9 Dead in SC Church Shooting - Hate Crime Confirmed.

[MERIZoC]

Well...

"I want to kill black people to start a race war" really means "I want to oppress Christianity" clearly.

Gauth, I don't think that has anything to do with my post.

[Novus America]

Bull shit.


"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 electroshock generator, which played prerecorded 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, all responses by the learner would cease.[1]

At this point, many people indicated their desire to stop the experiment and check on the learner."

So their was ambiguity, the though they may have killed the learner, and wanted to checked to see if the learner was actually killed.

Oh you meant THAT kind of ambiguity?

...Okay? And? Even if they had been facing an actual person and pushed the voltage to a lethal level, saw the person collapse to the ground and not moving, they STILL would have checked to see if they'd been actually killed. When you see someone collapse in front of you, you don't say "oh well, they're dead." You check.

And they were given explicit orders to continue.
"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."

Those aren't orders. They are, as described, "verbal prods."

"Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority."

Good job. You can quote.

The Milgram experiment (misnamed, should be simulation)

Jesus christ you really don't understand science.

clearly does not apply to this murderer.

Who the fuck said it did?

And again I am not sure why he even needed to do considering Himmler had already conducted and documented real experimentation.

"Real experimentation." Jesus christ you really don't understand science.

Woah, deja vu.

Actually I do. If you want to prove something you actually have to do it.
Simulation cannot replace actually results. Simulating a heart transplant cannot replace actually doing it.

To prove the nuclear bombs worked they actually had to detonate one.

In a lab, would if you want to see what happens when you mix two chemicals, you do not pretend to mix said chemicals, you actually mix said chemicals.

To see why the Germans killed Jews and what the results were you actually have to take someone out and order "kill that Jew", and make a death actually occur. Obviously a sane person would not actually do that. But an insane man already did the work for you.

Where they ever told the guy was dead in the experiment? NO. They were told he might die. And they heard the guy fall and stop talking. Again ambiguity. Unless they were actually sure they guy was dead, and you have nothing to prove that they did know for sure. And you cannot offer anything. The death was implied, and not certain. If you give a guy potentially lethal shocks, hear him fall and stop responding is it possible he is unconscious but alive? Of course! Potentially lethal voltage does not always kill. You also need to learn about electricity. Confirmations is only necessary when you are not 100% certain.

And you just do not get it. Why do you check to see if someone fell down is dead? It is because you want to [b]see if they are actually dead[/b]. For example an electric chair. You administer lethal dosage, and check to see if the guy is dead to confirm he is actually dead because some people survive. If you blow somebody's head off with a auto cannon you do not check his freaking pulse.

"You MUST go on" is an order. Must is an imperative. Note he did not say you must kill the guy, if he had the experiment would likely fail. To convince people to kill you make the process dehumanized and indirect as possible.

They are called verbal prods, but still can be orders. Even number one can be an order. You can start an order with please to make it sound polite. In the military if you commander says please do this, it is essential you do this, you must do this, they are all orders and you can be punished for failing to comply.

See you are ignoring the results. Again Dr. Milgram said normal people do not kill out of hatred or on their own initiative.

"Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority."

Yes I can quote. Can you read the quote?

How does the experiment apply to these murders?

[Geilinor]

Yet, not oddly enough, conservatives like FOX News say that the shootings weren't racially motivated.

FOX has been trying to push the "attack on faith" angle hard, because for some reason, that's easier than "attack on black people". The "I want to start a race war" and apartheid South Africa patch are obvious.

[Mavorpen]

Dodge this.

That wasn't funny.

The Milgram experiment did not perfectly replicate killing.

No, it didn't replicate specific circumstances related to killing.

It tried to come as close as possible.

And it was fairly successful.

In the military studies people were really killed.

Name these studies please.

In the Milgram they did not actually kill people.

And?

They were removed from the process using a button, could not see the "victim".

Hence "replication."

Hence the move to gas chambers for the Nazis.

Oh great, that claim you keep making up but refusing to back up with evidence.

