated. Of course, however, they will have to be initially incarcerated until their punishment and treatment is figured out.

---

Have you read "A Clockwork Orange"?

No, but I just read the plot summary on SparkNotes.

The type of psychiatric treatment I'm speaking of is meant for personal advancement and to help resolve self-destructive behaviors, much like traditional psychiatric services. I'm not talking about the type of forced brainwashing depicted in dystopian scenarios. And of course I'm all for personal freedoms, so individuals could have a right to deny any such treatment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeff777

I support the death penalty therefore I deserve to die even though I have not infringed upon anyone elses rights? My, aren't you clever.

---

lol, I was making a point about your view on this matter. I disagree with the death penalty. You agree with it. I think you should be put to death for agreeing with putting people to death. How do you then take that ^^^^ comment seriously?

Besides, how is supporting the death penalty not infringing on rights? I'm pretty sure everyone has a right to not be killed.
I know that you're gonna say "they lost that right when they did [insert whatever thing you think deserves the death penalty here]"

I would really like to see your face as you watch someone die right in front of you. Do you know why they put a mask over the persons face before they execute them?
If they didn't there would be very few people who could actually kill the person. IT de-humanises them.
You think you support the death penalty, but you don't. Because you don't know what it actually involves, you're removed from it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeff777

As soon as you stop being a prick.

---

I've seen you say this before. I don't believe I said anything prick-ish. So you're probably beginning to realise I am correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeff777

I'm not sure, but allow me to put forward a question to you. Will quietly eliminating repeat offenders from the face of the planet make society even more violent? If so, how?? This seems to be the notion some of you are implying and I fail to see how someone in Missouri that's injected with a lethal poison would somehow prompt someone in Idaho to kill another person.

---

Quietly eliminating? QUIETLY ELIMINATING!?
How does that not sound Orwellian to you?
That would mean we would support the government killing whoever they wanted to, and we'd turn a blind eye.
"Who cares whether they actually did it? The government must have their reasons."

That is how it would make society more violent.

Even if all the evidence of the case is shown to the public. (In case "quietly eliminating" was just a bad choice of words).
We would hear and/or see people being killed all the time. We would become desensitised to killing people.
How can that NOT make people more violent?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeff777

I'm not sure, but allow me to put forward a question to you. Will quietly eliminating repeat offenders from the face of the planet make society even more violent? If so, how?? This seems to be the notion some of you are implying and I fail to see how someone in Missouri that's injected with a lethal poison would somehow prompt someone in Idaho to kill another person.

---

Yes. By eliminating them we already become more violent with just that act. This then influences how the people involved feel and act, the feel like it is ok for them to be violent as long as the superior says it's ok or that it's good to go by the policy of an eye for an eye. Having the need for vengeance makes society more violent.

It also influences how the eliminated persons family feels, they may feel attacked. It also makes the victims family feel justified in receiving vengeance, though not in all cases(it;s not always perceived as vengeance).

It doesn't make society more violent as directly as many other things that are considered ok in our culture, but it does on some level increase aggressive thought which leads to aggressive action.

On top of this many people are wrongly executed.

Do you trust the government in it's current form to hold the power to "quietly eliminate" people? The government can't even manage it's money, they're more irresponsible than I am.

But what this really boils down to is compassion. I feel like most people who commit violent crimes do so because they have psychological issues and live in very fucked up society. And by fucked up I mean aggressive. We all collectively create this violence by creating the kind of living environment that we have. Personally I believe it's time for a change. We can stop living like this. We can stop glorifying greed, superficiality and power. Personally I think the only way to do this is by changing radically on an individual level. If we are to decrease violence and aggression in our society we have to do it by treating the disease, not the symptoms.

Quote:

---

But what this really boils down to is compassion. I feel like most people who commit violent crimes do so because they have psychological issues and live in very fucked up society. And by fucked up I mean aggressive. We all collectively create this violence by creating the kind of living environment that we have. Personally I believe it's time for a change. We can stop living like this. We can stop glorifying greed, superficiality and power. Personally I think the only way to do this is by changing radically on an individual level. If we are to decrease violence and aggression in our society we have to do it by treating the disease, not the symptoms.

---

This is basically what i said. I agree. But I think, everyone has the symptoms, just some have it worse than others.

I think people on here that are saying they support the death penalty are the exact ones that i talked about earlier. Scared/heartless people, that just want to remove the "bad people" from society so they can feel so safe in their little worlds. I've seen more compassion in jail than in society. *sigh*. Who are you to decide if someone lives or dies.

