# A Dad Took Photos of His Naked Toddler for the Doctor. Google Flagged Him as a Criminal.



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

Squirt said:


> One issue the original topic raises is whether or not spying on everyone is okay in the name of preventing child abuse.


It's not okay. Don't spy on people.


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

Squirt said:


> Anyway, for clarity the analogies I interpreted from the story, based on the assumption they should be relevant to the article, were drinking wine = child porn (questionable comparison). Spying on a house = using algorithms to look for suspicious photos in cloud. Not spying because it is wrong = Not using the algorithm because it is wrong.
> 
> From this, I am gathering that he is saying any form of monitoring, even for the purposes of detecting child porn, is wrong. That argument would be valuable to discuss, but I found it difficult to get to the real stakes in the context of a story that says it is bad to spy on people for drinking wine.


How do you make that equivalency when there was no actual child abuse in neither the story I quoted nor the article?


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

ENFPathetic said:


> No, that's not the lesson. The lesson is that spying is wrong. So much so, that when the leader of the Muslim world found people committing one the 5 major sins, he turned away from them out of acknowledgement for the sin that he committed by spying on them in the first place.


That’s interesting. It seems like a lot of suffering might go uninterrupted if you’re supposed to turn away when you see people doing something wrong. How is that handled?


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

Squirt said:


> That’s interesting. It seems like a lot of suffering might go uninterrupted if you’re supposed to turn away when you see people doing something wrong. How is that handled?


You don't turn away from oppression. You put a stop to it. But you don't use the suspicion of oppression to justify an oppression of your own, namely spying.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

ENFPathetic said:


> How do you make that equivalency when there was no actual child abuse in neither the story I quoted nor the article?


Because the article is about using surveillance to detect child porn (abusive). I’m looking at the entire picture where this system was put in place, not just one false positive incident.

I think the disconnect is where you say a sin _is_ happening in the stories, not that it is merely suspected but _not_ happening.

Maybe a better question is what are you supposed to do with suspicions? It is easy to turn away in cases where harm to others isn’t the concern, but what about cases where it is?


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Squirt said:


> I have no idea what you’re talking about with taking away people’s kids based on assumptions. I’m contesting how a story was used to make an argument, not advocating some potentially tangentially-related policy about it. I’d like the problem to be clear before you’d even start with the possible solutions (where the one you accused wouldn’t even be on the list).
> 
> My “weird logic” is called analogy. Analogies are often employed in religious storytelling to teach good behavior, so there is a good chance the story is an analogy of some kind. My objection is that the analogies of the story as I saw them are not relevant enough to this situation.
> 
> ...


You didn't even get the moral of the story and now you're going on about analogies? 😂 Squirt, you're usually pretty smart, but did you decide to suddenly drop about 40 IQ points?  You were saying how you think it's okay to spy on a household to look for child abuse. First off, that's irrelevant as the OP is about the foolishness of a dad taking pictures of his kid's wiener then uploading it to the internet.

Your weird logic isn't an analogy. You didn't understand the moral of the story then started talking about random carp that fits your narrative but would never be agreeable to an actual parent. You know, parents like my wife and I. I really don't care if you think I'm too literal, I think you're being dumb about this when you were the one who didn't get it.

The rest of your post, ho boy. Do you need to deliberate every time you need to understand something when the point of the story should've been implicit? 😂 I'm guessing you're bored and navel gazing while waxing poetic. Free pass it is.


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

Squirt said:


> Because the article is about using surveillance to detect child porn (abusive). I’m looking at the entire picture where this system was put in place, not just one false positive incident.
> 
> I think the disconnect is where you say a sin _is_ happening in the stories, not that it is merely suspected but _not_ happening.
> 
> Maybe a better question is what are you supposed to do with suspicions? It is easy to turn away in cases where harm to others isn’t the concern, but what about cases where it is?


Understandable.

"O you who have believed, *avoid much [negative] assumption*. *Indeed, some assumption is sin*. And do not spy or backbite each other. Would one of you like to eat the flesh of his brother when dead? You would detest it. And fear Allah ; indeed, Allah is Accepting of repentance and Merciful."

When you have a suspicion that someone is being harmed, you investigate it. Start with the assumptions that give your fellow human the benefit of the doubt. Once you rule them out, and are left with only negative assumptions to work with, you proceed carefully. If you've established that there is actual abuse going on, you take action.

