You have similar facial recognition skills to Mrs Edrof. She watched the entirety of Heat only to realise at the end that Al Pacino and Robert de Niro were actually two different people...
Avatars
- Thread starter antijoke
- Start date
You have similar facial recognition skills to Mrs Edrof. She watched the entirety of Heat only to realise at the end that Al Pacino and Robert de Niro were actually two different people...
Gangsters are cool, and it's adults who seem to have the biggest fascination with them, there's something about a Tony Soprano type character that ignites a little part of everyone but most people aren't sociopathic enough to live a life like that but wish they could, they get what they want, when they want and by whatever means they can whilst under the immense pressure of knowing they will likely get their comeuppance sooner rather than later. They're of course horrible people under societal standards and commit grotesque crimes but that tells you everything you need to know about how morals go out the window when people take a liking to someone or fear them.
Um, I get those two confused as well.
Fun fact: In Italy, they try to get the same person to dub the voice for a given actor from movie to movie. So for example, Al Pacino was dubbed by the same actor for all of his movies. They did the same with Robert de Niro. The problem? It was the same guy and when Heat came out with both of them in it...
I'm with Oggie, I'm afraid. Reason being is that children are psychopaths. Selfish, empathy-lacking little villains. As they grow older, they realise what they feel is also what other people feel (please - no discussions of qualia) and develop empathy. Identifying and exalting sociopaths is juvenile behaviour, in a very literal way. I don't believe that "most people" wish they could behave like a murderer.
I mean, it's easy enough to get away with murder if you want to. But most people don't kill.
No it isn't. Most people don't kill because that's the law and how society has developed, these men care little for that and whilst their behaviour might seem child like to you it's still a part of human history and how we acted for a long time. If people could literally get away with murder the rates would be shocking as we see in countries where their laws are lacking.
Last edited:
Studies by the US army show that most people are biologically not wired to murder another. Around 2 in 100 actually can kill without compunction, statistically. D-Day Landings had much lower casualty rates than they should have done according to studies because the German soldiers frequently aimed over the heads of the allied troops. Similarly, a great part of US army training focuses on turning ordinary people into people that will obey orders to kill precisely because it is so hard. In contradiction to your cynical world view, the huge majority of people wont kill unless forced into it by the most extreme of circumstances. And normally that works as a species because outside of extraordinary situations (such as the D-Day Landings) people wont voluntarily put themselves in a situation where you're forced to.
As to your evidence that murder rates are higher in countries where laws either don't exist or are spottily enforced, such countries are also ones in desperate economic times or huge civil unrest. If you want to find me an example of a country with a good economy and without civil unrest yet somehow doesn't have or enforce laws against murder, I'd be fascinated to hear of it.
<i>The Purge</i> is not a film with a great deal of realism.
Your response is not logically valid. It's akin to me saying that neither worms nor snakes can wear trousers because they both have no legs and you responding that worms and snakes are not the same because they're entirely different genera. It's ignoring what is relevant in favour of what is not.
The subject is whether most humans are willing to kill. I used studies on WWII casualties and by the US army to show you were wrong. Highlighting the irrelevant to try and avoid a conclusion doesn't accomplish anything.
You haven't shown any evidence actually and the subject is originally on why many people are attracted to gangsters, and even in your case of 2 in 100 that's still many people when you take into account world population.
Last edited:
I've talked of two separate studies that show that the large majority of people find it very difficult to kill another psychologically, even in a war situation. I don't have either to hand in a way I could link to, though I dare say I could dig something up if you're really accusing me of lying about them. A lot of this stuff is behind academic paywalls, however.
As to the last part, it is some epic back-peddling on your part to go from statements like "most people don't kill because it's against the law", "most people wish they could live like that" and "[the Sopranos] tell you everything you need to know about how morals go out the window..." to "2% of people still is a lot when you take into account world population" and "many people are attracted to gangsters".
Provide the studies showing evidence or you're offering nothing yourself either, I don't care whether it's behind a paywall or not.
2% based off one study with no evidence provided of what it was based on, why was the show one of the most successful ever series if most people don't care for that type of behaviour? We love violence we've just learned to live without carrying it out ourselves for the most part.
2% based off one study with no evidence provided of what it was based on, why was the show one of the most successful ever series if most people don't care for that type of behaviour? We love violence we've just learned to live without carrying it out ourselves for the most part.
Well the value of the hour or two it would take me to find and link those specific studies is greater to me than the value of having you claim that I am a liar. Especially as I think I have more credibility than you here. So no.
