The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums: Science:
Psychology

How do hurting people and killing people become linked?

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: 1 2 3 · >>
Conflict On August 10, 2020




Alcalá de Henares, Spain
#1New Post! Apr 12, 2017 @ 20:46:09
I've heard of this and I would like to understand it better. Why does hurting someone lead to the victim's death? What is the motive?
twilitezone911 On March 25, 2019




Saint Louis, Missouri
#2New Post! Apr 12, 2017 @ 21:48:11
@Conflict Said

I've heard of this and I would like to understand it better. Why does hurting someone lead to the victim's death? What is the motive?



this is really two or more reasons, why this happen? sometimes this happen by random, this probably closer to a serial killer.

you are a random pick, by the killer, the opportunity there for the killer.

when you said " victim " , you mean a person, who can be in a violent situation or some less. like a family member in a fight with you.

a friend or co-worker that you might be jealous for whatever or other way around.

i mean competitive, greed, jealous, or other of seven sins.these are perfect motivational random to to kill someone.

is there all ways a link to explain the whys? no.
mrmhead On 53 minutes ago




NE, Ohio
#3New Post! Apr 12, 2017 @ 22:08:23
I'd guess it's like many other addictions.

At first it's only a little abuse that will give you the pleasure. But then you need more and more to obtain that same level of enjoyment.
Erimitus On August 09, 2020




The mind of God, Antarctica
#4New Post! Apr 13, 2017 @ 20:13:59
Proposition: Hurting someone leads to the victims death.

Post hoc ergo Proper hoc <<TZ>>
Erimitus On August 09, 2020




The mind of God, Antarctica
#5New Post! Apr 13, 2017 @ 20:16:58
@mrmhead Said

I'd guess it's like many other addictions.

At first it's only a little abuse that will give you the pleasure. But then you need more and more to obtain that same level of enjoyment.



Intentionally Causing unnecessary harm may be the essence of the hurter (i.e., it is innate)


Intentionally Causing unnecessary harm may be learned behavior(i.e., programming)


Unintentionally causing unnecessary harm and regretting doing so suggests a conscience.

Unintentionally causing unnecessary harm an indifferent.


Personally I do not intentionally cause unnecessary harm

Personally if I am the cause of unnecessary harm I regret it.

That is my self image. That is the way that I have been programmed to behave or at least believe it is the way I behave.
Eaglebauer On July 23, 2019
Moderator
Deleted



Saint Louis, Missouri
#6New Post! Apr 13, 2017 @ 20:21:37
@Erimitus Said

Proposition: Hurting someone leads to the victims death.

Post hoc ergo Proper hoc <<TZ>>



I'm inclined to say it's not really a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy since there is at least a reasonable chain of causality flowing from one to the other.
Eaglebauer On July 23, 2019
Moderator
Deleted



Saint Louis, Missouri
#7New Post! Apr 13, 2017 @ 20:22:42
@Conflict Said

I've heard of this and I would like to understand it better. Why does hurting someone lead to the victim's death? What is the motive?



Heard of....what exactly? Your question is really too broad to answer. Motives are going to vary quite diversely.
chaski On about 14 hours ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#8New Post! Apr 13, 2017 @ 20:24:24
@Erimitus Said

Proposition: Hurting someone leads to the victims death.

Post hoc ergo Proper hoc <<TZ>>



Unless its one of those "catch and release" hunting excursions.
Jennifer1984 On about 4 hours ago
Returner and proud





Penzance, United Kingdom
#9New Post! Apr 14, 2017 @ 05:42:23
@Erimitus Said

Proposition: Hurting someone leads to the victims death.

Post hoc ergo Proper hoc <<TZ>>



Firstly, let's speak in English, shall we..? How about we say "With this, therefore, because of this." At least everybody will know what we're talking about.

The fallacy is obvious. A conclusion based solely on the sequence of events rather than taking any other possible factors into account which might have influenced the outcome is clearly a falsehood.

There are many ways a person can be hurt. Words can cause emotional or psychological distress but in themselves they cannot kill. Therefore it is possible to cause hurt without leading to death.

Beating a child with a belt or slipper will cause that child physical suffering (and potentially a wide ranging number of other traumas), but unless the beating is excessive or other, more dangerous weapons are involved, the beating alone is highly unlikely to lead to the death of the child.


The OP has set a very broad question to which no one concise answer is available. The subject is complex and there are multiple reasons / factors involved in the evolution of a merely (merely..??) 'hurtful' individual's descent into extreme violence which causes death.

Lots to ponder here.




PS to the OP: I disagree vehemently with your tagline. We'll deal with that on another occasion, I'm sure.
Eaglebauer On July 23, 2019
Moderator
Deleted



Saint Louis, Missouri
#10New Post! Apr 14, 2017 @ 11:48:08
@Jennifer1984 Said

Firstly, let's speak in English, shall we..? How about we say "With this, therefore, because of this." At least everybody will know what we're talking about.


He's using a phrasing that is actually fairly common in logical philosophy.

Quote:
The fallacy is obvious. A conclusion based solely on the sequence of events rather than taking any other possible factors into account which might have influenced the outcome is clearly a falsehood.


Again, in terms of logical philosophy (which he's speaking in) the fallacy is not clear. A post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy in general posits an event as a result of something that precedes it in the absence of any reasonable causality...because temporal sequence sets up a sort of false causality. If I wear black shoes to a sporting event and my favorite team wins, a post hoc fallacy would be to say that I should wear my "lucky black shoes" to every game because that is what caused them to win.

In this case (the OP), the statement is too broad to call out that fallacy (although a more exact statement might make it apt) because there are in fact mountains of examples in which harming someone is the actual proximate cause of his or her death.

