StarGateWars Forums

Some people really need to stop saying how they would like to hit xyz or abc as that really doesnt help what i'm trying to get across here.

The point isnt about violence, the two examples were merely used as everyone wold immediately know them & they are prime examples of where the media has reported someone to be mentally unstable before their identity could even have been fully verified.

As Pooky has quite helpfully posted this is more about the media labelling of such people & others who go against established traditions etc. Some of the climate meet protestors @ copenhagen were said to be mentally unstable by mass medai reports.

please stop looking so narrowly at the initial given examples & try to see the problem with labelling those who go against 'establishments' as it were as mentally unstable.

What a waste of time.

You overgeneralise.

Not all outspoken opponents of established authority are labelled mentally unstable. Only the ones who clearly demonstrate that they are, are. (You're an outspoken opponent, I don't see the media blab about you? Surely that's not just because you're not famous?)
If not all outspoken opponents of established authority are labelled mentally unstable, then your remark is only interesting if the majority of all outspoken opponents of established authority are labelled mentally unstable, and since that is easily disproven -I am at work and cba to google (ever read into their shady history! there's gold) for you, like you lot are so fond of-, there is nothing in your post that is worth remarking upon other than an obvious sense of being outcast for your ideas.
In fact, since the relation of the group of violent outspoken opponents of established authority to the group of those outspoken opponents of established authority who are labelled mentally unstable is as close to one-on-one as it gets without actually being that, accounting for clerical error, your earlier comments can be seen as a gross overgeneralisation, and an insult to the intelligence of everyone who would read and be bothered enough to reply.

Nevermind, my point has been missed & I cant be bothered due to the obvious hostility to carry on with this. Just lets hope you never find yourself on the recieving end of this ever rising trend (as if you do, dont expect any sympathy from me)

Kit-Fox wrote:Just lets hope you never find yourself on the recieving end of this ever rising trend (as if you do, dont expect any sympathy from me)

I'm sure the person who would regret (and have the most face in then end) would be the assaulter in this case...

Legendary Apophis wrote:

Kit-Fox wrote:Just lets hope you never find yourself on the recieving end of this ever rising trend (as if you do, dont expect any sympathy from me)

I'm sure the person who would regret (and have the most face in then end) would be the assaulter in this case...

Again with missing the point, it wasnt about the violent acts, but nevermind eh? why should i expect you to get it now when you've misunderstood throughout the entire thread. In fact the only person who seemeed to get it was Pooky

Kit-Fox wrote:Nevermind, my point has been missed & I cant be bothered due to the obvious hostility to carry on with this. Just lets hope you never find yourself on the recieving end of this ever rising trend (as if you do, dont expect any sympathy from me)

Obvious hostility? Because some people don't buy your overgeneralising story?

This "ever rising trend" as you put it, is nothing more but a paranoid mind connecting unrelated issues, throwing in a mix of omissions, flawed deductions and generally overzealous attempts at creating an issue where there isn't any..




(Was that what you meant with hostility, Kit?)

You have not given me any reason to see a trend that connects the "quick label of mental instability" with "opponents of established authority". That a few separate incidents don't make a trend, is something you should see as well. Unless, of course, it serves your purpose to see a pattern where there isn't any. You're from the Fear Brigades! *runs*

And so I request this topic be closed please

Obviously it is before its time, nevermind.

Radiance wrote:

Kit-Fox wrote:Nevermind, my point has been missed & I cant be bothered due to the obvious hostility to carry on with this. Just lets hope you never find yourself on the recieving end of this ever rising trend (as if you do, dont expect any sympathy from me)

Obvious hostility? Because some people don't buy your overgeneralising story?

This "ever rising trend" as you put it, is nothing more but a paranoid mind connecting unrelated issues, throwing in a mix of omissions, flawed deductions and generally overzealous attempts at creating an issue where there isn't any..




(Was that what you meant with hostility, Kit?)

You have not given me any reason to see a trend that connects the "quick label of mental instability" with "opponents of established authority". That a few separate incidents don't make a trend, is something you should see as well. Unless, of course, it serves your purpose to see a pattern where there isn't any. You're from the Fear Brigades! *runs*

KF has noticed that its happened a few times where people who attack authority figures and other such acts committed by strong willed people who have had enough and see an opportunity to get some poetic justice, are labelled as mentally unstable, is he alone in this?! obviously not i've also noticed the same and should have said so from the start.

anyways, this thread has been turned into something that i'm pretty sure KF didn't want to see and so i say it should stay open and also that other's (me included) have a bit more consideration for what KF is actually trying to say....

fear brigade sweety?! far from it, you see 1,2,3 such events and you laugh, 4 and you ask why they are doing what they are doing and why the media labels them as nutters. what would call it if not a trend when there are 6,7,8,9,10+ such events...mass hallucination, or a mass escape of lunatics from the local asylum?!