You can try to place the burden of proof on me, but there's no reason why your assertion that most people would murder if not for the law should be the default.
In short, your opinion just isn't that important.
I'm aware of that and neither is your own, the valuing time thing is nonsense as it would not take that long so your credibility is lacking already there I'm afraid and no one who values their time as much as they like to pretend spends it on a forum replying to posts they believe are of little worth.
I think you're both wrong, so there! Hmm...what was that about childishness?
It's not easy to get away with murder in the UK today, not even if you murder a random stranger (i.e. there's no clear motive linking you to them).
Those shocking murder rates in places where law has broken down are still very low, usually occur during what is effectively a civil war and the proportion of people who commit murder there is much lower than the murder rates because many of the murderers kill more than one person. Most people are very unwilling to kill. As h4rm0ny said, this tendency towards not killing is so extreme that it's a serious problem for the military and they have spent a lot of time finding ways to train people to be willing to kill.
I can give you the name of the study h4rm0ny was referring to - it's called "Men Against Fire" and was done by Brigadier General Samuel Lyman Atwood Marshall. The two most pertinent findings was that only 25% of soldiers in a position to fire on the enemy fired in the direction of the enemy and only 2% shot to kill, i.e. actually aimed at an enemy soldier. The figures are argued about, of course, but they're plausible. There are some more direct pieces of supporting evidence, e.g. in WW2 in the USAF 1% of fighter pilots accounted for 50% of enemy aircraft shot down. Presumably some of that was due to the very best pilots being much more skilled, but that's a huge difference. Nor is it a new thing - there are recorded tests going back at least 300 years. Unsurprisingly, military leaders wanted to know how effective large scale use of guns (still a new thing ~1700) was and so they conducted tests. Accuracy in battles was less than 1% of accuracy in tests, with almost all shots going over the enemies heads. The situations were firing on a formation of men, so the only way to miss them all was firing over their heads (firing low wasn't possible with muskets in a formation of rows of people). A lower rate of accuracy would have course be expected, but not that much lower and not all over their heads. Shooting to miss was clearly a very common thing.
Murder very clearly is not "how we acted for a long time". Sure, humans are on average meaner and more violent than most other animals. But not by that much.
Lindybeige has an interesting video talking about shooting to kill and human nature:
I think you're both wrong, so there! Hmm...what was that about childishness?
It's not easy to get away with murder in the UK today, not even if you murder a random stranger (i.e. there's no clear motive linking you to them).
Those shocking murder rates in places where law has broken down are still very low, usually occur during what is effectively a civil war and the proportion of people who commit murder there is much lower than the murder rates because many of the murderers kill more than one person. Most people are very unwilling to kill. As h4rm0ny said, this tendency towards not killing is so extreme that it's a serious problem for the military and they have spent a lot of time finding ways to train people to be willing to kill.
I can give you the name of the study h4rm0ny was referring to - it's called "Men Against Fire" and was done by Brigadier General Samuel Lyman Atwood Marshall. The two most pertinent findings was that only 25% of soldiers in a position to fire on the enemy fired in the direction of the enemy and only 2% shot to kill, i.e. actually aimed at an enemy soldier. The figures are argued about, of course, but they're plausible. There are some more direct pieces of supporting evidence, e.g. in WW2 in the USAF 1% of fighter pilots accounted for 50% of enemy aircraft shot down. Presumably some of that was due to the very best pilots being much more skilled, but that's a huge difference. Nor is it a new thing - there are recorded tests going back at least 300 years. Unsurprisingly, military leaders wanted to know how effective large scale use of guns (still a new thing ~1700) was and so they conducted tests. Accuracy in battles was less than 1% of accuracy in tests, with almost all shots going over the enemies heads. The situations were firing on a formation of men, so the only way to miss them all was firing over their heads (firing low wasn't possible with muskets in a formation of rows of people). A lower rate of accuracy would have course be expected, but not that much lower and not all over their heads. Shooting to miss was clearly a very common thing.
Murder very clearly is not "how we acted for a long time". Sure, humans are on average meaner and more violent than most other animals. But not by that much.
Lindybeige has an interesting video talking about shooting to kill and human nature:
Thank you. That was the study. I couldn't remember who conducted it or that it had a specific name. I would have been searching for ages.
No one is quite sure when he'll be added or if he'll be added.
That is genuinely hilarious.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 22,517
- Location
- ST4
The irony here is that only 10 years olds would refer to gangsters as 'gangstas', because they're not old enough to know the difference.