Your Torture and Death to be shown as "entertainment" on Reality TV

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: rottensociety

Americans are already playing "The Hunger Games". Not quite, yet, in the way of the movies, but in other ways. You can watch people dying on you-tube. See the American journalist' (what was his name?) head being held up by his hair, after being decapitated by terrorists. You can see Saddam Hussein being hanged. See his sons dead bodies.

When Bin Laden's body wasn't immediately shown, people complained about it. They wanted to see it.

It's a blood thirsty bunch we've turned into. Our wars are all but televised as reality shows. You can see them on the news. Bombings in marketplaces, oh what? Was that a body-part that flew out of that van? How long until our soldiers wear helmet cams and it's broadcast live on mainstream television? They would do it in a heartbeat if it got good ratings.

It's sick. Even the fact that we watch such movies is sick. Even that these movies are conceptualized is a little on the sick side.

Looking at history, medicine, our laws, and our ethics, I think human life has more value now, then ever before in history. At least in the West.

Enjoy it while it lasts.

That's exactly what I mean! Thanks, you make loads of valid points that I completely missed. Of course! - that video of the hanging of Saddam Hussein on Youtube is a really good example. Surely that is proof of a gross level of sick mentality that just didn't exist in previous generations. The internet itself is like a 'tool' for the development of schadenfreude: the real sick nutters in the past could find a real snuff film of someone being murdered by going to weirdo websites, but now anyone, indeed any child, can easily find a beheading video. I find it hard to imagine the effects upon a child of watching a beheading - but there are parents out there that allow it.

Yes human life has more value now, but this is Generation X's time, who are notably more 'sensitive' than previous generations. But I think, in general, they are too sensitive and too guilty about their children and so end up spoiling them and raising extremely Narcissistic children. And Narcissistic children just love watching the suffering of others and would even participate.

So when Generation X reaches retirement age in about 20 years, the Narcissistic children of the Narcissistic children will be the tax-payers. It will be like living in world of a million "Joffery"s from the fantasy sick-fest "The Game of Thrones".

originally posted by: Not Authorized
a reply to: rottensociety

Every one knows what is right and wrong. Do you not remember the research announcement, that everyone is hard coded in this brain to have a conscious? One part knowing right, the other part knowing wrong? Is it just another example of that at spooky action at a distance thing we have discovered? Or, something else? The world can be idealistic. In many ways, it wants to be free from the oppression of others.

Christianity, as it is currently, is a major source of all our problems. The human rights abuses undertaken by the church itself, are far to numerous to list. They still continue today.

Think, even Martin Luther's bible, has a solid sky dome drawn on the cover, also known as the firmament, on his personal bible. Is the sky a solid dome, with an ocean above it? That is what the writers of the OT thought reality was. Reread Genesis chapter 1 with that knowledge. The only rational conclusion you can come up with, is that the writers of Genesis, guessed incorrectly, the nature of reality. It is quite ridiculous what those people considered reality, once you do some fact checking.

It means they were wrong.

Furthermore, because of that fact, it means everything in that religion, including supposed values, can, and in most cases was incorrect. Major ones, like murder, are certainly wrong. But, religious wars? That, is what we call war crimes today. Women as property? Unclean, or, simple biological function? You want to return to that?

A return to Common Law, with secular values, will solve the morality problem. Returning to a tribal mindset, totally ignorant of is history, will destroy us all.

Common Law can be summed up as this: do no harm.

No, I don't believe everybody knows right from wrong. There's a book called "Lord of the Flies" where a group of boys are left to fend for themselves on a desert island and most of them turn nasty and end up murdering a boy. I work with children and I think it's spot on. The good kids always give way to the bad kids out of politeness or fear. And I have seen how parents are being pushed out of their children's lives with extra-curriculum activities, extra homework, more exams to do, social networking, etc. So in the end the State will be their daddy.

The rest of your post is about religion. I am not talking about religion here, I'm talking about finding a solution to this problem of rising schadenfreude that exists today. I believe that we have lost our spiritual side in the West and by the looks of it we desperately need some moral code. The Common Law is obviously not enough.

a reply to: rottensociety

It is funny you made this post. I will be making such a reality tv show soon. Of course, it'll be called, "King Solomon's Judgment" or "The Wrath of God," but it won't be pleasant.

Only because one has an affinity for staged cruelty, horror and gore does not mean one approves of it if it aint fake anymore.

originally posted by: Mr Mask

originally posted by: rottensociety



So how come they chose a 26 year old to play Doctor Who - who was originally supposed to be a Grandfather??

