# Is it normal if i don't feel sympathy for kids who get tortured or beaten?



## Lawless (Sep 1, 2012)

I feel for children and those that I see as weak and defenseless. As for any other human it is entertainment. 

I force myself to feel something to tell me I'm not that far down, but I see no change.


----------



## Subtle Murder (May 19, 2012)

Yep, I knew I shouldn't have clicked "play". :crying:


----------



## adornedbygrace (Sep 2, 2012)

I was trying to talk to my intj husband about the abuse of women in Muslim countries and he just said that something about it being their culture and there are things in our culture others would consider evil. After an argument about his unsensativity he just said there's nothing we can do to change it, so get over it. Maybe if it was closer to home...
He has compassion on families who get screwed by CPS/DCF because they intruded into our lives for over a year... 
I think if something. Ad happened to someone an intj cared about, it would be different. He's fiercely protective.


----------



## chessio (Jul 18, 2012)

I'm unsure of my type, but I'm going to type my reactions while I watch here.

The piano music is striking a chord with me. haha. No I was serious, that wasn't supposed to be a pun.
Why is the piano music still playing.
What?? Why would they do that?? WTF??
WTAF?!!?
Ugh what is this text.
This is so sad.
OKAY I DON'T WANT TO SEE THE IMAGES, THANK YOU WARNING.
Okay, I'm done.
I know myself. Especially not at night in the dark. When I was 5 I walked into the living room at the worst moment because on TV there was a long scene showing a woman who'd hung herself and it's burned into my memory. I hate the name Hannah now as a result. It's a nice name but there was a man who had run into the room after reading a letter and he was just screaming her name over and over. So I'm done, bye guys.
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeygh I did that little preview thing to see if I could fast forward and now I'm freaked out.
So this isn't sympathy....this is fear and paranoia. I'm turning the lights on maybe it'll help. Okay readjusted. I'll just watch it. Okay no I won't I'm skipping ahead.

This isn't making me feel sympathetic at 4:13, I'm just getting nervous because I don't want to be scared. Dead people creep me out.

Okay this is kinda sad. Aww. Omg that's awful. JESUS WHO THE HELL ARE THESE PEOPLE. Holy shit. Restrained? Man. At first I thought my mom was right because she has a feeling biological parents (esp moms) are usually best...like the vague reasoning she gave me, I saw here, but then I realized CPS typically take them in the first place because the parents are abusive...but it's like even then the situation goes from awful to worst possible. Well, it seems like they just have awful judgement, so they might just be making the rule because they just...suck. Ah, but my mom's initial context might've been in her own country.
stabbed?! STABBED???
Baked? They use strange language.
Yes that's all.


----------



## castigat (Aug 26, 2012)

Jiktin said:


> roflmao and the piano is back and he's all serious face and she's like the mosquito did it. *"mosquitoes don't carry bats." i CANNOT *XDDD


Yeah. I figured it was insincere from the beginning, but this just really got me.


----------



## 37119 (Apr 11, 2012)

Animal cruelty makes me angrier. This definitely won't keep me up at night. It's sad, but I'm sorry to say that i really don't care that much.


----------



## Apdenoatis (May 23, 2012)

Laugh, yawn, grin, cry, I don't care what you do at the video, and no one really should care. What matters is if you would support this action or do it in real life. If you wouldn't, then no big deal. If you would, then it's a problem.


----------



## SMS2016 (Jul 1, 2011)

laylay918 said:


> [video=youtube;48YF1uEuCUA]
> I literally feel nothing, and i'm just wondering if i should get my head checked out. I don't find it funny or anything, it's just whatever to me.


I don't think it's a bad thing. I feel something towards it, but I don't think that's as important as understanding that this is fundamentally wrong. Maybe it doesn't "inspire" you, but does it enlighten you?

P.S. Didn't watch the vid. Maybe it's really stupid or cheesy or unsettling. I don't really know, just kind of keeping in mind those advertisements for humane shelters and the like.


----------



## nujabes (May 18, 2012)

laylay918 said:


> Well, there are obviously other courses of actions I could take. But if this were the ONLY course of action, and i would NEVER get caught, i probably would. The only thing stopping me are other punishments i could inflict and the authorities.


so you would beat a child to death if given the opportunity?

i think you're trying to be an internet tough guy. fuck you.