I agree that everyone has the symptoms, but if you watch yourself closely enough you can keep them from manifesting on a physical level.

I'm not even sure the'yre scared. I think they just are sick of dealing with all the bullshit and want an easy solution, but there isn't one. But I suppose it does trace back to fear, or at least the desire for safety in the end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenhavoc

I hope your brain doesn't function like that all the time.

If a half dude walked in on you in the pisser you wouldn't think twice about it, right?
If you were a woman, though, and a half dude even hinted at coming into your pisser...

This "crime" has nothing to do with hate, hero.

Dear weirdoz,
What did you think would happen, you moron.

---

I can't believe that you're saying you think that many males wouldn't react badly to an obviously transsexual woman coming into the male toilets, to primp up her make-up and have a shit.

As an example for any ignorantly arrogant people like you, I, as a not-"half-dude" but someone who looks quite feminine, have had people irrationally call me a faggot and other unsavoury things when I've entered a bathroom. Wouldn't like to imagine what I'd have to deal with if I wore lipstick and a dress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Call it whatever you want, come to this country and abuse a woman and I guarantee you that you'll get dealt with.

---

I don't hit women, but I beat bitches up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeff777

I'm not against capital punishment. In some instances, I think it's great. Therefore, I wouldn't consider it a "problem". Executing a devilish bastard sounds more like a solution from where I'm standing.

---

I think that would definitely be an easier option, and more just in some cases. BUT, it goes without saying that changing people is better than killing them. Problem is we can't force someone to change, they have to do that themselves.

Which is why I agree.

I don't ever think giving the state the power of capital punishment is smart... partly because of how horrific miscarriages of justice then are, but mainly because I just don't trust the state with that kind of power... the slippery slope to injustice and tyrrany is so much easier when you're already allowed to take somebody's life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClouD

BUT, it goes without saying that changing people is better than killing them. Problem is we can't force someone to change, they have to do that themselves.

---

Yes changing is better than killing them, but I think most people don't know HOW to change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Majestic

Yes changing is better than killing them, but I think most people don't know HOW to change.

---

That's one reason why I would suggest subjecting criminals to psychiatric help and behavior modification services.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MindGames

That's one reason why I would suggest subjecting criminals to psychiatric help and behavior modification services.

---

Who's going to pay for that?

Tax payers. We wouldn't even have to increase taxes, we just have to cut other related programs.

It'd be expensive, but it could at least be done for some convicts. We could take all the money we waste on the war on drugs and use it to try to help violent criminals, people who are actually a threat to society. We could also downsize the military a bit. And the government in general.

Without the current absurd policy on drugs the prison population would be reduced by 1/4, immediately. Crime would also decrease over time because of this because illegal drug trade would no longer fund gangs.

I don't think we can just switch right over and do that for all convicts, but we could gradually move towards a more sensible, compassionate and effective method of dealing with crime.

Makes more sense than me paying for other people's health-care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stonedape

Makes more sense than me paying for other people's health-care.

---

So if someone shoots someone else, you'd rather pay various therapists and psychologists to "rehabilitate" the shooter than pay for the other's treatment?

Wanting extreme and unproportionate punishments for crimes of ignorance, as disgusting as they may be, seems to me like an emotional response. Not a rational one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Who's going to pay for that?

---

Taxpayers, of course. We're already paying for prisoners' living expenses, which amount to upwards of 25k per year per prisoner. However it is feasible that we could simply make prisoners pay their own expenses via full time community service. It's better than keeping them locked up all day doing virtually nothing productive.

Aren't prisons in the USA more and more being privatized?

While privatized prisons have obvious flaws, I would guess that it would relief the tax payer?

Also - there is a lobby that would be very much against the psychiatric help idea... :?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MindGames

Taxpayers, of course. We're already paying for prisoners' living expenses, which amount to upwards of 25k per year per prisoner. However it is feasible that we could simply make prisoners pay their own expenses via full time community service. It's better than keeping them locked up all day doing virtually nothing productive.

---

I'm considering alternatives to incarceration because you're right, it's expensive and unproductive. That being said, I think what you're proposing is even less affordable (do you know how much a shrink costs?), has no proven effectiveness and takes away incarceration's only advantage, segregating the offender from the normal civilian world for the duration of his sentence.

I would tend to lean towards shorter but harsher means of punishments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dajo

Also - there is a lobby that would be very much against the psychiatric help idea... :?

---

It certainly beats being someone's bitch.