You do not spy on people in the name of investigating potential abuse. Perhaps the logic being employed here is the lesser of two evils reasoning. And while it is solid a concept that I firmly believe in, the problem here is, it is not the evil of spying vs the evil of abuse. It is the evil of spying vs the suspicion of abuse.

If it were indeed the evil of spying vs the evil of abuse, I've said multiple times that you do not turn away from oppression. Of course there are extenuating circumstances that would allow you to partially turn away from oppression. Such as the inability to do anything about it. In which case you say something about it. And if that's not possible, then you hate in your heart. However, I repeat, this is not the evil of spying vs the evil of abuse. It is the evil of spying vs the suspicion of abuse.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

Scoobyscoob said:


> You didn't even get the moral of the story and now you're going on about analogies? 😂 Squirt, you're usually pretty smart, but did you decide to suddenly drop about 40 IQ points?  You were saying how you think it's okay to spy on a household to look for child abuse. First off, that's irrelevant as the OP is about the foolishness of a dad taking pictures of his kid's wiener then uploading it to the internet.
> 
> Your weird logic isn't an analogy. You didn't understand the moral of the story then started talking about random carp that fits your narrative but would never be agreeable to an actual parent. You know, parents like my wife and I. I really don't care if you think I'm too literal, I think you're being dumb about this when you were the one who didn't get it.
> 
> The rest of your post, ho boy. Do you need to deliberate every time you need to understand something when the point of the story should've been implicit? 😂 I'm guessing you're bored and nasal gazing while waxing poetic. Free pass it is.


Am I being poetic? I thought I was being excessively diagnostic because I was missing something obvious. 

--

Thanks @ENFPathetic for clarifying. What Google is doing is an even worse case than the two fellows patrolling and hearing a suspicious revelry. It would be more akin to checking inside every neighbor's cabinet every night because there _might _be liquor in them no matter what they're doing.

There is the added layer that internet comes with a lot more confusion and blurred lines around what is private vs public, and mass surveillance gains traction by exploiting the confusion.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Squirt said:


> Am I being poetic? I thought I was being excessively diagnostic because I was missing something obvious.
> 
> --
> 
> ...


That was very Ti of an ESTP of you to do.  I know a few ESTPs well and a few ESFPs too, who need to write out and/or talk out their thoughts to fully process it.You just needed the added fact that Muslims think spying on someone is worse than drinking alcohol. Which as a Christian I would also agree.

It's all automated so no one is actually doing the looking. I've heard of Facebook moderators developing depression and PTSD from moderating stuff that gets passed around there, so I'm for automated algorithms that will red flag inappropriate material. If there are photos of naked kids then something has already gone terribly wrong and if it ends being circulated on Google or Facebook then... well it's probably too late to shield them from harm as they're likely already being abused and the best that could be done for them would be to get rid of the abusers, but an automated system can at least stop feeding the "needs" of pedos on the web.


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

Squirt said:


> Am I being poetic? I thought I was being excessively diagnostic because I was missing something obvious.
> 
> --
> 
> ...


You're welcome. And you hit the nail on the head. What they are doing is extremely intrusive. And it's not anything new. Power hungry leaders have used the masses hatred for an abhorrent evil to leverage power countless times throughout history. Storming people's homes. Stop and frisk. Searching someone's car because they "smell" something illegal.

The spying in the name of suspicion has been an accepted practice in the physical world for some time already. This is just the digital version of it. And they will get away with it. It is not because the lines are blurred between what is private and what is not. Those lines are clear in the physical world as well as the digital world. The reason they will get away with it is because the masses will focus on the emotions cruelty elicits over being just. Especially when this cruelty is done to a child. So all they have to say is, "we have to stop the abuse of children by any means necessary" while showing semi graphic images of children that have been abused. And this is will put a lot of men and women in a state of emotion where they will willingly give up their personal right to privacy, and further they will start to view anyone who doesn't want to comply with the intrusive measures as someone who sympathises with the abusers.


----------



## Dalien (Jul 21, 2010)

The whole damn problem is that the Internet is a _public_ domain.

And, it doesn’t matter that pieces of your private life can be splattered across the waves. It ends up that you can’t stop it once it’s put out there.

Think before you leap is the moral of this story.


----------



## Dalien (Jul 21, 2010)

Error


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

Scoobyscoob said:


> That was very Ti of an ESTP of you to do.
> 
> I know a few ESTPs well and a few ESFPs too, who need to write out and/or talk out their thoughts to fully process it.You just needed the added fact that Muslims think spying on someone is worse than drinking alcohol. Which as a Christian I would also agree.