"After a time, Himmler found that the killing methods used by the Einsatzgruppen were inefficient: they were costly, demoralising for the troops, and sometimes did not kill the victims quickly enough.[99] Many of the troops found the massacres to be difficult if not impossible to perform. Some of the perpetrators suffered physical and mental health problems, and many turned to drink.[100] Browning notes three categories of potential perpetrators: those who were eager to participate right from the start, those who participated in spite of moral qualms because they were ordered to do so, and a significant minority who refused to take part.[101] A few men spontaneously became excessively brutal in their killing methods and their zeal for the task. Commander of Einsatzgruppe D, SS-Gruppenführer Otto Ohlendorf, particularly noted this propensity towards excess, and ordered that any man who was too eager to participate or too brutal should not perform any further executions.[102]

During a visit to Minsk in August 1941, Himmler witnessed an Einsatzgruppen mass execution first-hand and concluded that shooting Jews was too stressful for his men.[103] By November he made arrangements for any SS men suffering ill health from having participated in executions should be provided with rest and mental health care.[104] He also decided a transition should be made to gassing the victims, especially the women and children, and ordered the recruitment of expendable native auxiliaries who could assist with the murders.[104][105] Gas vans, which had been used previously to kill mental patients, began to see service by all four main Einsatzgruppen from 1942.[106] However, the gas vans were not popular with the Einsatzkommandos, because removing the dead bodies from the van and burying them was a horrible ordeal. Prisoners or auxiliaries were often assigned to do this task so as to spare the SS men the trauma.[107] Some of the early mass killings at extermination camps used carbon monoxide fumes produced by diesel engines, similar to the method used in gas vans, but by as early as September 1941 experiments were begun at Auschwitz using Zyklon B, a cyanide-based pesticide gas.[108]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einsatzgruppen

Why the hell should ANY of this matter to me? None of these are actual experiments except the end where it specifically mentions experimentation with Zyklon B, assuming it means scientific experiment .

It is easier to get people to kill when they do not see the results, knife killing vs. long range rifle killing, vs, killing with a missile and a button are different, and the more removed you are the easier it is.

I would agree with you in this case, of course, if they had no access at all to the results in the Milgram Experiment. They could hear the person's screams and pleads. That is a DIRECT link to the result of their actions and to the suffering of the person on the other end.

And again the Milgram experiment, which is highly controversial, does not disprove normal people do not kill on their own volition, people can be convinced to kill of course.

Sure it does. These people knew that they didn't have any actual obligation to go through with the experiment. They knew that they would go to jail for killing a person. They knew torture wasn't okay. They knew that the examiners had no true authority over them. That's the point. That people are entirely capable of doing horrible things and all they need is the right situation, circumstances, and stimulations. In this case, it presented itself under perceived authority.

Simply saying the name of an controversial experiment

Except it's not controversial. It's been repeatedly corroborated, unlike the source you gave me.

that does not disprove my point and does not disprove that the man who committed these murders was insane.

Yes it does.

In fact it supports my point,

No it doesn't.

as normal people need to be prodded and told they have no choice.

And you think this SUPPORTS your fantasy belief that humans are these innate good creatures and it requires mental illness to do horrible things? You're telling me that a simple verbal stimulus that really has no true weight to it is enough to turn people into monsters?

And I am well aware of how science works. To actually prove something you have to actually demonstrate it.

You've literally just defeated your own statement. You don't prove anything in science.

A model or simulation alone is not enough, you need to test the theory in reality.

Which has been done, so you have utterly no reason to be complaining.

You have to make people really kill to see what really happens.

No, no you don't.

Now of course in your class you will not actually kill, that would not be ethical or sane. And you do not need to as other people like Himmler have done the experimental work for you.

Himmler did absolutely no experimental work. Stop abusing terms you don't grasp.

[Blakk Metal]

Yet, not oddly enough, conservatives like FOX News say that the shootings weren't racially motivated.

FOX has been trying to push the "attack on faith" angle hard, because for some reason, that's easier than "attack on black people".

They aren't mutually exclusive. Many WNs consider Christianity to be an anti-white Jew religion.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Now of course in your class you will not actually kill, that would not be ethical or sane. And you do not need to as other people like Himmler have done the experimental work for you.

Himmler did absolutely no experimental work. Stop abusing terms you don't grasp.

Applied science was directly applied to real people in the real world to prove a point.

Does that count?

Although the applied science being used was flawed, their findings/reports/debriefings still provide useful data for case-studies.

[Camicon]

Tangentially. That man's motivations were not Roof's motivations, which is the real point of discussion that's come out of this shooting.

