Is Violence Contagious?

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:37 pm

First topic message reminder :

Is violence contagious? A recent spate of incidents in both Colorado and Maryland suggests that bad things tend to happen in clumps, a syndrome that psychologists have known about for decades. At-risk individuals, the young males who commit these violent events, may see something in the media and brood about it, according to Edwin Megargee, professor emeritus of psychology at Florida State University. The media exposure "can shape the form in which the violence may take place," he said. "People get the idea and maybe start obsessing."

n the suburbs around Denver, recent acts of violence have gotten some people thinking that there may be something like a contagion underway. On Monday morning, a 16-year old student in Westminster, Colo., walked into the cafeteria at Standley Lake High School, set himself on fire, injuring two classmates. He is in critical condition at a hospital and police say he was trying to commit suicide.
Westminster is the same place where in 2012, 17-year-old Austin Sigg kidnapped and killed a 10-year-old girl, Jessica Ridgeway.
On Jan. 23, Columbine High School, where two former students killed 13 people in 1999, went on alert after receiving threatening phone calls. Authorities applied the alert to several other schools in the area, including Standley Lake, according to the Associated Press.
On Dec. 13, student gunman Karl Pierson, 17, fatally shot Claire Davis, a 17-year-old classmate at Arapahoe High School in nearby Centennial, Colo., before killing himself in the school's library. Pierson reportedly had threatened a teacher and librarian who had disciplined him last year and allegedly was seeking that teacher when he entered the school, investigators have said.
In Columbia, Md., on Jan. 25, a 19-year old man opened fire with a shotgun in a mall, killing two employees at a skateboard store. He then committed suicide. Two days later, a 31-year-old man was arrested at another Maryland mall for threatening to kill employees of a luggage store.
"It's called the bandwagon effect," said James Janik, chief psychologist at the Cook County (Ill.) Juvenile Detention Center. "Any kind of behavior that happens around you, you are apt to increase."
Janik said that the common thread among many young people who resort to violence is a feeling that they can't figure out a solution to their problems.
Where Gun Laws Are Most Lenient

"If you haven't had a lot of both exposure to problem-solving situations or skills that aid with seeing a lot of possibilities, you begin to get insular, you stop looking at possible solutions," Janik said. "There's a phrase that violence is the common pathway and a simple solution. If you see that as your only alternative, you have no other skills, you're going to try that out."
On expert cautions that violence has many roots, and that copycat behavior doesn’t explain everything.
"It seems unlikely that someone who is not predisposed to commit a violent act is watching TV at home and says I'd like to do this too," said Laurence Steinberg, author of the upcoming book "Age of Opportunity: Revelations From the New Science of Adolescence." "But someone who is already angry and has a reason to commit an act of violence but hasn't settled on a plan, sees or hears some other act, and maybe says 'I'm going to do that too.'"
Steinberg noted the relative ease of obtaining weapons has made committing violence against others easier than ever before.
"You've got this toxic mix of mental illness and access to firearms," he said. Everyone agrees it's a bad combination."

http://news.discovery.com/human/life/is-violence-contagious-140131.htm

Interesting article and like some experts say I am not convinced

by Guest Sun Feb 02, 2014 1:47 pm

Beekeeper wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:

Well, if you're determined not to give liberals the benefit of being able to tell you what we believe in, and instead insist upon making up conspiracy theories or casting everything we say and do in the worst light possible, then yeah -- we totally hate white people. Even though if you're talking the U.S. and U.K., we are white people. But I guess that just makes us race traitors or something, right?

Please, tell me more about my beliefs, since you obviously understand my thinking far better than I do despite my previously-assumed exclusive access to my own mind.

Another Typical "Tess" absurd outburst, wasn't it !?!

DESPITE the fact that I doubt whether Tess could even recognise a genuine "Liberal" if she were to ever trip over one, let alone a real live communist or socialist (which she apparently believes are one and the same ~ shades of Drinky !), she ALWAYS seems more than willing to tell suspected "Liberals" just ehat they must be thinking, at least in her twisted views of the world !

AND WHEN she inevitably misses her target by "the proverbial mile" with her first salvoes, then she will accuse them of maintaining multiple IDs, despite having NO evidence whatsoever..

Of course it would help if she had a chance of actually tripping over a genuine liberal - which she aint got on here.

by eddie Sun Feb 02, 2014 2:46 pm

sphinx wrote:Of course violence is contagious - thats like asking if water is wet.

Take an ordinary street of peaceful law abiding people. Have a man walk down it and couple of respectable men run towards him yelling about how he raped a 5 year old and watch that violence spread.