----------



## chessio (Jul 18, 2012)

gingertonic said:


> so you would beat a child to death if given the opportunity?
> 
> i think you're trying to be an internet tough guy. fuck you.


No no, see that's what I thought he said at first too. He said if it was the ONLY course of action. I thiiiiink he was inadvertently explaining sort of his reluctance to rule out even the slightest possibility.

Also I'm not sure if he's thinking 'beating' or 'beating the child to death.' I'm assuming it's the former, and that he's saying he'll punish the kid in every other way first, and if he's exhausted all those options and the authorities won't get in the way, then he'll beat the kid o_o

Yeesh, that sounds really bad. But that's...what I think...is going on. Okay. 

Also there are a lot of ways to make a child behave so I'm guessing he wouldn't ever had to get to that point anyway, which is why I'm assuming he's confident in saying something like that?? And maybe he's imagining in the hypothetical scenario where he wasn't able to discipline the kid in every single other method, the kid is devil spawn anyway?? I was kind of assuming that literally myself when I imagined someone who had sound morals but was desperate enough to do this. like an evil kid straight from hollywood horror films and the parent is like SHIT SELF DEFENSE. 

But I think it's likely that I might be using my own impressions to explain what laylay might be thinking. I kind of have a bad tendency to assume the best anyway. It makes it hard for me to instantly spot the jerks as a result.


----------



## nujabes (May 18, 2012)

Pianoasis said:


> @_laylay918_ A better question is would you ever do this to a child? Think, if a kid was really just bothering you, and you wanted it to shut up, would you do this to them?
> If you saw such a thing as this happening in real life, what would you do? Would you mind your business or act on your instincts and whoop some mexican ass?
> 
> If you answered no then you are not a sociopathic human being. Nothing wrong here.





chessio said:


> No no, see that's what I thought he said at first too. He said if it was the ONLY course of action. I thiiiiink he was inadvertently explaining sort of his reluctance to rule out even the slightest possibility.
> 
> Also I'm not sure if he's thinking 'beating' or 'beating the child to death.' I'm assuming it's the former, and that he's saying he'll punish the kid in every other way first, and if he's exhausted all those options and the authorities won't get in the way, then he'll beat the kid o_o
> 
> ...


Nope. Read the question again.


----------



## chessio (Jul 18, 2012)

Sorry @_gingertonic_, I'm not what you want me to see. When I said "he" said "But if this were the ONLY course of action" I had meant, when _laylay _said, direct quote, if it was the only course of action. Not the original question. I was focusing on his interpretation of the question, see? Or was that not the point? What are you thinking?


----------



## nujabes (May 18, 2012)

chessio said:


> Sorry @_gingertonic_, I'm not what you want me to see. When I said "he" said "But if this were the ONLY course of action" I had meant, when _laylay _said, direct quote, if it was the only course of action. Not the original question. I was focusing on his interpretation of the question, see? Or was that not the point? What are you thinking?





> _A better question is would you ever do this to a child? Think, if a kid was really just bothering you, and you wanted it to shut up, would you do this to them? _


Interpretation 1: would you beat a child in the same way the children in the video were beaten?
Interpretation 2: would you beat a child?

Answering yes to 1 is disturbing and possibly sociopathic, answering yes to 2 is pathetic. If your only option to get your kid to shut up is beating him/her, then *you*​ are the one with the problem.

Take your pick.


----------



## chessio (Jul 18, 2012)

gingertonic said:


> Interpretation 1: would you beat a child in the same way the children in the video were beaten?
> Interpretation 2: would you beat a child?
> 
> Answering yes to 1 is disturbing and possibly sociopathic, answering yes to 2 is pathetic. If your only option to get your kid to shut up is beating him/her, then *you*​ are the one with the problem.
> ...


Ahhh okay, I get it.

So I think now it's just a difference in morals.... 

The first one is inexcusable I think for all people, and my previous interpretation of what laylay said kind of depends on whether laylay would agree. 

The latter, I think varies from person to person and culture to culture. I'm saying this partly because of how I grew up, and I'm able to understand why a parent would do that. It's not creative and maybe it's more harmful, or maybe it can be beneficial once in a while, but I don't really know about that. From what I've seen "we" (as in kids from my culture) turned out okay I think, and most of us don't hate our parents. I'd have to research it, but from the little I've learned so far, it seems like in moderation and...you know, being extremely aware of what you're doing, people seem to think it can be okay. This is a really...explosive sort of topic I think, but it seems besides the point.