“Processing thoughts?” Like being unsure what you think until you say it? That isn’t what I meant by diagnostic.

I was trying to pinpoint where I misunderstood ENFPathetic, as you and he seemed to be on a very different page than me, so I laid out my assumptions to be evaluated. He cleared up where I made wrong ones, so that was cool. Any attempt at effectively communicating is a process, imo.

There isn't as much discussion in Christianity about the moral implications of spying, is there? That would be an interesting comparison.



Scoobyscoob said:


> It's all automated so no one is actually doing the looking. I've heard of Facebook moderators developing depression and PTSD from moderating stuff that gets passed around there, so I'm for it. If there are photos of naked kids then something has already gone terribly wrong and if it ends being circulated on Google or Facebook then... well it's probably too late for the children as they're likely already being abused but at least an automated system can stop feeding the "needs" of pedos on the web.


An algorithm to moderate explicit content circulating social media makes sense as a development because the volume of all uploads is so high, humans would have trouble keeping up.

As these surveillance tools are become more advanced, they are being used more broadly by many different organizations/countries for different purposes. All jokes about the dad uploading stuff he shouldn't aside, that is concerning.



ENFPathetic said:


> You're welcome. And you hit the nail on the head. What they are doing is extremely intrusive. And it's not anything new. Power hungry leaders have used the masses hatred for an abhorrent evil to leverage power countless times throughout history. Storming people's homes. Stop and frisk. Searching someone's car because they "smell" something illegal.
> 
> The spying in the name of suspicion has been an accepted practice in the physical world for some time already. This is just the digital version of it. And they will get away with it. It is not because the lines are blurred between what is private and what is not. Those lines are clear in the physical world as well as the digital world. The reason they will get away with it is because the masses will focus on the emotions cruelty elicits over being just. Especially when this cruelty is done to a child. So all they have to say is, "we have to stop the abuse of children by any means necessary" while showing semi graphic images of children that have been abused. And this is will put a lot of men and women in a state of emotion where they will willingly give up their personal right to privacy, and further they will start to view anyone who doesn't want to comply with the intrusive measures as someone who sympathises with the abusers.


While oppressive regimes are not new, I think the lines are definitely not as clear in virtual spaces and that has a big impact on acceptance of invasive surveillance.

You go to a website or even just connect to an unsecured network, and there are a hundred “eyes” on you. It is not a private space, but because average folks are using an interface that doesn’t show how much traffic is passing over their connection, it feels like they’re doing something privately. Like a two-way mirror. It makes it easier for surveillance to go unheeded and become accepted because it is less visible. I hear so many people say, “Well I have nothing to hide! Who cares.” I doubt they’d be singing that tune if someone was going through their pockets every time they left their house. Out of sight, out of mind.



Dalien said:


> The whole damn problem is that the Internet is a _public_ domain.
> 
> And, it doesn’t matter that pieces of your private life can be splattered across the waves. It ends up that you can’t stop it once it’s put out there.
> 
> Think before you leap is the moral of this story.


Can I bring up some broad questions? What happens when people's entire lives are linked to the internet or third-party databases in some way, as is the current trend? You don't even have to expressly put out information for inferences to be made, for other data to be collected and analyzed - and what is being done with the analysis?

Corporate Surveillance in Everyday Life (crackedlabs.org) 

In reality, having photos on the cloud scanned for illegal content is a drop in the bucket compared to the massive information collection that happens without consent.

Apparently, the FTC is in the middle of drafting rules for regulating commercial surveillance on consumers... because federal legislation for it has stalled for decades thanks to lobbying from tech giants. Europe has been way ahead of the US on that front.

FTC Explores Rules Cracking Down on Commercial Surveillance and Lax Data Security Practices | Federal Trade Commission


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Squirt said:


> “Processing thoughts?” Like being unsure what you think until you say it? That isn’t what I meant by diagnostic.
> 
> I was trying to pinpoint where I misunderstood ENFPathetic, as you and he seemed to be on a very different page than me, so I laid out my assumptions to be evaluated. He cleared up where I made wrong ones, so that was cool. Any attempt at effectively communicating is a process, imo.
> 
> ...


 My ESTP friends don't like it when I say stuff like this but I really meant more like villain monologuing. 😛😂 I find that Se-doms sometimes like to talk and/or write things out before being able to come to a conclusion on something they find to be vexing. With ESTPs, it kind of comes of comes off as villain monologuing and with ESFPs it seems more like soliloquizing. Squirt is a good girl though and very much an INTJ, so I doubt any real villainy is taking place here.  