Or most people will have at some time been in a crowd situation where feeling has leapt from person to person - a crowd at a sports event, or on a peaceful protest march when something somewhere has kicked off and the mood has changed.

Remember the old fights in the school yard - where within seconds every child was running towards the fight - which inevitably resulted in the teachers being able to immediately stop it.

But haven't you got to have that streak in you to begin with?
I would run to watch the man and the aggressors in the 'rape scene scenario' but would I get 'violent'?
No, I wouldn't.
I would run to watch a fight in school, would I join in?
No, I wouldn't.

Violence isn't contagious - I think excitement/apprehension is - which is the "feeling" you're describing in your scenarios.

by Guest Sun Feb 02, 2014 2:49 pm

eddie wrote:
sphinx wrote:Of course violence is contagious - thats like asking if water is wet.

Take an ordinary street of peaceful law abiding people. Have a man walk down it and couple of respectable men run towards him yelling about how he raped a 5 year old and watch that violence spread.

Or most people will have at some time been in a crowd situation where feeling has leapt from person to person - a crowd at a sports event, or on a peaceful protest march when something somewhere has kicked off and the mood has changed.

Remember the old fights in the school yard - where within seconds every child was running towards the fight - which inevitably resulted in the teachers being able to immediately stop it.

But haven't you got to have that streak in you to begin with?
I would run to watch the man and the aggressors in the 'rape scene scenario' but would I get 'violent'?
No, I wouldn't.
I would run to watch a fight in school, would I join in?
No, I wouldn't.

Violence isn't contagious - I think excitement/apprehension is - which is the "feeling" you're describing in your scenarios.

Very excellent points Eddie, in the main violence is not contagious, though one are it does happen is within war, but that is a different aspect to deal with. I tried to point out to Sphinx there is too many unpredictability to her claim, she has taken one of the possibilities as to what would happen, when there is no way to predict it would, as seen everyone is different and vigilantism is quite rare.[/quote]

by eddie Sun Feb 02, 2014 2:56 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
eddie wrote:

But haven't you got to have that streak in you to begin with?
I would run to watch the man and the aggressors in the 'rape scene scenario' but would I get 'violent'?
No, I wouldn't.
I would run to watch a fight in school, would I join in?
No, I wouldn't.

Violence isn't contagious - I think excitement/apprehension is - which is the "feeling" you're describing in your scenarios.

Very excellent points Eddie, in the main violence is not contagious, though one are it does happen is within war, but that is a different aspect to deal with. I tried to point out to Sphinx there is too many unpredictability to her claim, she has taken one of the possibilities as to what would happen, when there is no way to predict it would, as seen everyone is different and vigilantism is quite rare.

[/quote]

I agree didge, I am certainly not violent by nature (unless loved ones or myself threatened then I think I could get extremely violent), but in the main, I find violence abhorrent.

by Beekeeper Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:50 am

I RECKON even the most stoic pacifists among us could be provoked into extreme bouts of unaccustomed violence, IF the likes of Drinky or Herr Kacklekopf were to start harassing them for long enough ???

pirat

by Guest Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:04 am

You have 10 scenarios - in 9 of them violence does not spread in one of the them it does.

That one means violence is is contagious.

by Guest Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:14 am

sphinx wrote:You have 10 scenarios - in 9 of them violence does not spread in one of the them it does.

That one means violence is is contagious.

That means in some situations violence can be contagious, again the same situations may not produce the same affect.
By your logic to gamble means you will be a winner, because sometimes when you gamble you do win, again absurd!

by Guest Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:23 am

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:You have 10 scenarios - in 9 of them violence does not spread in one of the them it does.

That one means violence is is contagious.

That means in some situations violence can be contagious, again the same situations may not produce the same affect.
By your logic to gamble means you will be a winner, because sometimes when you gamble you do win, again absurd!

Sweetie the question is "is violence contagious" not "is violence always contagious".

I can be around people in the infections stage of a cold 10 times - I will not catch a cold every single time. Yet the cold is still considered contagious.

by Guest Mon Feb 03, 2014 10:39 am

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

That means in some situations violence can be contagious, again the same situations may not produce the same affect.
By your logic to gamble means you will be a winner, because sometimes when you gamble you do win, again absurd!

Sweetie the question is "is violence contagious" not "is violence always contagious".

I can be around people in the infections stage of a cold 10 times - I will not catch a cold every single time. Yet the cold is still considered contagious.

I think this is a prime example of Sphinx placing a dirty big egg on Didge's face.

The amazing, all-seeing, all-knowing, never wrong Didge has been..... Is Violence Contagious? - Page 2 Busted

by Guest Mon Feb 03, 2014 10:41 am

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

That means in some situations violence can be contagious, again the same situations may not produce the same affect.
By your logic to gamble means you will be a winner, because sometimes when you gamble you do win, again absurd!