Your statement was kind of a value statement, wasn't it? So what I think doesn't really matter anymore, unless we change direction and start talking about whether it's right or wrong to beat a child....then we'll have to get out our books or for the introverts look inside ourselves, etc.

I think before that what I was talking about was "no laylay meant this" because my first feeling had been after "what?!", "don't jump to conclusions, maybe you're misinterpretating," and I found a reason to think so. He wasn't trying to be an internet tough guy I think?


----------



## nujabes (May 18, 2012)

chessio said:


> Ahhh okay, I get it.
> 
> So I think now it's just a difference in morals....
> 
> ...


If your only remaining method of controlling a small, inexperienced human who naturally recognizes you as an authority figure is physical violence, then your parenting skills are pathetic.

This isn't about whether or not beating kids is ok. This is about beating your kid as a last resort.

My point is that "last resort" is a cop out.


----------



## chessio (Jul 18, 2012)

gingertonic said:


> If your only remaining method of controlling a small, inexperienced human who naturally recognizes you as an authority figure is physical violence, then your parenting skills are pathetic.
> 
> This isn't about whether or not beating kids is ok. This is about beating your kid as a last resort.
> 
> My point is that "last resort" is a cop out.


Ahhh. Okay. Yeah you're right, that's essentially it. The parent has run out of ideas and has resorted to beating the child. Last resort.

Though now I'm wondering if there are some parents who don't use it as a last resort and have researched and prefer it - maybe they rationalize it as "I'm conditioning them to act in this way by using a negative reinforcement method a child can easily understand" since kids don't think very complexly and all that. I really doubt this is common though but I wonder if you would consider this bad parenting skills since it's not a last resort?


----------



## dagnytaggart (Jun 6, 2010)

Jiktin said:


> 3 minutes in and I'm giggling because the music is all happy and off and he sounds funny and so does the woman crying. And he keeps going x - evident that someone had hit her. lol duh... etc
> 
> You tell me.
> 
> ...


Steve Berkowitz. Credits also list him as the composer and performer of those "heartstring tugging" piano pieces, too. Seems like a rather controlling guy.


----------



## Sapphyreopal5 (Jun 11, 2012)

I wonder the following when it comes down to the cases of child abuse:
Why are stupid people allowed to have children in the first place?
What causes parents to hurt their kids, or adults inflicting harm on young children in the first place?
Why isn't more being done to prevent more of these types of incidents?
Why are people so blind to see what's happening?
Why are people so surprised and shocked when they see what others do?

I think about how preventable violence towards others generally speaking is, let it be towards other adults, children (or even other children). It disturbs me how people do not get the help they need if it is needed. It disturbs me how people react to these things _after_ they happen, rather than actually _preventing_ these things from happening as much as they do in the first place. I certainly think preventing further occurrences in cases of child abuse is helpful but it would seem more helpful to me to try preventing occurrences _before_ they actually happen and not just _after_ they have already happened.

I tend to think that stupid people or people who are mentally unstable and are predisposed to hurting others should think twice about having kids. I know it is a biological instinct all humans (and all living organisms) have to spread their genes so they live on as a way of self preservation, yet I believe people need to think twice if they aren't meant to have children. Will this happen? In many cases, no. I sometimes wish that there was a set of laws set in place, so that there is criteria that needs to be met in order to be qualified to have children. No, I don't believe that having children should be considered a right but rather a privilege. Will this ever happen? In some places, they are trying to set up a criteria for whether someone can have children or how many they can have (think of China's and India's policies on having children), although I don't think the methods necessarily work as well as intended. I wish only intelligent and mentally sound people had children, so that this sort of thing doesn't happen. If less people were abused in this world let it be when they are children or grown adults, we wouldn't have as many problems as we do in this world IMO.

