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

[Suffragette1]

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

 

Surely you understand this?

 

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

[IamChiChi]

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

[leviathan13]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Suffragette1]

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

 

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

[SHsheff]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[IamChiChi]

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

[leviathan13]

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

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Suffragette1]

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

[leviathan13]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Suffragette1]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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