Your Most Controversial Opinions!

Crash, returning to the first part of my question:Do you regard yourself as being capable of rape?

quote:

---

Yeah, but the friends and family of rapists always say that. "There's no way he's capable of that." The problem is that rape is a crime completely normal men appear to be capable of.

---

Just to interject, at one point in my life I thought I'd never be susceptible to drug addiction...until I became addicted to a particular drug.Once the addiction is in full effect, and you're dopamine and seratonin levels are at an all time low, you'll do anything to get your fix.The point is, I would never underestimate the coercive power of certain psychological and physical desires to cause behavior you would rationally deem morally inexcusable.[ABE]The old cliche goes "Ordinary people can do extraordinary things." I believe the converse is also true. [/ABE]Edited by JustinC, : No reason given.

I don't see the relevance of the question, but obviously women are capable of crimes.

In fact, I answered this question before you even asked it (in message 118), but since I guess you missed it (even though you replied to it), I'll answer again - yes, I regard myself as capable of it.

Thank you.It's only as relevant as any other question about the potential of one human being to violate another.Tip of the hat, Mr Frog.___

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Well, then allow me to pose some counter-questions:1) Are things with a greater probability more likely to occur?
2) Does it make sense to prepare oneself for outcomes based on how likely they are to occur; or do people have infinite resources and attention so that they can prepare for every concievable threat, no matter how remote the possibility?

capable in the physical sense? i.e. you have the necessary equipment?
or capable in the psychological sense i.e. you have the will?I'm intrigued how you come to this conclusion. Is it something you've considered in the past?I don't consider myself psychologically capable of it. I don't see how I could ever act in such a way unless I became temporarily insane.Of course, If I lost my mind I guess there's no telling what I'm capable of. but then in that case everyone is capable of anything

Of course, Mr Frog. True by definition. Along with other factors. The intrinsic value of the thing one seeks to protect. The sacrifices entailed in securing a particular level of protection. Others. Nothing in life is infinite, Mr Frog. It makes perfect sense to anticipate general and even unforeseen threats as well as specific ones.People do this all the time. Infinite resources are not a prerequisite.

We are discussing the human capacity for causing harm, Mr Frog.No possibilities are remote.___

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Capable in the sense that I'm unwilling to state conclusively that there is absolutely no situation or sequence of events; state of mind or condition of brain chemistry; or even an extremely improbable series of coincidences that I could be involved in that results in me perpetrating a rape.I think that anybody who is certain is fooling themselves; just like anybody who is absolutely certain that, had they been a fake prison guard in the Stanford prison experiment or the "operator" in the Milgram experiment, they wouldn't have excercised authortiarian power or delivered an apparently fatal electric shock. Sorry, but if you have daydreams where you're a camp guard at Auchwitz but you refuse to push the Jews into the gas chamber - you're fooling yourself. You're enjoying a conceit that makes you feel better about yourself, makes you feel better than all the other riff-raff.Part of who I am is that I've chosen to discard from my mind all the falsehoods that exist only to make me feel better about myself. It's a hard thing to do and a hard thing to talk about, but it leads me to only one reasonable conclusion - there's a good chance I would have been pushing Jews into gas chambers if my name had been Fritz and I was the age I am now in 1944. It's my hope that this realization will be the kick I need to see Milgram situation for what it is, when I'm in the middle of one; but I do not trust to hope and I'm not arrogant enough to assume that I will always succeed in being a good person. I would suggest you begin by studiying the Stanford Prison and the Milgram experiments, so that you might learn how easy it is for people who are exactly like you - certain that they could never be abusive or be a murderer - to commit the most barbaric acts. All it takes is a situation where you think someone else is responsible for your actions, and a little push from someone you percieve to be in charge.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

But surely some are more remote than others? Based on your answer to (1), I must conclude that your answer will be "yes".So, in addition to other factors, it makes sense to prioritize your preperations to favor more likely causes of harm than less likely ones, yes?

but then you wouldn't be 'you' would you? you would be living in a different time, with a different upbringing with different values.What I am saying is that I cannot concieve, being the person that I am, that I would ever engage in something as barbaric as rape or murder.
I stand by that. EXACTLY like me? really? what do you base that on?

In the experiments, none of those things seemed to matter. Plenty of people just like you already have. The odds against you being a perfect human being? I'm not saying that nobody goes through life without raping somebody; obviously many do. Even most. But I simply don't see any reason to conclude that there's no situation you could be in where you commit a horrible act.All those people in the Milgram experiment were absolutely certain that they could never murder a person. Almost every single one of them did (or thought that they had.) You don't find that indicative?

I see no mention of death or murder in the link you gave me. and it seems to me that buzzing someone with a mild electric shock (the participants were only shown a 45volt current) in an experiment is a world apart from rape.but I'm not a psychologist, and I guess this is the type of behaviour that the army relies on.the stanford prison experiment is certainly disturbing,

quote:

---

Experimenters said approximately one-third of the guards exhibited "genuine" sadistic tendencies.

---

I don't think it's fair to extrapolate this to every american male.nonetheless, I still believe that I would not act in this way.

I'm sorry, but you're not reading correctly. This is what I'm talking about:

quote:

---

The subjects believed that for each wrong answer, the learner was receiving actual shocks. In reality, there were no shocks. After the confederate was separated from the subject, the confederate set up a tape recorder integrated with the electro-shock generator, which played pre-recorded sounds for each shock level. After a number of voltage level increases, the actor started to bang on the wall that separated him from the subject. After several times banging on the wall and complaining about his heart condition, the learner gave no further responses to questions and no further complaints.[1]

​

At this point, many people indicated their desire to stop the experiment and check on the learner. Some test subjects paused at 135 volts and began to question the purpose of the experiment. Most continued after being assured that they would not be held responsible. A few subjects began to laugh nervously or exhibit other signs of extreme stress once they heard the screams of pain coming from the learner.[1]

​

If at any time the subject indicated his desire to halt the experiment, he was given a succession of verbal prods by the experimenter, in this order:[1]

​

1. Please continue.
2. The experiment requires that you continue.
3. It is absolutely essential that you continue.
4. You have no other choice, you must go on.

​

If the subject still wished to stop after all four successive verbal prods, the experiment was halted. Otherwise, it was halted after the subject had given the maximum 450-volt shock three times in succession.

---

The subject only experienced a 45 volt shock - which is quite startling in its own right, but not dangerous. The subject then delivered ten times that to a third party who, he quite understood, did not want to be shocked in that way. The subjects did this even to the point where any reasonable person would conclude they had just killed somebody.You really need to be reading closer, Creavolution. Read the entire article - you clearly didn't understand the experiment. These subjects - randomly chosen, completely normal individuals - killed people. Or, at least, thought they did. Simply because they were asked to! You're fooling yourself. Every single one of the Milgram subjects was certain that they weren't killers, weren't murderers, weren't capable of electrically executing a complete stranger - and that's exactly what they did, as far as they knew.What makes you so special? What makes you so different?

quote:

---

I spoke of the responsibility of each individual to confront his or her own capacity for aggression. Most people would agree that individuals bear this responsibility.

---

So...I get that, sure.But it ain't happening.Clearly.But if that was purely your point, I fail to see how that is a reply to my post.