Since we can probably agree that preventing people who aren't ideal for parenting is a rather challenging task (and one that may never be fulfilled efficiently for a multitude of reasons), I believe more can be done to prevent people from abusing others in the first place. We should look at why people do these things. I often think people who hurt others as a way of solving their problems were probably either: a. abused as children or are currently abused in a relationship or whatever; b. don't know how to vent out their frustrations and therefore use their children or spouse or whoever as an outlet to do such; c. have lost their own feeling of control (whether it's internally, externally or even both) and therefore act impulsively in the moment when they are feeling a lack of control; d. they lack the proper critical thinking skills to comprehend why things are happening the way they are and how they can possibly resolve the issue; e. they believe they can get away with it and really don’t want to change (if they realize there are better ways of doing things but just want to act on their impulses); f. it is about power and domination (sadly this is sometimes the case); or whatever the person's reasoning is. I believe that in order to properly prevent more occurrences, there needs to be more education on teaching critical thinking and problem solving skills.

I also believe there needs to be more education in understanding why people who are victims of abuse think the way they do and why they may not get the help they need on their own terms. They may a. believe they are in the wrong and the abuser is in the right; b. think that they are simply being punished; c. think this is all the world is all about and that there isn’t any other option, so they accept things as they are even if it hurts them; d. they possibly feel ashamed of themselves and their situation and don’t deserve the help they need; e. they do not believe others are willing to help them or at least understand them; or whatever the reason may be. Again, I think more education is needed to help people understand why the people being abused react the way they do or why they think the way they do… and why they don’t always get or ask for the help they clearly need.

I won’t lie that the video itself was an embarrassment and the director ought to be ashamed of their work. They clearly were trying to shove down pity down every viewer’s throats instead of offering real solutions to the problem. All they did was throw statistics around and graphic pictures to invoke an emotional response in others, rather than show alternatives to the very real problem of child abuse and violence towards others period. While it is a problem that needs to be addressed and such, the video made a very poor attempt in making people aware. Their approach makes people _reactive_ towards those who are abused or abusive, instead of making people _proactive_ in helping prevent further cases of abuse or actually helping solve the problem at hand. I believe that while the video was made with intentions to making others more aware of the seriousness of child abuse, how they presented the issue is ironically why some people become (or are) indifferent to the issue. 

I take issue with those who say it doesn't affect them directly and therefore don’t care. Guess what? It affects _everyone_, whether we are aware of it or not. The person you sit next to in class, your lab partner in chemistry class (or any other class for that matter), your boss, your parents, your best friend, your boyfriend or girlfriend, your husband or wife, your niece or nephew, or may be even that stranger standing in front of you in the grocery store. Everyone’s actions and interactions with others can be greatly impacted by their own situations. Have you not been affected by someone you know suddenly withdrawing to themselves, randomly lashing out at you or at your friend, or someone even showing hostility and anger towards the world (and perhaps is seen as threatening due to such an attitude)? Have you not been disturbed to see someone react the way they do to certain situations and resort to violent, irrational thinking to solve their problems?

I can understand your stance on “not caring” because quite frankly it’s hard to truly “care” if you can’t do anything to stop it or prevent it from happening in the big scheme of things. There will always be a number of poor souls unfortunate enough to live such a lifestyle and those who don’t seek the help they need. It’s impossible to make it so that this never occurs, although a lot of the times more can certainly be done to prevent this from happening more. However, it is people being indifferent and assuming someone being abused doesn’t have an impact on them because it really does that help prevent people from getting the help they need in the first place. 

Let me ask you this: how would YOU think and feel if you were in the shoes of an abused child and everyone else assumed what is happening to you personally has no impact on them? What would you think if someone said it’s not my problem if someone’s life at home sucks? In the big scheme of things, it affects everyone if someone is suffering whether it is obvious or not. If someone’s horrible lifestyle is affecting their interactions with others, it IS going to impact you in ways you don’t consciously realize. I believe it is not only ignorant but irrational to assume that this kind of thing does not impact you because guess what? It impacts everyone, not just the abuser or the abused.

Do I think it's a horrible thing to not let this kind of thing bring you down to the point of not being able to think about or do other things? No. I don't ponder upon these things and let it bring me down or anything. Do I think it's a horrible thing to not act upon preventing this sort of thing via your career choice or joining a nonprofit organization in attempts to prevent this sort of thing? No I don't. What horrifies me more is that a lot of these cases are highly preventable and how such idiots could be allowed to have children in the first place. Genuinely not caring about others’ welfare simply because it doesn't directly affect you is problematic I will admit. Not everyone needs to invest their time and resources in being committed to prevent this sort of thing, as that would be impractical and just not logical.