Guy apparently hated immigrants.

And? Just because an American is black doesn't mean they're an immigrant, or should be perceived as one, so there's really no connection there tenuous or otherwise. Roof's actions have started a conversation about America's rampant racism against black people, their horrifically damaging gun culture, and a slew of other related topics. Shooting up a McDonald's thirty-some years ago because you got fired from your job is not equivalent to a targeted, racially motivated act of political assassination and domestic terrorism.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Guy apparently hated immigrants.

And? Just because an American is black doesn't mean they're an immigrant, or should be perceived as one, so there's really no connection there tenuous or otherwise. Roof's actions have started a conversation about America's rampant racism against black people, their horrifically damaging gun culture, and a slew of other related topics. Shooting up a McDonald's thirty-some years ago because you got fired from your job is not equivalent to a targeted, racially motivated act of political assassination and domestic terrorism.

*was trying to find a simple way to say 'non-white Mexican-border-people that call Americans in Texas "Foreigners"/Gringos and may or may-not have reletives who still insist Texas is property of Mexico"

Oh, you must've missed the Mark Essex post.

It's back there, somewhere.

Page 11, I think.

Blind hate is blind hate IMHO.

[Mavorpen]

Actually I do.

No, you clearly do not.

If you want to prove something you actually have to do it.

And this confirms that you don't. You don't, nor can you, prove anything with science.

Simulation cannot replace actually results.

These are actual results.

Simulating a heart transplant cannot replace actually doing it.

THIS is the best example you could come up with? Something that's not even a scientific experiment?

To prove the nuclear bombs worked they actually had to detonate one.

They didn't "prove" anything.

In a lab, would if you want to see what happens when you mix two chemicals, you do not pretend to mix said chemicals, you actually mix said chemicals.

You do realize that all of this applies to Milgram's experiment, right?

To see why the Germans killed Jews and what the results were you actually have to take someone out and order "kill that Jew", and make a death actually occur. Obviously a sane person would not actually do that. But an insane man already did the work for you.

I honestly can't help but feel sorry for you. Your understanding of science is so terrible that you think experiments are the opposite of what they actually are.

Where they ever told the guy was dead in the experiment? NO. They were told he might die.

And their reaction would have been the same. Not to mention if the examiners had them shoot someone in the chest, this exact same ambiguity would exist and the subject would rush over to check to see if the guy was still alive.

And they heard the guy fall and stop talking. Again ambiguity.

Which exists with or without seeing the person.

Unless they were actually sure they guy was dead, and you have nothing to prove that they did know for sure. And you cannot offer anything. The death was implied, and not certain. If you give a guy potentially lethal shocks, hear him fall and stop responding is it possible he is unconscious but alive? Of course!

And if I shoot a guy in the chest and see him fall and stop moving, it's certainly possible it's unconscious but alive.

Potentially lethal voltage does not always kill. You also need to learn about electricity. Confirmations is only necessary when you are not 100% certain.

Again, I fail to see what these ramblings have to do with the experiment.

And you just do not get it. Why do you check to see if someone fell down is dead? It is because you want to [b]see if they are actually dead[/b]. For example an electric chair. You administer lethal dosage, and check to see if the guy is dead to confirm he is actually dead because some people survive. If you blow somebody's head off with a auto cannon you do not check his freaking pulse.

I'm pretty sure you can't do that.

"You MUST go on" is an order. Must is an imperative.

No, it isn't. If you walk up to the cashier of a store and they tell you "You are $5 short. You have to pay me $5 more," is that an order? No.

Note he did not say you must kill the guy, if he had the experiment would likely fail.

How?

To convince people to kill you make the process dehumanized and indirect as possible.

Uh, no. That's not why they didn't show the person being actually harmed.

See you are ignoring the results. Again Dr. Milgram said normal people do not kill out of hatred or on their own initiative.

No he didn't.

"Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority."

Yeah, the problem isn't me ignoring the results, it's you reading things that aren't there.

Yes I can quote. Can you read the quote?

Yes. Can you?

How does the experiment apply to these murders?

[/quote]
You...you aren't paying attention at all, are you?

[Novus America]

Dodge this.

That wasn't funny.

The Milgram experiment did not perfectly replicate killing.

No, it didn't replicate specific circumstances related to killing.

It tried to come as close as possible.

And it was fairly successful.