Like I said, the prisoners could pay for it themselves through full time community service, and also the psychiatric treatments could be made optional. I can see how mandatory behavior modification would be unsettling for a lot of people. But it is essentially the same thing you get when you go to the therapist in real life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I'm considering alternatives to incarceration because you're right, it's expensive and unproductive. That being said, I think what you're proposing is even less affordable (do you know how much a shrink costs?), has no proven effectiveness and takes away incarceration's only advantage, segregating the offender from the normal civilian world for the duration of his sentence.

I would tend to lean towards shorter but harsher means of punishments.

---

Yes, it's quite expensive, but it's nothing prisoners couldn't work off. After all, they're doing virtually nothing for years on end. And I do agree that it would have to be subject to trial experiments to show that it has effectiveness. But if that does turn out to be successful, then it could be a significantly better paradigm change, in that it would reduce the amount of crimes in the future; thus costing us less money.

Oh, in response to the punishment for the crime, why not force them to do unpaid hard labor for a couple years? After all, we're going to have to find a replacement for all those immigrants sooner or later. The point is that we want to be progressive as a society, instead of the current cycle of crime, meaningless punishment, and release.

Quote:

---

According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) 7,225,800 people at yearend 2009 were on probation, in jail or prison, or on parole — about 3.1% of adults in the U.S. resident population.[7][4] 2,292,133 were incarcerated in U.S. prisons and jails at yearend 2009.[1][3][7][4]

---

I don't see how you can accommodate numbers like that.

(lol at BJS)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I don't see how you can accommodate numbers like that.

(lol at BJS)

---

As stonedape already said, a quarter of those people are there for drugs (I think it's even more than a quarter, way more).
They don't need this treatment. So we can disregard them right away. We're talking about people who are violent towards others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

Wanting extreme and unproportionate punishments for crimes of ignorance, as disgusting as they may be, seems to me like an emotional response. Not a rational one.

---

Rational thinking is founded on emotional morals.

In which universe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClouD

Rational thinking is founded on emotional morals.

---

I see some value to this statement in that logical systems are all based on some core value and some people get to this value based on emotional morals. But otherwise I disagree. A logical system should have arguments building upon this core value without any interference. Ideally, when deciding something, a person can remove their identity from the logical process entirely. This includes removing emotions which just get in the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

I see some value to this statement in that logical systems are all based on some core value and some people get to this value based on emotional morals. But otherwise I disagree. A logical system should have arguments building upon this core value without any interference. Ideally, when deciding something, a person can remove their identity from the logical process entirely. This includes removing emotions which just get in the way.

---

How can arguments(ie. rationality) be built upon a core value without any interference from...the core value? Emotion is a clear factor in the building blocks of all core values. Even value itself is attributed with emotion as a factor.

What rational (essentially socially acceptable) decisions, are not based from sources which require emotional morals? I have not seen someone make a "rational" decision without emotional morals; if you have, please give an example. Examples for my point can be found simply by looking at an irrational decision.

Emotion cannot be removed from the equation. It is when there is a lack of balance between emotion and logic that irrational decisions are made (in societal eyes). It is not rational to disregard emotion entirely, because it is much of what "rational thinking" is built upon. It is also not rational to disregard logic entirely, obviously.

For a rational decision to be made it must conform with what is "rational", which is deemed by society. Society does not absolutely ignore emotions for the sake of logic, nor vice versa. If you are to say that what is rational is subjective ith each individual, I'd disagree with that only a [somewhat] objective comparison to the norm would be rational.

The core value may not be an emotional one. In the case of punishment for murder, the core value could be "Survival of the species" which would be set logically, regardless of how many emotions were attached to that concept.
Furthermore, one can make a rational decision, with emotional morals as a factor, without making an emotional decision. I do think that this would still be a rational decision, due to the consideration of the negative outcome that may come of ignoring these emotional factors. For instance, I may decide, rationally, to get my spouse (if I had one) a new dress, based on the knowledge that she will get all emotional and whiney, and this will have a negative impact on moral and therefore productivity in the household. This does not necessarily require that this is an emotional decision, even though it is, in fact, a decision based upon emotion.
Examples of rational decisions that are not based from sources which require emotional morals:
Eating - stemmed from the biological instinct for self preservation, and reproduction.
Working - stemmed from the bilogical instinct for self preservation, and reproduction.
Lovemaking - stemmed from the biological instinct for self preservation, and reproduction.
Building a house - stemmed from the biological instinct for self preservation, and reproduction.
Just about any other action that we perform - stemmed from the biological instinct for self preservation, and reproduction.