To answer the question of whether this is normal or not is to define what is normal in the first place, which is a more complex question that is an entirely different topic if you ask me. I certainly think a lot of people have that mindset. Does that mean something is right or wrong because others perceive such? No. Is your point of view understandable? Yes. Should other people accept it just because it is a commonly shared opinion by others? No.


----------



## laylay918 (Jul 23, 2012)

gingertonic said:


> Interpretation 1: would you beat a child in the same way the children in the video were beaten?
> Interpretation 2: would you beat a child?
> 
> Answering yes to 1 is disturbing and possibly sociopathic, answering yes to 2 is pathetic. If your only option to get your kid to shut up is beating him/her, then *you*​ are the one with the problem.
> ...


nope. try again. interpretation 3: Would i beat a child in the same way the children in the video were beaten if i wanted to get it off my back AND it were the _*ONLY*_ given way to beat them at that particular moment *AND *without getting caught by the police.

cheesio was right.


----------



## laylay918 (Jul 23, 2012)

chessio said:


> No no, see that's what I thought he said at first too. He said if it was the ONLY course of action. I thiiiiink he was inadvertently explaining sort of his reluctance to rule out even the slightest possibility.
> 
> Also I'm not sure if he's thinking 'beating' or 'beating the child to death.' I'm assuming it's the former, and that he's saying he'll punish the kid in every other way first, and if he's exhausted all those options and the authorities won't get in the way, then he'll beat the kid o_o
> 
> ...



thanks for attempting to set him right, but he is obviously too retarded to comprehend the premise of what i was trying to say


----------



## nujabes (May 18, 2012)

laylay918 said:


> nope. try again. interpretation 3: Would i beat a child in the same way the children in the video were beaten if i wanted to get it off my back AND it were the _*ONLY*_ given way to beat them at that particular moment *AND *without getting caught by the police.
> 
> cheesio was right.


and i'm saying if you need to beat a child to control them, you're pathetic.

any way you try to spin this, you're pathetic.


----------



## Verthani (May 8, 2012)

I think the subject matter is sympathetic but the video is trying too hard. Its trying too hard to be sad and shocking, about something that is innately sad and shocking, and it comes off as melodramatic. I'm seen dramatizations about this that are more genuinely sad because they let the weight and reality of the subject matter carry through. This is coming from someone who isn't even that big on children. I was more interested in why CPS is apparently so bad at their job. Seriously, are people that apathetic anymore that they become social workers and just go "oh well, a million is a statistic."


----------



## chessio (Jul 18, 2012)

laylay918 said:


> thanks for attempting to set him right, but he is obviously too retarded to comprehend the premise of what i was trying to say


Ahaha, you're welcome (glad I was right)



gingertonic said:


> and i'm saying if you need to beat a child to control them, you're pathetic.
> 
> any way you try to spin this, you're pathetic.


I think you're seeing it as that 'only option' he's talking about being in a realistic or even plausible situation. I was thinking of it as, maybe because I'm not that creative and I swear I'm not trying to troll, the kid from _The Orphan _or something is attacking you and you're trying to defend yourself. In the context of the real world, a kid like that would probably need help and that's where you'd take action I suppose, but if we're looking at it from the context of a philosophical discussion "Would you ever highly specific x" and you've reduced it to "would you a or b," or more specifically, "if it were for self defense, he's got you cornered with a weapon, blahblahblah" and it seems to be either hurt him to protect yourself or do nothing - or try to talk him down, but if it doesn't work you're back to the other two options, then yeah, I think you'd have to hurt him. Though from this context I didn't consider if the authorities would catch me or not because I'd be figuring my life was at stake, and jail is the better option and they might have taken the poor child as a precaution but later believed my story, or not, buuuuut either way, that's extra information. 

So because this is really unlikely....I think it's okay to think this way. Because it won't ever happen, and if it did, the reasons are understandable. There aren't many situations with an absolute for choices where you can't think of a ridiculous situation to act as an exception. I'm guessing a more creative person would be able to bring it home and then we'd have to think if it would still be 'pathetic' to act in this way now.