In the military studies people were really killed.

Name these studies please.

In the Milgram they did not actually kill people.

And?

They were removed from the process using a button, could not see the "victim".

Hence "replication."

Hence the move to gas chambers for the Nazis.

Oh great, that claim you keep making up but refusing to back up with evidence.

"After a time, Himmler found that the killing methods used by the Einsatzgruppen were inefficient: they were costly, demoralising for the troops, and sometimes did not kill the victims quickly enough.[99] Many of the troops found the massacres to be difficult if not impossible to perform. Some of the perpetrators suffered physical and mental health problems, and many turned to drink.[100] Browning notes three categories of potential perpetrators: those who were eager to participate right from the start, those who participated in spite of moral qualms because they were ordered to do so, and a significant minority who refused to take part.[101] A few men spontaneously became excessively brutal in their killing methods and their zeal for the task. Commander of Einsatzgruppe D, SS-Gruppenführer Otto Ohlendorf, particularly noted this propensity towards excess, and ordered that any man who was too eager to participate or too brutal should not perform any further executions.[102]

During a visit to Minsk in August 1941, Himmler witnessed an Einsatzgruppen mass execution first-hand and concluded that shooting Jews was too stressful for his men.[103] By November he made arrangements for any SS men suffering ill health from having participated in executions should be provided with rest and mental health care.[104] He also decided a transition should be made to gassing the victims, especially the women and children, and ordered the recruitment of expendable native auxiliaries who could assist with the murders.[104][105] Gas vans, which had been used previously to kill mental patients, began to see service by all four main Einsatzgruppen from 1942.[106] However, the gas vans were not popular with the Einsatzkommandos, because removing the dead bodies from the van and burying them was a horrible ordeal. Prisoners or auxiliaries were often assigned to do this task so as to spare the SS men the trauma.[107] Some of the early mass killings at extermination camps used carbon monoxide fumes produced by diesel engines, similar to the method used in gas vans, but by as early as September 1941 experiments were begun at Auschwitz using Zyklon B, a cyanide-based pesticide gas.[108]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einsatzgruppen

Why the hell should ANY of this matter to me? None of these are actual experiments except the end where it specifically mentions experimentation with Zyklon B, assuming it means scientific experiment .

It is easier to get people to kill when they do not see the results, knife killing vs. long range rifle killing, vs, killing with a missile and a button are different, and the more removed you are the easier it is.

I would agree with you in this case, of course, if they had no access at all to the results in the Milgram Experiment. They could hear the person's screams and pleads. That is a DIRECT link to the result of their actions and to the suffering of the person on the other end.

And again the Milgram experiment, which is highly controversial, does not disprove normal people do not kill on their own volition, people can be convinced to kill of course.

Sure it does. These people knew that they didn't have any actual obligation to go through with the experiment. They knew that they would go to jail for killing a person. They knew torture wasn't okay. They knew that the examiners had no true authority over them. That's the point. That people are entirely capable of doing horrible things and all they need is the right situation, circumstances, and stimulations. In this case, it presented itself under perceived authority.

Simply saying the name of an controversial experiment

Except it's not controversial. It's been repeatedly corroborated, unlike the source you gave me.

that does not disprove my point and does not disprove that the man who committed these murders was insane.

Yes it does.

In fact it supports my point,

No it doesn't.

as normal people need to be prodded and told they have no choice.

And you think this SUPPORTS your fantasy belief that humans are these innate good creatures and it requires mental illness to do horrible things? You're telling me that a simple verbal stimulus that really has no true weight to it is enough to turn people into monsters?

And I am well aware of how science works. To actually prove something you have to actually demonstrate it.

You've literally just defeated your own statement. You don't prove anything in science.

A model or simulation alone is not enough, you need to test the theory in reality.

Which has been done, so you have utterly no reason to be complaining.

You have to make people really kill to see what really happens.

No, no you don't.

Now of course in your class you will not actually kill, that would not be ethical or sane. And you do not need to as other people like Himmler have done the experimental work for you.

Himmler did absolutely no experimental work. Stop abusing terms you don't grasp.

OK I give up, you are a hopeless case. Dr. Milgram said normal sane people can be made to kill, but only do so reluctantly, when told they have no choice.

That has nothing to do with these murders. Dr. Milgram never said a normal person would on their own initiative go electrocute some random guy. They had to be convinced to do so.