Sweetie the question is "is violence contagious" not "is violence always contagious".

I can be around people in the infections stage of a cold 10 times - I will not catch a cold every single time. Yet the cold is still considered contagious.

Darling your logic is silly, so are you now saying blacks are violent because of some blacks commit violence?

by Guest Mon Feb 03, 2014 10:43 am

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Sweetie the question is "is violence contagious" not "is violence always contagious".

I can be around people in the infections stage of a cold 10 times - I will not catch a cold every single time. Yet the cold is still considered contagious.

Darling your logic is silly, so are you now saying blacks are violent because of some blacks commit violence?

Yes.

So are whites, yellows, reds, and browns.

Does the statement blacks are violent preclude any other race being violent?

by Guest Mon Feb 03, 2014 10:45 am

There's a lot of darlings being flung about in here, like a Julian Clary fan club meet.

by Guest Mon Feb 03, 2014 10:47 am

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Darling your logic is silly, so are you now saying blacks are violent because of some blacks commit violence?

Yes.

So are whites, yellows, reds, and browns.

Does the statement blacks are violent preclude any other race being violent?

But are humans violent or are some humans violent, your premise is off the back some are, that does not mean all humans are violent, so it is illogical to say humans are violent, because using the same logic I could say humans are not violent.

Your logic is absurd

by Guest Mon Feb 03, 2014 10:52 am

1. “It is scientifically incorrect to say that we have inherited a tendency to make war from our animal ancestors.”

2. “It is scientifically incorrect to say that war or any other violent behavior is genetically programmed into our human nature.”

3. “It is scientifically incorrect to say that in the course of human evolution there has been a selection for aggressive behaviour more than for other kinds of behaviour.”

4. “It is scientifically incorrect to say that humans have a ‘violent brain’.”

5. “It is scientifically incorrect to say that war is caused by ‘instinct’ or any single motivation.”

by Guest Mon Feb 03, 2014 10:55 am

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Yes.

So are whites, yellows, reds, and browns.

Does the statement blacks are violent preclude any other race being violent?

But are humans violent or are some humans violent, your premise is off the back some are, that does not mean all humans are violent, so it is illogical to say humans are violent, because using the same logic I could say humans are not violent.

Your logic is absurd

Yes you could.

I was answering the title of the thread. Your further questions are different - therefore my answer to that question will not fit the questions you are now asking.

by Guest Mon Feb 03, 2014 10:56 am

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

But are humans violent or are some humans violent, your premise is off the back some are, that does not mean all humans are violent, so it is illogical to say humans are violent, because using the same logic I could say humans are not violent.

Your logic is absurd

Yes you could.

I was answering the title of the thread. Your further questions are different - therefore my answer to that question will not fit the questions you are now asking.

Balderdash, as seen from my last points it is scientifically incorrect to say.

Read again

1. “It is scientifically incorrect to say that we have inherited a tendency to make war from our animal ancestors.”

2. “It is scientifically incorrect to say that war or any other violent behavior is genetically programmed into our human nature.”

3. “It is scientifically incorrect to say that in the course of human evolution there has been a selection for aggressive behaviour more than for other kinds of behaviour.”

4. “It is scientifically incorrect to say that humans have a ‘violent brain’.”

5. “It is scientifically incorrect to say that war is caused by ‘instinct’ or any single motivation.”

by Guest Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:04 am

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Yes you could.

I was answering the title of the thread. Your further questions are different - therefore my answer to that question will not fit the questions you are now asking.

Balderdash, as seen from my last points it is scientifically incorrect to say.

Read again

1. “It is scientifically incorrect to say that we have inherited a tendency to make war from our animal ancestors.”

2. “It is scientifically incorrect to say that war or any other violent behavior is genetically programmed into our human nature.”

3. “It is scientifically incorrect to say that in the course of human evolution there has been a selection for aggressive behaviour more than for other kinds of behaviour.”

4. “It is scientifically incorrect to say that humans have a ‘violent brain’.”

5. “It is scientifically incorrect to say that war is caused by ‘instinct’ or any single motivation.”

I have not contradicted any of those statements I have stated violence is contagious and given examples of where that contagion has occurred.

I have not stated it is 100% contagious as to either situations or to people just that it is contagious.

by Guest Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:08 am

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Balderdash, as seen from my last points it is scientifically incorrect to say.

Read again

1. “It is scientifically incorrect to say that we have inherited a tendency to make war from our animal ancestors.”