[KMA]Avenger wrote:KF has noticed that its happened a few times where people who attack authority figures and other such acts committed by strong willed people who have had enough and see an opportunity to get some poetic justice, are labelled as mentally unstable, is he alone in this?! obviously not i've also noticed the same and should have said so from the start

anyways, this thread has been turned into something that i'm pretty sure KF didn't want to see and so i say it should stay open and also that other's (me included) have a bit more consideration for what KF is actually trying to say....

fear brigade sweety?! far from it, you see 1,2,3 such events and you laugh, 4 and you ask why they are doing what they are doing and why the media labels them as nutters. what would call it if not a trend when there are 6,7,8,9,10+ such events...mass hallucination, or a mass escape of lunatics from the local asylum?!

Attack physically authority figures is poetic justice? What the hell is that??

[KMA]Avenger wrote:

Deaths_Rider wrote:

Radiance wrote:The dimwits who physically attack authority figures *ARE* mentally unstable, or at best, utterly retarded. Were they stable or not retarded, they'd have found a decent way to prove their point. Who the **Filtered** do they think they are? 'Rebels'? *insert diabolical laughter*
No, seriously.. such failures shouldn't be allowed to walk free, and you know it

then lock me up as i would gladly punch prime minister Ruud if i had the chance

i think those that had the chance to punch our leaders in the face but dont do it (for whatever reason) would be the minority...

I wouldn't, I'm a civilized person. I would use appropriate forums and/or channels to criticize said person and at least someone who has opinion/arguments etc...and not just a hitter.

Anyway, I strongly agree with Radiance and already stated that.

From one perspective, it may be difficult to distinguish between protesting the government's USE of authority and challenging that very authority or making claims that have the effect of causing it to be challenged.

In the latter case, I might infer that it is especially not in an authority-wielding entity's interest to have its authority challenged. This gives us a motive: the motive to suppress challenge to one's authority.

What we now need is to assess whether or not the motive coexists with the opportunity to act upon it. To answer this question, one of the things we must do is analyse any connections that may exist between the motivated entity and portals of opportunity. A portal of opportunity can be an entity empowered to provide another party with an opportunity.

Since the allegation is that some of the mainstream media's broadcasts may have the effect of causing what is claimed to be the majority of its audience to suspiciously regard and/or ridicule individuals whose known opinions challenge or have the effect of causing the motivated party's authority to be challenged, the suspected portals of opportunity are mainstream media corporations.

The alleged method of the motivated entity's suspected suppression of challenge to its authority is the use of mainstream media corporations to portray extreme challengers of its authority as mentally unstable with the intent or effect of proliferating the idea that all challengers of the motivated entity's authority are also mentally unstable.

So... who'll play judge, defense attorney and prosecutor?


Agapooka

Legendary Apophis wrote:

[KMA]Avenger wrote:KF has noticed that its happened a few times where people who attack authority figures and other such acts committed by strong willed people who have had enough and see an opportunity to get some poetic justice, are labelled as mentally unstable, is he alone in this?! obviously not i've also noticed the same and should have said so from the start

anyways, this thread has been turned into something that i'm pretty sure KF didn't want to see and so i say it should stay open and also that other's (me included) have a bit more consideration for what KF is actually trying to say....

fear brigade sweety?! far from it, you see 1,2,3 such events and you laugh, 4 and you ask why they are doing what they are doing and why the media labels them as nutters. what would call it if not a trend when there are 6,7,8,9,10+ such events...mass hallucination, or a mass escape of lunatics from the local asylum?!

Attack physically authority figures is poetic justice? What the hell is that??

exactly as i wrote it, poetic justice

ALL authority figures for the past 5000 years have been robbing the poor in 1 way or another, be it the recent expenses scandal in the UK or the Vatican's selling of indulgences or the Pharaohs taxing and conquering people to build their great public works. so someone smacks the pope (or a nations leader) in the face...big deal! that makes them mentally ill?! i dont call that an illness mate, thats what you call poetic justice

The end solution is ever-so-simple:

Die. You are obviously not fit to function in human society.




I am done arguing this; you are obviously not fit to understand the basic patterns of human behaviour.
Thought you Brits were all about proper behaviour? Clinging to someone who smacked someone else in the face because they're oh-so-strong-willed is the ultimate show of defeat of those who would call themselves 'strong willed'. You shame me by using a phrase I've often been described with and connecting it to such low-life filth as your heroes of 'strong will'.

Ah well, piss off, this whole thread is just another waste of time by lunatic morons arguing. (Why yes, I am one of those too, because like you, I lack the 'strong will' to resist the urge to post. Maybe I should smack you in the face? God, I'd be such a hero!)

and still everyone clinging to the specifics without looking at the bigger issue of the media labelling someone as mentally unstable before even the persons identity has being confirmed or becuase the person has transgressed some construct of society such as tradition or protocol.

Nevermind I have pm'd for a lock, seeing as none has arrived yet

I thank you Agapooka for you input but it seems we are destined to be ridiculed and ignored for our noticing of media behaviours

Kit-Fox wrote:I thank you Agapooka for you input but it seems we are destined to be ridiculed and ignored for our noticing of media behaviours

I can assure you, that my ridiculing of you is entirely focussed on the overgeneralisation you have applied to your observation.

And here I was, hoping to play court-pretend... We still need a bailiff, actually. I forgot to mention that in my last post.

And a jury would be nice, but it'll be hard to find anyone who's impartial, considering that most people know the suspects.