Black And White Clash...why?

[Sir Bandelot]

Again blaming the victim is not the point. Knowing how things come about and then taking responsibility for it...is the point.

The 60year old woman made a whole raft of choices that put her at the exact time and place of the encounter with "some meth-head" (a demonization in YOUR mind). Her encounter was not at all random. She could have at any time made another choice that would have completely change the potential for an encounter. But why didn't she?

Fear draws fear to itself. Had she been more aware, not distracted by a label, and understood her relationship to the guy, there would likely have been a different outcome. The first choice is not to fear. All the rest made it happen.

Are you saying somehow, that all of her actions prior to that encounter, like her choices in life somehow lead up to the moment when she is attacked by a complete stranger? Like, some kind of synchronicity? That sounds like pseudo science to me. Or perhaps, pseudo religion.

Earlier you tried to come across like your an atheist, a believer in logic and science and this is your argument? Theres a disconnect in your beliefs on this. To put it plainly, it is YOU who are some kind of spiritualist.

Ah..."The Retreat"

"....is foolish in my opinion." Yes I agree. Your opinion is foolish.

Not really. I'm willing to discuss peoples different beliefs, if they want to. But I'm not foolish enough to argue pointlessly with someone on a silly topic. Sorry but on this one here, you're just not making much sense.

[charter.rights]

Are you saying somehow, that all of her actions prior to that encounter, like her choices in life somehow lead up to the moment when she is attacked by a complete stranger? Like, some kind of synchronicity? That sounds like pseudo science to me. Or perhaps, pseudo religion.

No. This is science. REAL science. And it is repeatable.

Only the woman's decisions that led up to the incident need to be considered since had she changed just one, the outcome would have been different.

Earlier you tried to come across like your an atheist, a believer in logic and science and this is your argument? Theres a disconnect in your beliefs on this. To put it plainly, it is YOU who are some kind of spiritualist.

I'll skip over the ad homenum, for now.

My insistence that your beliefs come from Christianity has nothing to do with religion. Our society - our schools, institutions, government, justice and street wisdom as come from mass conditioning around Christian principles. You are what your environment has made you, and the resistance that many take to change is in fact a concern that their Christian principles will be softened and replaced with ~something~ else.

Not really. I'm willing to discuss peoples different beliefs, if they want to. But I'm not foolish enough to argue pointlessly with someone on a silly topic. Sorry but on this one here, you're just not making much sense.

There is no need to discuss someone else's beliefs. What you need to do is recognize (and admit) the root of your own. Once you do that you can be free of the chains that bind you to limitation.

[Shwa]

This is the victim-versus-volunteer argument.

The problem with looking at it from a "scientific" point of view is that there are several factors that provide undue influence on the outcome of the experiment. For one, using a 60 year old defenceless woman adds undue weight to the argument because of a vulnerability factor that could influence our 'feelings' on the possible conclusion to the point where we might deny the obvious. Instead of a 60 year old "innocent" woman, how about a 23 year old thug in the same situation? How about a 23 year old thug drug addict that was actually in the store to rob it and, all of a sudden, some meth addict gives him a shot in the head. Now use "science."

Secondly, there is no statistical information presented. Randomness in statistics in very hard to discern and is usually the fault of the statistical gathering method. 'Random' does happen, but usually pans out to be something else we hadn't thought of or allowed for. However we could likely all agree that most 60 year old women in a corner store do not get punched in the head. So what would be the reason for A) most 60 year old women not getting punched in the head by meth addicts and why did this one get punched?

Another factor to consider is the superiority complex with regard to the present culture and the influences of that complex with regard to the question on hand. There are plenty of cultures, religions, complexes and people that believe there is a kind of interconnectedness in the world between ourselves and every other person - from the concept of karma to biosphere. Vast subtle systems that are all interconnected to one another - kind of like the Internet. In cultures and thinking systems such as this, the idea of interconnectedness - of choice in all matters - is perfectly rational and reasonable, but the present cultural bias denies the validity of this type of rationality even though "science" is succumbing to the ideas that there are vast subtle systems are indeed globally connected.

It is perfectly reasonable to bow out and gracefully exit this type of argument through lack of time or patience, but being dismissive on the basis of unfounded opinion based on the threat of guilt ridden outcomes isn't really productive.

[cybercoma]

It is also true that one can reduce the chance of coming to harm by being sensible and cautious.

-k

How does one become sensible and cautious, I wonder?

[Argus]

How does one become sensible and cautious, I wonder?

Very easily. You don't read labels in grocery stores. Why, everyone knows that if you read a label in a grocery store some crackhead will come and punch you in the head. I remember them teaching that in school years ago. You didn't know?

Silly old woman. It was clearly her own fault.