StarGateWars Forums

So then first we had the guy who knocked the italian PM over & now we've had a woman knock the Pope over.

Notice how they are reported as being mentally unstable?


Has anyone else noticed this rising trend? Whenever someone defires authority or established protocol they are labelled as mentally unstable.

I suppose much like the witch burnings carried out by the vatican to help rid it of self sufficent women from europe, this is a way of stigmatising those who are able to think for themselves and act upon their thoughts.

Supporting assaulting people way just because their targets are the "leaders"?
As far as I know we live in a civilised society where we don't solve all of our problems by hitting. I wouldn't go all mad with baseball bat against neighboor who tends to put his music too high because he's disturbing me. Or attack one of my teacher because he has different political stances as I do. It's not far west where you solve your problems by gun duels or whatever similar.


We live in a democracy, not into jungle law state where the violent fight is an every day basis to solve "problems".
Unless you are in favour of Hobbes' chaotic state of nature?

You know its not just those, its others as well but those two are the worst cases of it.

Whatever you think of their actions (and i'm not saying i approve or not) they had the thoughts & then the gumption to act upon their thoughts. For doing so they are labelled as mentally unstable.

Also according to you everyone who ever throws a punch or throws an object at someone is mentally unstable now are they? So thats what? the whole world then! Come on Pops, pretty much everyone has at some point in their life in anger used some form of force. You are saying that makes them mentally unstable, please.

Come on Pops, even you should be able to see how stupid its getting & if you cant then i really do feel sorry for you.

Kit-Fox wrote:You know its not just those, its others as well but those two are the worst cases of it.

Whatever you think of their actions (and i'm not saying i approve or not) they had the thoughts & then the gumption to act upon their thoughts. For doing so they are labelled as mentally unstable.

Also according to you everyone who ever throws a punch or throws an object at someone is mentally unstable now are they? So thats what? the whole world then!

Come on Pops, even you should be able to see how stupid its getting & if you cant then i really do feel sorry for you.

Why the hell on Earth would I 'defend' their actions? Why the hell on Earth would I defend those people integrity?

That's a rhetorical questions, by the way.
Also, I'm not a Berlusconi supporter, I find him ridiculous...just so you know.
Anyway, I'm off now.

I am not, nor am i asking you to defend their actions.

I'm asking you to recognise the media insistence that such people are mentally unstable. For example with the woman who pushed the pope over, that she is supposedly mentally unstable has already gone all aroudn the world before I bet her identity has been confirmed by the vatican police.

Hmm, I really don't pay attention to the news.

I guess it was the last straw when they tried to pass that Tiger Woods business as news, but even then, I only rarely turned on the radio...

But pooky only those who are inherently stupid ignore the news totally. To do so would deny you the ability to see what the majority are 'thinking' (or believe they are thinking)

Following the news can allow you see how a lot of people are getting pushed into thinking certain things.

This is one of them

Obviously the idea is that if anyone bucks established protocol, tradition or other such socially constructed purpose then you must be mentally unstable.

This is a bad idea to be propogating to the populace as it will only help to reduce innovation, creativity & free thinking. The Spanish Inquisition is alive and well it seems

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.

Now it's just authority figures, but tomorrow, it's your daughter who offends these lunatics. I'm going out on a limb here and say you wouldn't want a replica of the Dom of Milan tossed at your daughter?
Or will you then call that "creative expression"? Get the **Filtered** out..

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.

Now it's just authority figures, but tomorrow, it's your daughter who offends these lunatics. I'm going out on a limb here and say you wouldn't want a replica of the Dom of Milan tossed at your daughter?
Or will you then call that "creative expression"? Get the **Filtered** out..

Amen sister!

Kit-Fox wrote:But pooky only those who are inherently stupid ignore the news totally. To do so would deny you the ability to see what the majority are 'thinking' (or believe they are thinking)

I wouldn't throw around the phrase "inherently stupid" so easily, although I do see what you are saying. For those who may find it important to understand what others are being told, it'd clearly be unproductive not to pay attention to what they are being told.