Dude, religious parables are purposely written to be easy to understand. You made it very clear that you don't think it's wrong to spy on a household to go looking for child abuse. No one who doesn't do that for a living thinks that's okay. If you told some random person, "Hey, I'm going to spy on you, your SO and kids to make sure you're not engaging in child abuse." they'd probably sock you in the face and/or bring out their guns to chase you off their property. Most people actually take their privacy pretty seriously and would not be so high brow about maintaining it.

Being monitored for protection, sure, that's not ideal but is just a reality for some homes. Until I'm back with them, I'd feel much more comfortable with knowing that my wife and kids are being monitored so no one tries messing with them. 🙂

The Bible doesn't really say anything about spying specifically but there are some parts of the Old Testament about minding one's own business, not spilling secrets and not gossiping. I think people who were brought up with Western ideals and Christianity just have a fundamental aversion to being literally spied on to actively search for any wrongdoings. Would you like to have someone spying on you constantly to look for anything you're doing wrong? 🤔 I'm not talking about moderating a forum or some reddit page or something, but I mean like 24/7 surveilling your home to make sure you're being a model citizen at all times. Would you be cool with that? Because I wouldn't.

Yep, algorithms that detect crime would also keep the most vulnerable groups like kids much safer. I just wish the people trying to catch them did a better job at stopping child abusers like pedophiles before they started abusing children. I think keeping kiddie smut off Google and Facebook is better than nothing though.


----------



## Dalien (Jul 21, 2010)

Squirt said:


> Can I bring up some broad questions? What happens when people's entire lives are linked to the internet or third-party databases in some way, as is the current trend? You don't even have to expressly put out information for inferences to be made, for other data to be collected and analyzed - and what is being done with the analysis?
> 
> Corporate Surveillance in Everyday Life (crackedlabs.org)
> 
> ...


This is extremely disturbing… Why the hell is little know how it works—who is hiding it? How can this be?
From the FTC site…


> While very little is known about the automated systems that analyze data companies collect, research suggests that these algorithms are prone to errors, bias, and inaccuracy.


Looks to be very involved…


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341293266_Networks_of_Control_-_A_Report_on_Corporate_Surveillance_Digital_Tracking



Net Neutrality was an issue further back too… Net neutrality rules weakened by US regulator


I honestly don’t remember and know enough on the all this, as it’s been going on quite the while. Need to refresh. And, it’s good to look into it. Then I’m going to ask, “What do we everyday people do to change it?“ Petitions to start? Like this—https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA

But I do know, as of right now, we have to look at the internet as going out in public because we are.

Just have to love technology, eh—such a damn throat choke. Yes, I’m being very sarcastic here.


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

Squirt said:


> “Processing thoughts?” Like being unsure what you think until you say it? That isn’t what I meant by diagnostic.
> 
> I was trying to pinpoint where I misunderstood ENFPathetic, as you and he seemed to be on a very different page than me, so I laid out my assumptions to be evaluated. He cleared up where I made wrong ones, so that was cool. Any attempt at effectively communicating is a process, imo.


I'm sure plenty of people took it the way you did. You raising your concerns didn't just benefit you but also gave me the opportunity to clear things up for anyone else who might have misunderstood. It's good. You should continue fleshing people's ideas out more. It's good for everyone involved.



Squirt said:


> While oppressive regimes are not new, I think the lines are definitely not as clear in virtual spaces and that has a big impact on acceptance of invasive surveillance.
> 
> You go to a website or even just connect to an unsecured network, and there are a hundred “eyes” on you. It is not a private space, but because average folks are using an interface that doesn’t show how much traffic is passing over their connection, it feels like they’re doing something privately. Like a two-way mirror. It makes it easier for surveillance to go unheeded and become accepted because it is less visible. I hear so many people say, “Well I have nothing to hide! Who cares.” I doubt they’d be singing that tune if someone was going through their pockets every time they left their house. Out of sight, out of mind.


There's definitely an element of out of sight out of mind to it. But I don't think it's totally down to a lack of awareness. I think they ignore it because it's the path of least resistance. Check out this video for how easily people comply to a random guy who feigns authority with a lint roller in hand.









Guy runs a lint roller over random strangers as they walk by.