I agree with him on that. Yes, his work has been replicated, and is not a bad piece of work, but there are better cases studies, ones where there was actually killing.

What are you trying to even say? All people normal sane people are perfectly willing to kill and feel no remorse? If you are than Dr. Milgram proves you wrong.

You do not understand the implications of his experiment. One last time, and then I give up on you.

"The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' [participants'] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects' [participants'] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.

Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority."

He FREAKING USES THE TERM ORDERED. And he said people did not want to do it but still could be made to do so. Can you admit you are wrong? It is right there in your face!

[Mavorpen]

Applied science was directly applied to real people in the real world to prove a point.

There was no "applied science." Himmler saw some shit, wrote it down, and then said "X must be true." There was no science.

Does that count?

Although the applied science being used was flawed, their findings/reports/debriefings still provide useful data for case-studies.

Your point being?

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Applied science was directly applied to real people in the real world to prove a point.

There was no "applied science." Himmler saw some shit, wrote it down, and then said "X must be true." There was no science.

Does that count?

Although the applied science being used was flawed, their findings/reports/debriefings still provide useful data for case-studies.

Your point being?

Apparently the same point as this entire thread hopes to accomplish: none, except clarification.

Here, here's a video-report on the Stanford Prison Experiment, which was pretty much a "no limits" test to see how far the actor in the labcoat would go with the test subjects.

In short, "how authority responds to absolute control", whereas Millgram's study was on the limits of compliance to authority when weighed against morality.

[Mavorpen]

OK I give up, you are a hopeless case.

Apologies for not accepting your bullshit ground on a failure to understand a paper and science in general.

Dr. Milgram said normal sane people can be made to kill, but only do so reluctantly, when told they have no choice.

No, he didn't. He didn't say that people can be "made to kill" and "when told they have no choice." He concluded that we all have the propensity to to bad shit because it's in our nature. It's entirely "normal" and "sane" to be obedient to people and do horrible things given the right conditions, even if there's no actual authority of the person that justifies the actions to be done. This has nothing to do with being threatened that if you don't do X, your family will be killed, you'll be sent to a concentration camp, etc. This is a case where people are readily obedient and do bad things because of THEIR OWN psychology.

That has nothing to do with these murders.

Who said that they did?

Dr. Milgram never said a normal person would on their own initiative go electrocute some random guy.

Again, who said that he did?

They had to be convinced to do so.

No, not really. The subjects were looking for justification to keep going. It's not like the examiner debated with them the moral imperatives of their actions. The examiners just gave them verbal prods.

I agree with him on that. Yes, his work has been replicated, and is not a bad piece of work, but there are better cases studies, ones where there was actually killing.

This wasn't a case study. Seriously, go pick up a dictionary.

What are you trying to even say? All people normal sane people are perfectly willing to kill and feel no remorse? If you are than Dr. Milgram proves you wrong.

Reading is not your strong suit, is it?

You do not understand the implications of his experiment.

Stop projecting, please.

One last time, and then I give up on you.

One more time making shit up about what the conclusion of the study was? Okay.

"The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' [participants'] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects' [participants'] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.

Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority."

He FREAKING USES THE TERM ORDERED.

Yes, he does.

Can you admit you are wrong. It is right there in your face!

[/quote]
Wrong about what?

[Mavorpen]

There was no "applied science." Himmler saw some shit, wrote it down, and then said "X must be true." There was no science.

Your point being?

Apparently the same point as this entire thread hopes to accomplish: none, except clarification.

Here, here's a video-report on the Stanford Prison Experiment, which was pretty much a "no limits" test to see how far the actor in the labcoat would go with the test subjects.

In short, "how authority responds to absolute control", whereas Millgram's study was on the limits of compliance to authority when weighed against morality.

...Good for you?

I don't see what that has to do with Himmler, but okay.

[Camicon]

And? Just because an American is black doesn't mean they're an immigrant, or should be perceived as one, so there's really no connection there tenuous or otherwise. Roof's actions have started a conversation about America's rampant racism against black people, their horrifically damaging gun culture, and a slew of other related topics. Shooting up a McDonald's thirty-some years ago because you got fired from your job is not equivalent to a targeted, racially motivated act of political assassination and domestic terrorism.