On the other hand, that leaves the question: What is the point of emotion? If it is not necessary, why do we possess this quality, along with many different species of animal?
Emotion could be that which makes these instinctual instructions work. Without emotion, we would still take these actions necessary for self preservation, and reproduction, but I think that it is possible that if it became difficult to perform these functions, we may give up too easily. We might accept death too easily. MAYBE.
It is also possible that even without emotions, the instructions for survival would be even stronger, for it would be all that we knew, and we would be unrestricted from the limitations caused by emotion.
I think it is possible that you can see the answer to this within nature. It seems that some creatures do not exibit any signs of emotion. Of course we cannot prove this.
Bees and ants gladly give up their life for the good of the pack. Do they do this out of love for the pack, or are they simply programmed to do this?

I think that most likely it is possible that emotion is a phenomenon that is created within pack animals, and is necessary for the survival of the pack. A pack that cares about one another should be stronger than a group of uncaring individuals that live in the same area. While emotion makes the rules of pack survival work better, I don't believe it is absolutely necessary for survival, and since almost any action we perform can be attributed to survival of the species, that encompasses most of the things we do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClouD

How can arguments(ie. rationality) be built upon a core value without any interference from...the core value? Emotion is a clear factor in the building blocks of all core values. Even value itself is attributed with emotion as a factor.

What rational (essentially socially acceptable) decisions, are not based from sources which require emotional morals? I have not seen someone make a "rational" decision without emotional morals; if you have, please give an example. Examples for my point can be found simply by looking at an irrational decision.

Emotion cannot be removed from the equation. It is when there is a lack of balance between emotion and logic that irrational decisions are made (in societal eyes). It is not rational to disregard emotion entirely, because it is much of what "rational thinking" is built upon. It is also not rational to disregard logic entirely, obviously.

For a rational decision to be made it must conform with what is "rational", which is deemed by society. Society does not absolutely ignore emotions for the sake of logic, nor vice versa. If you are to say that what is rational is subjective ith each individual, I'd disagree with that only a [somewhat] objective comparison to the norm would be rational.

---

Have you read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

So if someone shoots someone else, you'd rather pay various therapists and psychologists to "rehabilitate" the shooter than pay for the other's treatment?

---

I didn't exactly say that. In that case I would rather pay for the persons treatment. I was referring to this making more sense than me paying for people who don't take care of their health to be kept alive at 70.

I'm not completely against public healthcare, I just think that crime and education are more important issues. We need to fix the absolutely moronic way we have of doing things right now. Healthcare for all would be nice, but I don't think it's a necessity. Neither is rehabilitating prisoners. Reforming the current system is more important than that, but we could start moving things in that direction, even if we only did it for 1% of the prison population. We just generally need to start doing things in a way that doesn't reinforce the prisoner's already demented psychological state. By treating them like an enemy and locking them up in a rape room we just continue the cycle. If we are to better society we need to break it, otherwise we'll just continue in the same direction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stonedape

I didn't exactly say that. In that case I would rather pay for the persons treatment. I was referring to this making more sense than me paying for people who don't take care of their health to be kept alive at 70.

I'm not completely against public healthcare, I just think that crime and education are more important issues. We need to fix the absolutely moronic way we have of doing things right now. Healthcare for all would be nice, but I don't think it's a necessity.

---

Then public healthcare is not the problem. It's the fact that families are unwilling to let their family member die. It's a problem with people again, and the hospitals and the authorities who won't allow euthanasia.
Nothing is a necessity. But public healthcare allows the child with leukemia who has a poor family to get treatment by taking some money from people who have more money than them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sloth

Furthermore, one can make a rational decision, with emotional morals as a factor, without making an emotional decision. I do think that this would still be a rational decision, due to the consideration of the negative outcome that may come of ignoring these emotional factors. For instance, I may decide, rationally, to get my spouse (if I had one) a new dress, based on the knowledge that she will get all emotional and whiney, and this will have a negative impact on moral and therefore productivity in the household. This does not necessarily require that this is an emotional decision, even though it is, in fact, a decision based upon emotion.

---

emotional=whiney?
moral(e)=???