*Subscribe to see more entertaining videos: https://www.youtube.com/c/bviral ► For use of this video, please contact: [email protected] 🔥 Follow...




www.youtube.com


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

Scoobyscoob said:


> My ESTP friends don't like it when I say stuff like this but I really meant more like villain monologuing. 😛😂 I find that Se-doms sometimes like to talk and/or write things out before being able to come to a conclusion on something they find to be vexing. With ESTPs, it kind of comes of comes off as villain monologuing and with ESFPs it seems more like soliloquizing. Squirt is a good girl though and very much an INTJ, so I doubt any real villainy is taking place here.
> 
> Dude, religious parables are purposely written to be easy to understand. You made it very clear that you don't think it's wrong to spy on a household to go looking for child abuse. No one who doesn't do that for a living thinks that's okay. If you told some random person, "Hey, I'm going to spy on you, your SO and kids to make sure you're not engaging in child abuse." they'd probably sock you in the face and/or bring out their guns to chase you off their property. Most people actually take their privacy pretty seriously and would not be so high brow about maintaining it.
> 
> ...


There are no parables in Islam. The story I quoted is something that actually occurred. I don't believe Jesus would ever make a story up just to help people understand a concept either. That would be lying, and he's above that. Not to mention the fact that the true stories of mankind are more than enough to draw relatable lessons from anyway.

P.S. I engage in soliloquizing on a daily basis. I don't need to be irritated for it. I'm just more comfortable with my thoughts right in front me than hidden away in the back of my head. In some ways, they don't fully make sense until they're right in front of me. A lot of people think I have a screw missing because of this lol. Thanks for giving me my word of the day. Soliloquizing.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

ENFPathetic said:


> I'm sure plenty of people took it the way you did. You raising your concerns didn't just benefit you but also gave me the opportunity to clear things up for anyone else who might have misunderstood. It's good. You should continue fleshing people's ideas out more. It's good for everyone involved.


Thanks. I enjoy your perspective and learn quite a bit from it.



ENFPathetic said:


> There's definitely an element of out of sight out of mind to it. But I don't think it's totally down to a lack of awareness. I think they ignore it because it's the path of least resistance. Check out this video for how easily people comply to a random guy who feigns authority with a lint roller in hand.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If you're making a statement about how humans generally bend to social pressures and are suggestable, then yes, I agree. I would also reference Darren Brown's "tricks" that highlight how easily led people can be, especially when they are not being attentive to their environment.








ENFPathetic said:


> There are no parables in Islam. The story I quoted is something that actually occurred. I don't believe Jesus would ever make a story up just to help people understand a concept either. That would be lying, and he's above that. Not to mention the fact that the true stories of mankind are more than enough to draw relatable lessons from anyway.


I don't know much about Islam, but from what I've read it is much more pragmatic compared to Christianity.

Jesus used parables all the time. It isn't made-up events necessarily, but I do think he made stuff up sometimes just to make a point, like with the parable of sons and tenants below (from Matthew 21, NIV):



> *23*Jesus entered the temple courts, and, while he was teaching, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to him. “By what authority are you doing these things?” they asked. “And who gave you this authority?”
> 
> *24*Jesus replied, “I will also ask you one question. If you answer me, I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. *25*John’s baptism—where did it come from? Was it from heaven, or of human origin?”
> 
> ...


Jesus was very abstract in his speech most of the time. It's always been funny to me, even reading the Bible as a kid, because speaking abstractly is treated with disdain in my everyday life; it is considered confusing and obtuse. Yet, one of the most revered figures in history is known for speaking almost entirely in metaphors. 

Anyway, your concern is directly addressed here (from Matthew 13, NIV):



> The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?" 11 He replied, "Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. 14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: " 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. 15 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.'[1] 16 But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. 17 For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.


Jesus basically said people don't get the message by their own observation. He also described concepts/events that were not easily accessible (such as trying to communicate how "the kingdom of heaven" works).

Parables of Jesus - Wikipedia

I like to imagine Jesus told parables because secretly he thought it was fun.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

Dalien said:


> Then I’m going to ask, “What do we everyday people do to change it?“ Petitions to start? Like this—https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA


The EU has much more comprehensive digital privacy laws for a start:

EU data protection rules | European Commission (europa.eu)

However, I don't think just putting in some laws about privacy is going to be enough. It would require restructuring of the incentives for the massive data collection and profiling in the first place. We're in an economy where the majority of people are not the participants of commerce but the goods. Whenever you see the word "consumer" you might as well replace it with "product."