*was trying to find a simple way to say 'non-white Mexican-border-people that call Americans in Texas "Foreigners"/Gringos and may or may-not have reletives who still insist Texas is property of Mexico"

Oh, you must've missed the Mark Essex post.

It's back there, somewhere.

Page 11, I think.

Blind hate is blind hate IMHO.

You think that a man shooting up a McDonald's because he got fired is relevant to a conversation about a man who committed the racially motivated acts of political assassination and domestic terrorism. You said it's relevant because this man that shot up a McDonald's may have disliked immigrants, which has no bearing on why he shot up the McDonald's, and wouldn't matter even if it did; Roof attacked those people because they were black, not because he thought they were immigrants.

Those two events are not equivalent, don't pretend like they are.

[Jentopia-1]

The shooting was an act of terrorism! Kill the terrorist! Why is it that whites can readily escape being labeled a terrorist?
Maybe they're trying to burn the truth?

[Hurtful Thoughts]

*was trying to find a simple way to say 'non-white Mexican-border-people that call Americans in Texas "Foreigners"/Gringos and may or may-not have reletives who still insist Texas is property of Mexico"

Oh, you must've missed the Mark Essex post.

It's back there, somewhere.

Page 11, I think.

Blind hate is blind hate IMHO.

You think that a man shooting up a McDonald's because he got fired is relevant to a conversation about a man who committed the racially motivated acts of political assassination and domestic terrorism. You said it's relevant because this man that shot up a McDonald's may have disliked immigrants, which has no bearing on why he shot up the McDonald's, and wouldn't matter even if it did; Roof attacked those people because they were black, not because he thought they were immigrants.

Those two events are not equivalent, don't pretend like they are.

Can you please google Mark Essex? I brought that up first.

[Novus America]

OK I give up, you are a hopeless case.

Apologies for not accepting your bullshit ground on a failure to understand a paper and science in general.

Dr. Milgram said normal sane people can be made to kill, but only do so reluctantly, when told they have no choice.

No, he didn't. He didn't say that people can be "made to kill" and "when told they have no choice." He concluded that we all have the propensity to to bad shit because it's in our nature. It's entirely "normal" and "sane" to be obedient to people and do horrible things given the right conditions, even if there's no actual authority of the person that justifies the actions to be done. This has nothing to do with being threatened that if you don't do X, your family will be killed, you'll be sent to a concentration camp, etc. This is a case where people are readily obedient and do bad things because of THEIR OWN psychology.

That has nothing to do with these murders.

Who said that they did?

Dr. Milgram never said a normal person would on their own initiative go electrocute some random guy.

Again, who said that he did?

They had to be convinced to do so.

No, not really. The subjects were looking for justification to keep going. It's not like the examiner debated with them the moral imperatives of their actions. The examiners just gave them verbal prods.

I agree with him on that. Yes, his work has been replicated, and is not a bad piece of work, but there are better cases studies, ones where there was actually killing.

This wasn't a case study. Seriously, go pick up a dictionary.

What are you trying to even say? All people normal sane people are perfectly willing to kill and feel no remorse? If you are than Dr. Milgram proves you wrong.

Reading is not your strong suit, is it?

You do not understand the implications of his experiment.

Stop projecting, please.

One last time, and then I give up on you.

One more time making shit up about what the conclusion of the study was? Okay.

"The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' [participants'] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects' [participants'] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.

Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority."

He FREAKING USES THE TERM ORDERED.

Yes, he does.

Can you admit you are wrong. It is right there in your face!

Wrong about what?[/quote]

You said they were not ordered to do so. And you said it proves the murderer here was not insane. Now you have backtracked, and said the opposite, hence you were wrong.

And no, again can you read his conclusion? He never said people have a propensity to do bad things, he said "can become agents in a terrible destructive process." I mean really, it is right there. He says people have a propensity to follow orders, even bad ones. A propensity to follow orders is totally different than doing bad things on your own initiative.

"The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' [participants'] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects' [participants'] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.

Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority."

He also says people only do so very reluctantly.

"In Milgram's first set of experiments, 65 percent (26 of 40) of experiment participants administered the experiment's final massive 450-volt shock,[1] though many were very uncomfortable doing so; at some point, every participant paused and questioned the experiment; some said they would refund the money they were paid for participating in the experiment. Throughout the experiment, subjects displayed varying degrees of tension and stress. Subjects were sweating, trembling, stuttering, biting their lips, groaning, digging their fingernails into their skin, and some were even having nervous laughing fits or seizures."