Quote:
There are many ways a person can be hurt. Words can cause emotional or psychological distress but in themselves they cannot kill. Therefore it is possible to cause hurt without leading to death.

Beating a child with a belt or slipper will cause that child physical suffering (and potentially a wide ranging number of other traumas), but unless the beating is excessive or other, more dangerous weapons are involved, the beating alone is highly unlikely to lead to the death of the child.


The OP has set a very broad question to which no one concise answer is available. The subject is complex and there are multiple reasons / factors involved in the evolution of a merely (merely..??) 'hurtful' individual's descent into extreme violence which causes death.

Lots to ponder here.


Largely, I agree with this.
twilitezone911 On March 25, 2019




Saint Louis, Missouri
#11New Post! Apr 14, 2017 @ 12:47:00
i looked up " Post hoc ergo propter hoc " in wiki gave a good example.


The rooster crows immediately before sunrise; therefore the rooster causes the sun to rise.

but you lead the rooster to the pot, and cook him before the sun rise.who's care, if the sun rises.

you have some good damn foul for breakfast with biscuits and bacon. try get that at mcdonalds for breakfast.
Jennifer1984 On about 4 hours ago
Returner and proud





Penzance, United Kingdom
#12New Post! Apr 16, 2017 @ 10:57:11
@Eaglebauer Said

He's using a phrasing that is actually fairly common in logical philosophy.


Which is great if you're a logical philosopher. I still prefer English.


@Eaglebauer Said

Again, in terms of logical philosophy (which he's speaking in) the fallacy is not clear. A post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy in general posits an event as a result of something that precedes it in the absence of any reasonable causality...because temporal sequence sets up a sort of false causality. If I wear black shoes to a sporting event and my favorite team wins, a post hoc fallacy would be to say that I should wear my "lucky black shoes" to every game because that is what caused them to win.


It seems pretty obvious to me. Perhaps I should become a Logical Philosopher.

I reckon most reasonable people of average intelligence would see the fallacy. To be honest, what I don't see is how it relates directly to the issue at hand. I prefer concrete thinking to abstract thinking. Just my personal preference, but in my profession concrete thinking is a good thing.


@Eaglebauer Said

In this case (the OP), the statement is too broad to call out that fallacy (although a more exact statement might make it apt) because there are in fact mountains of examples in which harming someone is the actual proximate cause of his or her death.


(my highlight) Quite right and again, referring to my profession being able to relate an issue of harm leading to death is a case of concrete thinking. But if there are mountains of good, solid examples to use then why use obscure, false and / or meaningless ones..? To highlight the fallacy..? What's the point of stating something that is obviously false in order to prove that a Latin phrase is a falsehood..? It doesn't make sense and is, to me, a complete waste of time and effort.

I'm not good at philosophy. I admit that. I do like to engage in some discussions when I see a point worth making and I agree that Philosophy can be illuminating in many instances. Unfortunately, for me, a lot of it comes across as stating the glaringly obvious but dressing it up in an attempt to sound clever.

Perhaps its just as well that I never encountered Socrates in the market place. It might not have been good for either of our souls. LOL.
Erimitus On August 09, 2020




The mind of God, Antarctica
#13New Post! Apr 16, 2017 @ 17:20:36
@twilitezone911 Said

i looked up " Post hoc ergo propter hoc " in wiki gave a good example.


The rooster crows immediately before sunrise; therefore the rooster causes the sun to rise.

but you lead the rooster to the pot, and cook him before the sun rise.who's care, if the sun rises.

you have some good damn foul for breakfast with biscuits and bacon. try get that at mcdonalds for breakfast.



OK, so you are saying that the rooster does not cause the sunrise!

Hmmm

how could we possibly support this claim?
Erimitus On August 09, 2020




The mind of God, Antarctica
#14New Post! Apr 16, 2017 @ 17:22:18
@chaski Said

Unless its one of those "catch and release" hunting excursions.



It took me a while but now...

Chuckle
Erimitus On August 09, 2020




The mind of God, Antarctica
#15New Post! Apr 16, 2017 @ 17:33:12
@Jennifer1984 Said

Firstly, let's speak in English, shall we..? How about we say "With this, therefore, because of this." At least everybody will know what we're talking about.

The fallacy is obvious. A conclusion based solely on the sequence of events rather than taking any other possible factors into account which might have influenced the outcome is clearly a falsehood.

There are many ways a person can be hurt. Words can cause emotional or psychological distress but in themselves they cannot kill. Therefore it is possible to cause hurt without leading to death.

Beating a child with a belt or slipper will cause that child physical suffering (and potentially a wide ranging number of other traumas), but unless the beating is excessive or other, more dangerous weapons are involved, the beating alone is highly unlikely to lead to the death of the child.


The OP has set a very broad question to which no one concise answer is available. The subject is complex and there are multiple reasons / factors involved in the evolution of a merely (merely..??) 'hurtful' individual's descent into extreme violence which causes death.

Lots to ponder here.




PS to the OP: I disagree vehemently with your tagline. We'll deal with that on another occasion, I'm sure.



First of all; post hoc ergo prompter hoc sounds a way lot cooler than after this therefore because of this.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: 1 2 3 · >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Be Respectful of Others

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Abortion
Sat Nov 01, 2008 @ 19:33
7 869
New posts   Relationships
Mon Mar 31, 2008 @ 23:34
10 318
New posts   Relationships
Mon Nov 06, 2006 @ 07:47
8 512
New posts   Relationships
Fri Oct 27, 2006 @ 15:24
10 557
New posts   Relationships
Mon Jan 02, 2006 @ 00:36
19 593