----------



## nujabes (May 18, 2012)

chessio said:


> Ahaha, you're welcome (glad I was right)
> 
> 
> I think you're seeing it as that 'only option' he's talking about being in a realistic or even plausible situation. I was thinking of it as, maybe because I'm not that creative and I swear I'm not trying to troll, the kid from _The Orphan _or something is attacking you and you're trying to defend yourself. In the context of the real world, a kid like that would probably need help and that's where you'd take action I suppose, but if we're looking at it from the context of a philosophical discussion "Would you ever highly specific x" and you've reduced it to "would you a or b," or more specifically, "if it were for self defense, he's got you cornered with a weapon, blahblahblah" and it seems to be either hurt him to protect yourself or do nothing - or try to talk him down, but if it doesn't work you're back to the other two options, then yeah, I think you'd have to hurt him. Though from this context I didn't consider if the authorities would catch me or not because I'd be figuring my life was at stake, and jail is the better option and they might have taken the poor child as a precaution but later believed my story, or not, buuuuut either way, that's extra information.
> ...


Highly specific scenarios are not usually the subjects of philosophical discussions.

But hey. Whatever. He made the thread and wanted to get opinions on his reaction. I gave mine and he got butthurt because I called him out on his bullshit.

Don't want opinions that threaten your ego? Don't ask for them.


----------



## Sapphyreopal5 (Jun 11, 2012)

There are _always _alternative options, even if they aren't being presented to you by someone else or even directly by the situation.


----------



## chessio (Jul 18, 2012)

gingertonic said:


> Highly specific scenarios are not usually the subjects of philosophical discussions.
> 
> But hey. Whatever. He made the thread and wanted to get opinions on his reaction. I gave mine and he got butthurt because I called him out on his bullshit.
> 
> Don't want opinions that threaten your ego? Don't ask for them.


I've been made to understand that most thought experiments are made to try to understand the essence of ethics/morals and right and wrong by being designed to present you with two or three very distinct choices so that there is no grey area. They kind of put what they see as the heart of an issue in it's own little box and poke at it. So it kind of has to be highly specific, I thought, by, what, implication/association?

Yeah, I guess it's whatever.



Sapphyreopal5 said:


> There are _always _alternative options, even if they aren't being presented to you by someone else or even directly by the situation.


I think I agree with you, especially in the context of the real world. I think kind of lost perspective myself.


----------



## laylay918 (Jul 23, 2012)

gingertonic said:


> Highly specific scenarios are not usually the subjects of philosophical discussions.
> 
> But hey. Whatever. He made the thread and wanted to get opinions on his reaction. I gave mine and he got butthurt because I called him out on his bullshit.
> 
> Don't want opinions that threaten your ego? Don't ask for them.


the thing about that is that your opinion is invalid. i wrote something, then you couldn't comprehend it and ended up responding to something which i didn't even say. you're an inarticulate dumb ass mother fucker who isn't capable of staying in tune with a coherent topic.


----------



## muhahaha (Sep 1, 2012)

It's only a problem if you witness it happening and do nothing about it.


----------



## muhahaha (Sep 1, 2012)

It's ok if you don't feel sympathy dude, as long as you don't find it amusing you are perfectly fine.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Quite a few psychopaths in this thread.


----------



## Sapphyreopal5 (Jun 11, 2012)

Seriously, this is supposed to be a discussion. The fact some of you are resorting to name-calling others just because they don't "agree" with your point of view is absurd. Not only is it unnecessary to name-call others, you are weakening your argument by insulting others. Do you want others to take your point of view into consideration or at least "get" where you are coming from, or are you just feel like getting all butt sore over a different opinion?


----------



## nujabes (May 18, 2012)

laylay918 said:


> the thing about that is that your opinion is invalid. i wrote something, then you couldn't comprehend it and ended up responding to something which i didn't even say. you're an inarticulate dumb ass mother fucker who isn't capable of staying in tune with a coherent topic.


----------



## laylay918 (Jul 23, 2012)

not mad. just exasperated


----------



## laylay918 (Jul 23, 2012)

gingertonic said:


>


not mad. just exasperated


----------



## Monsieur Dini (May 7, 2012)

laylay918 said:


> not mad. just exasperated


aka Mad...


----------



## HippoHunter94 (Jan 19, 2012)

I got beat a few times when I was a kid, so I certainly empathize. I mean, if the kid deserves it, then not really. If it's just for some sick thrill, then I'd feel more upset at the person directing harm than compassion for the kid.