Totally disproves your point. every participant paused and questioned the experiment

His experiment shows people naturally want to do the right thing, but most do what they are ordered to do, with reluctance.

Exactly what Himmler said.

I mean you have resorted one liners ignoring all evidence. "You did not prove Himmler moved to gas chambers because many SS were reluctant to kill."

Yes I did, Himmler freaking said he did.

[Camicon]

You think that a man shooting up a McDonald's because he got fired is relevant to a conversation about a man who committed the racially motivated acts of political assassination and domestic terrorism. You said it's relevant because this man that shot up a McDonald's may have disliked immigrants, which has no bearing on why he shot up the McDonald's, and wouldn't matter even if it did; Roof attacked those people because they were black, not because he thought they were immigrants.

Those two events are not equivalent, don't pretend like they are.

Can you please google Mark Essex?

How is Mark Essex, and a point you made two pages ago, at all relevant to this false equivalency you drew between the San Ysidro massacre and Roof's attack on Charleston? Do you know what relevancy is?

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Can you please google Mark Essex?

How is Mark Essex, and a point you made two pages ago, at all relevant to this false equivalency you drew between the San Ysidro massacre and Roof's attack on Charleston? Do you know what relevancy is?

Huberty's shooting was a tangent to the Mark Essex Hotel Massacre side-discussion. Please stop dogging a tangent as though it's my main point of discussion.

[Hydesland]

What did I just fucking tell you, this utterly useless divisive semantic bullshit needs to stop, now. This is exactly the kind of overly polemic dialogue he would want to result from this.

It's not semantic bullshit to point out racial prejudice in the way the media reports violent crime.

It is semantic bullshit when it's based on spurious anecdotes without any hard data or utterly terrible equivocation (this is not an identical situation to Charlie Hebdo), and when it's extremely politically convenient to people who want to push a narrative down peoples throats. I can't believe how easily people are duped by these utterly artificial click-bait controversies bullshit, I expect this from idiot right wingers who read daily mail trash, not from progressives who should in principle be actually capable of critical thinking and skepticism.

[Camicon]

How is Mark Essex, and a point you made two pages ago, at all relevant to this false equivalency you drew between the San Ysidro massacre and Roof's attack on Charleston? Do you know what relevancy is?

Huberty's shooting was a tangent to the Mark Essex Hotel Massacre side-discussion. Please stop dogging a tangent as though it's my main point of discussion.

Relevant?

This post, asking about the relevancy of the San Ysidro massacre, was not a part of any previous conversation, quoted or otherwise. One can only assume you had meant it with regards to the topic of the thread, not some tangent you plucked at earlier.

Tangentially. That man's motivations were not Roof's motivations, which is the real point of discussion that's come out of this shooting.

Guy apparently hated immigrants.

This post argued for the relevancy of the San Ysidro massacre to Roof's attack on Charleston on the grounds of "immigrants". At this point, an entirely new conversation had begun, with your attempt to draw false equivalency at the heart of it.

Surely your reading comprehension isn't so abysmal that you can't follow the conversation?

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Im not even white but why is it we never here of black on white crimes.

k, everyone open your textbooks to the chapter on Malcolm X and the Mark Essex hotel shooting.

^This came first.

But if Huberty is not relevant except in ferocity of killing in an otherwise peaceful place, he's not relevant.
-The video was a relevant-tangent in an optimistic hope to pull discussion away from drawing parallels to Nazism.

The Essex shooting is, though.

It's not semantic bullshit to point out racial prejudice in the way the media reports violent crime.

It is semantic bullshit when it's based on spurious anecdotes without any hard data or utterly terrible equivocation (this is not an identical situation to Charlie Hebdo), and when it's extremely politically convenient to people who want to push a narrative down peoples throats. I can't believe how easily people are duped by these utterly artificial click-bait controversies bullshit, I expect this from idiot right wingers who read daily mail trash, not from progressives who should in principle be actually capable of critical thinking and skepticism.

Funny, I thought skepticism by definition creates conservatism to maintain a status-quo against the tide of fear-mongering progressives who say that if our nation continues down it's current path the entire human race will be extinct by 1984.