It takes about 2 minutes a week to keep up, though, seeing as there is so much repetition of the same "issues". Any more than that is a waste of the finite amount of time spent living.

Radiance wrote:The dimwits who physically attack authority figures *ARE* mentally unstable, or at best, utterly retarded.

A bit repetitive, there, Miss. What of the bright and witty who resort to such means? XD Actually, what of the reverse situation, where the authorities perpetuate the physical assaults? Just saying... Do the same standards apply?

Radiance wrote: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.

I've always believed that the proper way to prove a point involved a sniper rifle, rubber bullets, a video camera, stock audience laughing audio tracks and Youtube. On a serious note, intelligence is possibly completely irrelevant to this matter. Mental Attributes 101 crash course:

1. Wisdom is a composite of experience and morality, which distinguishes between what is ultimately important in the scope of one's perception of reality.

2. Understanding provides the information that is relevant to the process.

3. Intelligence acts within the scope and limit of one's wisdom, processing the information provided by one's understanding in order to identify, to the best of its ability, the most effective means. Intelligence can be simplified as the ability to draw logical connections.


With that said, it can be argued that an individual with a high level of intelligence and understanding could physically attack an authority figure without being "retarded", simply because his particular wisdom, given that morality has not been shown to be absolute, holds that it is ultimately important to cause authority figures pain whilst acting in one's capacity as an agent of karma, taking the dues of those who impose their wills upon others.




Agapooka

Well probably I should be a lil more careful in choosing my words, but it still holds true that if you totally ignore the news then you are somewhat stupid.


And I think you got my point, or at least it seems to me that you have grasped what I was trying to say without focussing to closely on the given examples like some others did. Perhaps you could explain to them what I was trying to say as I seem to have failed??

Maybe you should have put less emphasis on examples of physical attacks, because, let's face it, people will assume that the extent of what you're talking about is whether or not it's smart to hit people who can say "I am the law" in a badass voice.

Essentially, as I understand it, the question being posed here is:

"Why is it that, whenever an individual opposes anyone in a position of authority, that they are made out to be mentally unstable by the media?"

The means of opposition is another detail, but it seems to be recurring pattern to ridicule anyone who dares oppose authority. Obviously, those who choose a physical means of rebellion will likely be used by the media, who will not only imply that they are mentally unstable, which may or may not be true, but they will project this alleged mental instability upon anyone who opposes authority. Whether this is intentional or not is not the purpose of this discussion, although I wouldn't be willing to claim that it is not. I would say that it is an effect that I've observed regardless of what was originally intended.

I call the observed effect "labeling". Humans seem to be stupid enough to do it all the time. They create a label, which loosely defines adherence to an appearance, behaviour and/or belief archetype towards which they have a given opinion. If they are unwilling or unable to consider another's stance on an issue, and any detail of his or her disposition correlates with the generality of the label, they apply the label to this individual, so that they can avoid any "unnecessary thinking" and proceed to having their own opinion of that individual. Not all labels are negative, but it remains that that is how they tend to progress.


Agapooka

Hmm perhaps I should have used different examples but I did want to use examples that everyone would immediately be currently aware of & that would demonstrate the media labelling.

Thank you for your post Agapooka you have hit the nail on the head with what I was trying to get across. I know I suck at getting my view across in text usually but at least I try.

as it seems on topic the premier down here in south australia got attacked a few weeks back and the media never claimed the guy was unstable granted he's hardly that big an arthority figuge

and to be honest the majority of people that asualt anyone in a premedatated fashion such as the statue attack are probably unstable anyway.

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

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...

if for no other reason, i would DEARLY love to smack Gordon Brown in the chops, just for selling England's gold reserves for peanuts a few years back....truth be told, i would smack him just for the hell of it!