----------



## Navi (Jul 8, 2012)

laylay918 said:


> the thing about that is that your opinion is invalid. i wrote something, then you couldn't comprehend it and ended up responding to something which i didn't even say. you're an inarticulate dumb ass mother fucker who isn't capable of staying in tune with a coherent topic.


Oh dear. 










That was indeed, rather articulate.


----------



## RecklessInspirer (Oct 11, 2010)

I had to turn it off after 1 minute. Too boring


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

I feel very strongly about child abuse, because I was abused a lot as a child.


----------



## King of Cynics (Feb 6, 2013)

Define normal. If you can't do so, then avoid asking the question.


----------



## InnodenceII (Feb 17, 2014)

*The Rabbit Hole...*



laylay918 said:


> I literally feel nothing, and i'm just wondering if i should get my head checked out. I don't find it funny or anything, it's just whatever to me.


Just for clarification, do you want a psychoanalytical dissection of why this is normal in this specific case, or just subjective confirmation/declination of normality from different human beings.


----------



## Nexus6 (May 21, 2010)

I'm sorry but it isn't clear to me what you're asking. The title asks if it's normal not to feel sympathy for kids who are abused, and yet many responses are actually referring to the video not eliciting a sympathetic response. 

Did you mean to say that you don't feel sympathetic after watching that video and therefore do not think you're sympathetic to abuse in general, and are asking if that response is normal? 

Its really not not clear to me what you're getting at. 

Not feeling sympathy to another person's pain and suffering is not normal, no. 

However, just because an overly dramatic video makes you uncomfortable does not mean that you are unsympathetic. It probably just means that you don't like dramatic, overly emotional situations.


----------



## Kingdom Crusader (Jan 4, 2012)

I didn't watch the video, but just hearing about terrible things done to a child makes my heart go out, cringe, angry, etc. I get that way more so now because I have a 5-year-old son.


Edit: Just saw the video and I'm disgusted, along with the emotions I predicted I would have in the statement above. I don't really understand those who aren't affected by that in the least.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

I don't respond well to sympathetic appeals. I might care more if they had presented statistics about the negative consequences of children experiencing these things and what other people have done that seems to be helping minimize those consequences. But even then, there are so many issues in the world, what makes any one more important to tend to emotionally than the others?


----------



## o_canard (Oct 7, 2013)

That is awful. I'm sorry she had to put up with that. 

You do not know her, you are not a friend of hers and you have no personal connection to the story. 

Your reaction is understandable. 

However, I don't think you chose your words very well. "Sympathy" is more a mental state. Like, "Yes. I acknowledge that this situation is less than ideal for her. Understandably, she is just beside herself with grief." So, no. It is not common to ignore suffering but it is possible to have no empathy and not feel what she is feeling. In fact, you are a step ahead if you have those kind of boundaries. It means you have a healthy self-worth.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

I didn't feel sad but helping anyway is helpful


----------



## Hidden from Sight (Jan 3, 2014)

"True" (for lack of being able to conjure a better word) sympathy is like "true" respect: it's earned, and not begged for. If you don't feel sympathy in situation X but you feel it in situation Y, that just means situation X didn't hold enough in common with your life and experiences enough to garner sympathy, whereas situation Y clicked with some past experience, etc., that you experienced, causing you to feel sympathetic towards it.


----------



## SweetPickles (Mar 19, 2012)

I think you would see it differently if you witnessed it or it was done to someone you care about.

I think I am abnormal because I am a woman who doesn't really like babies, OMG when they cry! I have no idea why, I think they scare me. I also just think BURDEN. That isn't a normal woman of child bearing age reaction. (I don't even think they are that cute).


----------



## miuliu (Nov 3, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Ugh. Yeah, way too much feeler crap for me to even bother. It comes off as insincere and inauthentic, especially coupled with that horrible piano music in the background. I skipped a little into it and just felt like throwing up. How can I care or bother to connect when you try to ram sympathy down my throat?
> 
> You know what's wrong is this video being made this way. Fuck, I find documentaries about the Holocaust more heart-breaking than this, and that's one of the things being the most over-done when it comes to playing our sympathy heart strings.
> 
> In other words: I don't give a fuck.