One should buy a wife a dress because one loves her and wants to do something special for her and show her how you feel. IF a man buys his wife a dress so she will shut up and stop bitching, this is not love, and not a happy marriage. Love is an emotion and is more important than this rationalization. What you are describing is a rationalization of an emotional decision. If you love her, you buy her a dress. If you don't love her rationally you would not buy her a dress so she will get fed up with you and leave and you can be free of this emotional whiney woman. I might be being facetious. But really, if you buy her a red dress to keep her from whining she will know, and not feel loved, and this rational decision will not reap the desired outcome.

Quote:

---

Examples of rational decisions that are not based from sources which require emotional morals:
Eating - stemmed from the biological instinct for self preservation, and reproduction.
Working - stemmed from the bilogical instinct for self preservation, and reproduction.
Lovemaking - stemmed from the biological instinct for self preservation, and reproduction.
Building a house - stemmed from the biological instinct for self preservation, and reproduction.
Just about any other action that we perform - stemmed from the biological instinct for self preservation, and reproduction

---

.

Yes it is true that things we do have rational purposes, but that is not what motivates us. You are rationalizing again. We "decide" to eat because it hurts us not to and it gives us pleasure to eat. We seek pleasure and happiness and avoid pain and suffering and unhappiness. Instincts are what motivate us to survive. People don't rationally decide to make love, at least the ones who are good at it don't. People may rationally decide NOT to make love. Emotion is a necessary ingredient to good lovemaking. In fact, emotion has reached its highest evolution in humans. Humans can make love as an art for exalted pleasure. Without emotion human lovemaking is more like animals' as a release and personal gratification. Have you ever watched a monkey make love? It lasts about a second or two and then they are relieved. Then they don't cuddle or anything afterwards. Emotions in humans is what inspires artists and musicians. The arts and music is one of the top measures of a civilization. The choice to create a painting is not based on rationality unless you are Thomas Kinkade.
In life or death situations we don't have time to think rationally. If the situation necessitates immediate action, like fight or flight, we need to act on gut impulses. When you are driving and a car cuts you off and slams on its breaks you don't have time to rationally decide to slam on your brakes. Emotion is much more efficient. Rationality is for coming up with explanations, or making decisions when there is time to think rationally.

Quote:

---

On the other hand, that leaves the question: What is the point of emotion? If it is not necessary, why do we possess this quality, along with many different species of animal?
Emotion could be that which makes these instinctual instructions work. Without emotion, we would still take these actions necessary for self preservation, and reproduction, but I think that it is possible that if it became difficult to perform these functions, we may give up too easily. We might accept death too easily. MAYBE

---

.

This is what I am talking about. Emotions are more powerful at motivating behavior than logic. Emotions don't "get in the way" of survival most of the time. The desire to live is an instinct, and it is emotionally based, not rationally based. Even someone with developmental disabilities who has no good genes to contribute to the gene pool still has a desire to live, which is not rational. Infertile people who are incapable of reproducing and who have no useful skills to contribute, still have a fear of death.

Quote:

---

It is also possible that even without emotions, the instructions for survival would be even stronger, for it would be all that we knew, and we would be unrestricted from the limitations caused by emotion.
I think it is possible that you can see the answer to this within nature. It seems that some creatures do not exibit any signs of emotion. Of course we cannot prove this.
Bees and ants gladly give up their life for the good of the pack. Do they do this out of love for the pack, or are they simply programmed to do this?

---

We might not be able to recognize their emotions, but they do exist. Crocodiles have been shown to have emotions. I believe that emotions ARE the programming. I doubt that bees or ants are thinking rationally to give up their lives for the pack. I think that it is love for the queen.

Quote:

---

I think that most likely it is possible that emotion is a phenomenon that is created within pack animals, and is necessary for the survival of the pack. A pack that cares about one another should be stronger than a group of uncaring individuals that live in the same area. While emotion makes the rules of pack survival work better, I don't believe it is absolutely necessary for survival, and since almost any action we perform can be attributed to survival of the species, that encompasses most of the things we do

---

Emotions are more developed in birds and most in mammals and mostly of all humans. Although I think that all animals have some degrees of emotions. But it reaches its highest development in order for child rearing and bonding in birds and mammals. Emotion is behind attraction. Even though logically we are attracted to mates that have desirable genes, it is an emotional response that we follow. It is our emotions that decide what genes are desirable.

I think that deifying rationality at the expense of emotionality is an error in judgement of priorities. Ideally, one should be very emotionally intelligent and balance that with a rationally trained intellect. The emotions are like the horses that draw the carriage, and the intellect should be the driver who holds the reins. The emotions only "get in the way" when the driver is gone or asleep or whatever. But without horses there is no inspiration or motivation to act. Logic can go in circles. If all we had was logic without emotions than what is the logic that humans should survive? Logically, humans are the greatest threat to life on this planet. And if there is no joy, no sadness, no emotions, what is the rationality behind why we should survive?