How come they made up Guy Pearce to be the old man in 'Prometheus' instead of just employing an old actor??

How come Tony Blair became the youngest ever Prime Minister??

How come Ed Milliband is the youngest ever leader of the Labour Party??

How many old people are portrayed in a good light on television??

1) Dr Who was played by a young actor to try and cash in on sex appeal and interest of a young audience. notice he is now going to be played by a much older actor.

2) Because the character played by Pearce was to be shown as both young and old in the movie. Impossible with an old actor.

3) Blair became the youngest PM because a bunch of old people put him there.

4) Ed Milliband...same reason and #3.

Here is the deal. You seem to think the elderly are being shown in a worse light than the young (or even the unborn). Its not true. Humanity as a whole is being painted by media to be worthless, pointless, better off dead and unwanted.

The young and the old can be shown as being portrayed in various roles in fiction and nonfiction, in truth and in lies.

For every young person painted in a good light I can show you twenty painted as dark individuals that appeal to the narcissistic tastes of today's cultures. I can do the same with the old.

You are very right in seeing the media promoting worthless and tasteless material. But you are overly wrong in seeing it as if the elderly are being demonized more than the young. ALL people are being primed to hate by our media. And all societies are being shown to us as disgusting.

Fact remains, there are good people and bad. Sadly too many people watch TV. hence your show of two TV shows and two famous faces as your evidence.

Like I said, I hear you. I disagree with your final hypothesis.

MM

("The youngest PM because a bunch of old people put him there"???!!! And you say my evidence is bad!)

Fair enough, maybe you haven't noticed Ageism on television: it's made ambiguous and twisted so you could argue both ways. But I believe that open "demonizing" of the old will become much more obvious soon now we're in the Age of Aquarius/Technology.

Don't you think Ageism is inevitable given that we are sliding into a world of ever-changing technology where everything and everyone becomes out-dated? They've been leading up to this for years, getting us used to changing fashions for clothes and music, now it's changing mobile phones, etc. Surely it's inevitable that there will be a huge gap of knowledge between Generation X born c.1970 and their then grandchildren, unless they've managed to keep up? But that's not likely, unfortunately it's a fact that old brains just aren't as absorbent as young brains.

Therefore there is a growing tendency to favour employing young people - this is really obvious in America. I think the best place to see the workers of the future is Silicone Valley:

"Ageism in Silicone Valley is so bad, people in their 20s are getting cosmetic surgery":

www.businessinsider.com...

So young people will get all the decent, well-paid tech jobs in an industry that is getting bigger and bigger by the day, and eventually there will be a whole load of older "surplus people" whose jobs are obsolete. What will the governments do with us all??

Orwell gave us a hint of this in "Boxer" the workhorse in the book "Animal Farm". Boxer works really hard all his life and looks forward to the blissful retirement he was promised, but as soon as he can't work anymore, he's taken off to the knacker's yard to be slaughtered because those in Government could make money from his death.

originally posted by: Merinda
Only because one has an affinity for staged cruelty, horror and gore does not mean one approves of it if it aint fake anymore.

But do people have to "approve" of it to watch it??? How many people have chosen to watch a real beheading video on the internet even though they didn't approve of it? I'm talking about that evil sick side of humanity's inquisitive nature that makes someone click on one of those videos. Today's children are growing up watching gore as a "normal" thing to do, how can you be sure that they won't have a warped way of thinking in the future and let it go further?

a reply to: rottensociety

I would say there is no way to make sure. People will take it in dif ways. I have personally decided long ago not to shelter myself. I have watched some horrible things via the internet. For me it is an opposition to ignorance and sheltering my mind. I wanted to know the good and the bad to better make decisions for myself. I would not pressure anyone else to take this route, but for me i think it has been very beneficial.

Take the personality of a homicide detective for an example. He has to fill his head with the most grisly images to make sense of the case. Although he possibly has the purest intentions.

It's not always harmful to explore the dark edges of society, but it does change your perception. Not always for the worse. For me it made it possible to accept the reality that there are some very bad people in this world. It def made me more suitable to deal with these horrors instead of being overwhelmed by them.

I think it helped me to empathize better with people who have been victimized. Seeing the violence also gave me a better understanding of the harm that it can do.

a reply to: rottensociety

2/10 if genuine.

1/10 if troll.

originally posted by: ShaithisFerenczy
a reply to: rottensociety

2/10 if genuine.

1/10 if troll.

Thank you for providing an example of the new homo stultum.

1/10 if troll.

10/10 if brain-dead.