I see all of the same things you do, I understand how intentional emotional influence, or manipulation works. All feelers do very well. But I still cried for a bit while watching and so would most of feelers. Mostly for seeing the faces of the children and thinking about the ways they suffered without any responsibility on their part.

Why I quoted you is to note something I noticed about thinkers and that is that they get angry if under the impression they are being intentionally emotionally manipulated/influenced. You're still emotional, only in a different way because you seem to think there is malice, or maybe unintentional harm behind this video. I don't, so my emotions are directed to the video, not the producers.

@laylay918 You shouldn't be too worried. Lower feeling function means that it won't be engaged into processing the world most of the time. Your focus is to think about this video so you won't feel the need to cry. Thinkers can be very emotional, but don't activate the emotion all the time, and often when they do activate emotion, they overdo it because they don't know what to do with themselves. Chances are, you're fine.

If you suspect you're a sociopath, you need to examine your behavior and look into textbooks regarding the matter. Psychopathy/sociopathy is a very severe anomaly and you will stand out, regardless weather compared to feelers, or thinkers.



Hidden from Sight said:


> "True" (for lack of being able to conjure a better word) sympathy is like "true" respect: it's earned, and not begged for. If you don't feel sympathy in situation X but you feel it in situation Y, that just means situation X didn't hold enough in common with your life and experiences enough to garner sympathy, whereas situation Y clicked with some past experience, etc., that you experienced, causing you to feel sympathetic towards it.


That is Fi. Internalizing of emotion. Subjective information perception.
Fe users don't need past, _internal_, pre-prepared information, for accepting of the emotional part of the video. Gathering surrounding emotion as it is, is sufficient. Taking it objectively.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

lapa said:


> I see all of the same things you do, I understand how intentional emotional influence, or manipulation works. All feelers do very well. But I still cried for a bit while watching and so would most of feelers. Mostly for seeing the faces of the children and thinking about the ways they suffered without any responsibility on their part.
> 
> Why I quoted you is to note something I noticed about thinkers and that is that they get angry if under the impression they are being intentionally emotionally manipulated/influenced. You're still emotional, only in a different way because you seem to think there is malice, or maybe unintentional harm behind this video. I don't, so my emotions are directed to the video, not the producers.


Fyi I only feel that about Fe really. That video Fe reeks. I have never claimed myself to be unemotional or even lacking in emotion. Nor am I against being exposed to emotional content. No. I'm just fucking picky. Emotion is beautiful when it's done subtly. Also that patronizing tone. Gtfo.


----------



## miuliu (Nov 3, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Fyi I only feel that about Fe really. That video Fe reeks. I have never claimed myself to be unemotional or even lacking in emotion. Nor am I against being exposed to emotional content. No. I'm just fucking picky. Emotion is beautiful when it's done subtly.


The point of all that is that you seem to see malice in Fe. That, that is the part of the reason "you're picky". Am I wrong?



> Also that patronizing tone. Gtfo.


There is no tone. You're imagining it. So no.


----------



## Gruvian (Feb 6, 2014)

ephemereality said:


> How can I care or bother to connect when you try to ram sympathy down my throat?


This is what I hate in videos like this, personally I think it's alright if they make videos about child abuse to raise the awareness of its existence. But why the pathetic music in the background? Is it supposed to make me cry or what? I never felt any kind of emotion when watching videos about anything like child abuse, racism, slavery etc. But that doesn't mean I think it's acceptable. 



lapa said:


> Why I quoted you is to note something I noticed about thinkers and that is that they get angry if under the impression they are being intentionally emotionally manipulated/influenced.


But aren't videos like this supposed to trigger sympathy because of their content, not for the purpose of making you feel sympathy because their topic is generally bad? I'm not angry at this. I just find it pointless to put that kind of music in the background as if it's going to change anything. The video is poorly done, it needs to hold more power.


----------



## miuliu (Nov 3, 2013)

Gruvian said:


> But aren't videos like this supposed to trigger sympathy because of their content, not for the purpose of making you feel sympathy because their topic is generally bad? I'm not angry at this. I just find it pointless to put that kind of music in the background as if it's going to change anything. The video is poorly done, it needs to hold more power.


I should have been clearer. It was Fe that seemed malicious to this particular thinker. Meaning, this must be more common for half of the thinker types. Those that use Fi.


----------