[Mavorpen]

You said they were not ordered to do so.

Because they weren't, though that's a matter of semantics.

And you said it proves the murderer here was not insane.

Um, no I didn't. I said it disproved your point. I didn't say anything about proving that he was not insane, though I did accidentally forget to add that it wasn't up to me to disprove that he's insane, as that's not even possible without diagnosing him in person.

Now you have backtracked, and said the opposite, hence you were wrong.

No, I wasn't.

And no, again can you read his conclusion?

Yes.

He never said people have a propensity to do bad things, he said "can become agents in a terrible destructive process."

Don't take things out of context, please. I explicitly clarified what I meant literally right after this:

He concluded that we all have the propensity to to bad shit because it's in our nature. It's entirely "normal" and "sane" to be obedient to people and do horrible things given the right conditions, even if there's no actual authority of the person that justifies the actions to be done.

The statement that people have a propensity to do bad things is WITHIN the context of the above following it.

I mean really, it is right there.

Yes, yes it is.

He says people have a propensity to follow orders, even bad ones.

Yes, that's what I said. It's "normal" and "sane" to do bad things given the right conditions, and in this case, under perceived authority.

A propensity to follow orders is totally different than doing bad things on your own initiative.

I disagree with calling them "orders," but even considering that, this isn't really true. There's little actual psychological difference between following verbal prods to do something and doing them of your own initiative.

"The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' [participants'] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects' [participants'] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.

Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority."

He also says people only do so very reluctantly.

Well, yes. We expect that not because humans are saints and only insane people can do bad stuff. It's because we have a system in place. We have established a system that people are raised in. We are raised to have certain beliefs and moral views. And when we are presented with a situation in which we do something that goes against them, we may follow through with them and even go beyond because of the dissonance experienced. That's where the reluctance comes from.

"In Milgram's first set of experiments, 65 percent (26 of 40) of experiment participants administered the experiment's final massive 450-volt shock,[1] though many were very uncomfortable doing so; at some point, every participant paused and questioned the experiment; some said they would refund the money they were paid for participating in the experiment. Throughout the experiment, subjects displayed varying degrees of tension and stress. Subjects were sweating, trembling, stuttering, biting their lips, groaning, digging their fingernails into their skin, and some were even having nervous laughing fits or seizures."

Totally disproves your point. every participant paused and questioned the experiment

This doesn't disprove any of my points considering I never once said that they did not.

His experiment shows people naturally want to do the right thing, but must do what the are ordered to do, with reluctance.

Erm, no it doesn't. The subjects knew they weren't under any obligation to do anything. They knew the examiner held no power over them, and the examiner did not use any tools that one would expect someone in authority to use, such as threats of punishment. The reluctance comes from dissonance, and they chose to do bad things. It has nothing to do with wanting to do with the right thing, or else none of them would have kept going. They had no obligation to keep going, and in some cases, when they were hesitant, the examiner said they would take responsibility, and the subject continued. That demonstrates they CHOSE to keep going and even used an EXCUSE of shifting the burden of responsibility to continue to do so.

Exactly what Himmler said.

Yeah, no.

I mean you have resorted one liners ignoring all evidence. "You did not prove Himmler moved to gas chambers because many SS were reluctant to kill."

Yes I did, Himmler freaking said he did.

Uwotm8? When did I say this? Quote me? Because I'm pretty damn sure I didn't say ANYTHING about Himmler's choice to use gas chambers in a specific case.

This is what the initial argument was over:

See above. The Nazis covered up the Holocaust knowing that even brainwashed normal people would not accept it. They turned to gas chambers as they found many troops were unwilling to carry out massacres or suffered mental breakdowns after.

But this guy is totally different. He was not ordered to shoot up a church and directed by a chain of command using phycological techniques. He did this on his own volition. Again is Charles Manson sane?

Similarly, see above. Where are you getting this stuff from?

You said THEY, meaning Nazi Germany itself. Nazi Germany had gas chambers years before Himmler suggested gas vans.

[Camicon]

k, everyone open your textbooks to the chapter on Malcolm X and the Mark Essex hotel shooting.

^This came first.

Half a page above, which your second post did not reference. If you were making the second post within the context of the first, then you should be including the first post as a quote. Context doesn't magically appear on the screen just because you know it. You've been posting since '09, seriously, you should know how this works.