This is in defense of emotions. I am not attacking rationality. Both are needed, nature has done right to provide us with emotions. In fact, rationality seems to be not very much needed by nature to carry on life. Rationality is a gift unique to humans, at least in a significant amount. But it only seems to guide us rather than inspire us. But all too often people misuse rationality (also emotions). Too often a couple will fight, one partner will be frustrated because he or she will feel unheard and misunderstood while the other partner is saying "Calm down, be rational." Which only frustrates the first partner more, because emotions are important and in order for peace, we need understanding, in order for understanding, we need to acknowledge each other's emotions. Too often when someone is saying "be rational" they are really saying "don't be emotional". Of course, it is important to be able to see beyond personal emotions, but it is also important to take emotions into account on an equal basis.

BTW, this is interesting because I have seen so many people rationalize emotions but in this thread might be the first time I have seen someone emotionalize rationality. They are both interdependent in us humans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

what is the rationality behind why we should survive?

---

Your whole post didn't make much sense since you pretty much just said that emotions are what rationality is and argued from there.
So I just chose this one bit.
Why do bacteria procreate? Just because that's what they do. And so it follows that that is what every other living thing we know of does.
Rationality is not involved. Neither are emotions.

Rationalising whether to procreate is a human thing, and is just extra baggage. So are any emotions involved with procreating. When you get down to it, we just do it because that is what organisms do.

The emotions we feel during sex probably are there because otherwise there are too many other things we would be doing which would give us pleasure.
Because our brains are interested in stuff, while bacteria don't have brains really.

Not sure if I went off a bit there. I'm really unfocused atm. Maybe I shouldn't even post this lol

No, you didn't understand what I said, or you did but won't acknowledge it. Either way, you can rationalize your emotions in order to devalue them, if that gives your life meaning. Anyway, I don't know what this has to do with McDonald's beating at all.

omg guys go back on Topic and look whats happening in RL , those 2 womans maybe had right to beat her .. but wtf? they just continue beating at her head al the time , those mc donalds staff just stand and doing nothing what a stupid people ! ... why just dont cut the fight off and leave that woman alone she got 100 punches on the head and everywhere and people are just watching and making videos ? ..

i dont like to fight and so but i would just kill those 2 womans if i see them just slapping and hitting that girl non stop . . .


just 2 bitches trying to show they are something with beating too much a girl 2 vs 1 .

damm ..

sorry for my english thats all i can explaing ...


karli

Hmm? Karli, what gives a person the right to attack someone other than them attacking first? Someone of ambigous gender offending someone opens that person up to being hit?

im not sure spockman but attacking like this someone is just bs .
dont wanna discuss about it anymore :).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Karlitaki

im not sure spockman but attacking like this someone is just bs .
dont wanna discuss about it anymore :).

---

If you don't wanna discuss it, you're not going to do well in Extended Discussion

why should i discuss about this naymore tommo seriously this world is really f'ed up so this issues are normal on the world cus ppl have sh..t in their minds
if u get me..

Well discuss it or don't post in extended DISCUSSion. When you say you want to kill someone for slapping someone, expect to be confronted with, at the very least, a healthy question as to why you would do that.

i dont mean kill kill Lol .... i dont kill i will just try to help that poor alone woman dont u get me ?

Well, tommo, I am more wondering why the two women would have had the right to hit the transgender at all.

Yeah, Karli, people are pretty contrary in ED. If you don't like debate or being questioned tommo is right. ED/RS can be fairly intense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

Well, tommo, I am more wondering why the two women would have had the right to hit the transgender at all.

---

They don't. No one said they did. At least here.

Ok Karli, I understand you then. Don't assume that people know what you mean, especially over the internet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

They don't. No one said they did. At least here.

Ok Karli, I understand you then. Don't assume that people know what you mean, especially over the internet.

---

I could have misunderstood when Karli said 'those two women maybe had the right to beat her but wtf?' I figured Karli thought they had the right to hit her a little bit, which I would disagree with were that his opinion.

Oh ok, completely missed that lol
Maybe he meant she may have provoked them or something. I dunno.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

Oh ok, completely missed that lol
Maybe he meant she may have provoked them or something. I dunno.

---

Having not seen the video, I could have missed the subtext. Maybe she did. *Shrugs*