One aspect I'd look at is how profiling information is used in the financial sector - banking and insurance - because they've got the most power, infrastructure, and regulation when it comes to driving data collection incentives for risk management of their products (...consumers). The Fair Credit Reporting Act seems underutilized in this area, for something to focus on:

A Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (ftc.gov) 

I think updates to this law could include an expansion of protections that could curb mass surveillance. As it stands, it mostly focuses on credit, insurance and employment, but the language pertains to _any _consumer report for those purposes. It seems like these companies which engage in mass surveillance could fall under that category. Entities that aggregate data and provide consumer profiles to third-parties (like Acxiom) should be considered in the business of "consumer reporting." If these companies are required to provide the consumer with information for how/when/why their data is used, then you'd see a lot more public outrage and pressure to discontinue the practice.

One of the reasons it isn't done already, I think, is because the end buyer is hidden. You think Adidas cares if you buy hemorrhoid cream? It is the credit reporting agencies, insurance, and banks, who are already supposed to be disclosing how they are profiling you (well, except when they aren't). If it was just a matter of retail companies wanting to tailor their marketing to sell you stuff, it wouldn't be so comprehensive, and it would be much easier to dissuade it with privacy laws over advertising. But that isn't where the problem really lies or where the money is coming from. The root it is much deeper.


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

Squirt said:


> Thanks. I enjoy your perspective and learn quite a bit from it.


The sentiment is mutual.



Squirt said:


> If you're making a statement about how humans generally bend to social pressures and are suggestable, then yes, I agree. I would also reference Darren Brown's "tricks" that highlight how easily led people can be, especially when they are not being attentive to their environment.


It's a good example. What I'm talking about is the underlying reason for this. Why did his experiment work? Because his targets were in a state of emotion that allowed him to manipulate their subconscious instincts. Why were they in that state of emotion? The mall did the leg work, as he explains in the video. His targets were being worked on the moment they entered the mall. Why did they enter the mall? They needed something the mall was offering. But they will probably walk out of the mall with far more than they needed. And the reason for this is people are inclined to take the path of least resistance. People want milk and eggs, so supermarkets put those at the back of the shop, banking on the fact that a lot of people will let their eyes wonder and give in to impulsive desires to buy the many useless items they come across on along the way on their needlessly long journey to the milk and eggs.

Derren Brown understands how to manipulate the subconscious instincts of man. And the same way it's easier to give in to an impulse buy, it's easier to give in to an impulse suggestion. And likewise, it's easier to comply and give up your right to privacy, than it is to risk being seen as someone who lacks empathy for children suffering from abuse, or worse yet, someone who sympathises with the abusers of said children.

Here is another example. I firmly believe that the overwhelming majority of people are saddened by what's been happening to the Palestinian people. And yet many from the west will never speak their mind on this out of fear of sounding anti-Semitic. Why is this scary for someone? Because of the atrocity the Jewish people suffered at the hands of Europeans. If you're anti-Semitic, it means you agree with Hitler. A man who had babies mass murdered simply for being born to Jewish parents. You wouldn't even be human at that point. You're basically a monster in human skin. It's far easier to stay quiet on the topic than it is to argue that you don't hate Jewish people. And that the reason you are hurt by what's happening to the people of Palestine is the same reason you are hurt what happened to the Jewish people in Europe. And just like that, people will turn away from the correct path the moment too many thorns are placed in it.



Squirt said:


> I don't know much about Islam, but from what I've read it is much more pragmatic compared to Christianity.
> 
> Jesus used parables all the time. It isn't made-up events necessarily, but I do think he made stuff up sometimes just to make a point, like with the parable of sons and tenants below (from Matthew 21, NIV):
> 
> ...


There is a similar concept in Islam. It's not that people don't get the message by their own observation. It's that people make the choice to turn their back on the correct guidance and so they have ears but don't hear, eyes but don't see, hearts but don't comprehend.

Example. We know how many lives gambling ruins. We all know that is it a net negative to society. It is as clear as day that the entire industry is a legal scam intended to move wealth from the hands of those who worked hard for it into the hands of those who did not. An irrefutable net negative to society. And yet, if you conducted a survey asking people whether gambling should be legal or not. The majority will agree that it should remain legal. The same can be said of cigarettes and many other things. This is what is meant by having eyes that do not see, ears that do not hear, and hearts that do not comprehend. These people are too consumed by their own bubble to ever see what's directly in front of them.


----------