2. “It is scientifically incorrect to say that war or any other violent behavior is genetically programmed into our human nature.”

3. “It is scientifically incorrect to say that in the course of human evolution there has been a selection for aggressive behaviour more than for other kinds of behaviour.”

4. “It is scientifically incorrect to say that humans have a ‘violent brain’.”

5. “It is scientifically incorrect to say that war is caused by ‘instinct’ or any single motivation.”

I have not contradicted any of those statements I have stated violence is contagious and given examples of where that contagion has occurred.

I have not stated it is 100% contagious as to either situations or to people just that it is contagious.

No the contention is whether it is so again it would be scientifically incorrect to say, unless you want to send your methodology to the scientists in this article to prove that it is. You have to prove that violence is the trigger that creates more violence, but again it may only happen in certain situations like war, do you now understand?
Let me know how you get on

by Guest Mon Feb 03, 2014 12:34 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

I have not contradicted any of those statements I have stated violence is contagious and given examples of where that contagion has occurred.

I have not stated it is 100% contagious as to either situations or to people just that it is contagious.

No the contention is whether it is so again it would be scientifically incorrect to say, unless you want to send your methodology to the scientists in this article to prove that it is. You have to prove that violence is the trigger that creates more violence, but again it may only happen in certain situations like war, do you now understand?
Let me know how you get on

If it happens at all then it can be considered contagious.

Do you think flu is contagious?

by Guest Mon Feb 03, 2014 12:42 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

No the contention is whether it is so again it would be scientifically incorrect to say, unless you want to send your methodology to the scientists in this article to prove that it is. You have to prove that violence is the trigger that creates more violence, but again it may only happen in certain situations like war, do you now understand?
Let me know how you get on

If it happens at all then it can be considered contagious.

Do you think flu is contagious?

Pseudo Babble, you are now trying to compare a virus to a reaction to violence.

Hilarious.

Again what you have to do is prove the violence is the trigger that creates more violence or is it other factors, hence whey there is nop agreement that it is contagious, do you understand this?
The fact is there are too many unpredicatbilities

by Guest Mon Feb 03, 2014 12:48 pm

At the present I'm invisible and everyone ignores my posts but it might be contagious so watch out.

by Guest Mon Feb 03, 2014 1:39 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

If it happens at all then it can be considered contagious.

Do you think flu is contagious?

Pseudo Babble, you are now trying to compare a virus to a reaction to violence.

Hilarious.

Again what you have to do is prove the violence is the trigger that creates more violence or is it other factors, hence whey there is nop agreement that it is contagious, do you understand this?
The fact is there are too many unpredicatbilities

No I was not comparing violence to a virus I was trying to demonstrate the definition of contagious.

by Guest Mon Feb 03, 2014 1:40 pm

Warren Moon wrote:At the present I'm invisible and everyone ignores my posts but it might be contagious so watch out.

And when did this monkey nibbling incident take place?

by Guest Mon Feb 03, 2014 1:55 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Pseudo Babble, you are now trying to compare a virus to a reaction to violence.

Hilarious.

Again what you have to do is prove the violence is the trigger that creates more violence or is it other factors, hence whey there is nop agreement that it is contagious, do you understand this?
The fact is there are too many unpredicatbilities

No I was not comparing violence to a virus I was trying to demonstrate the definition of contagious.

I know the definition thanks, which shows again you have no idea what you are talking about

by Guest Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:07 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

No I was not comparing violence to a virus I was trying to demonstrate the definition of contagious.

I know the definition thanks, which shows again you have no idea what you are talking about

No it shows you have no idea of what I am talking about.

by Guest Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:16 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

I know the definition thanks, which shows again you have no idea what you are talking about

No it shows you have no idea of what I am talking about.

No as seen you are taking pseudo babble,. showing you have no clue what you are talking about.
All you are doing as per usual is your new copout mode claim the other does not understand when the poster clearly does and is running rings around you on the matter.
Your unscientific usage of words was exposed as crap

by Guest Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:23 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

No it shows you have no idea of what I am talking about.

No as seen you are taking pseudo babble,. showing you have no clue what you are talking about.
All you are doing as per usual is your new copout mode claim the other does not understand when the poster clearly does and is running rings around you on the matter.
Your unscientific usage of words was exposed as crap

Like I said - it shows you have no idea what I am talking about.

by Guest Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:25 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

No as seen you are taking pseudo babble,. showing you have no clue what you are talking about.
All you are doing as per usual is your new copout mode claim the other does not understand when the poster clearly does and is running rings around you on the matter.
Your unscientific usage of words was exposed as crap

Like I said - it shows you have no idea what I am talking about.

://?roflmao?/:

You keep telling yourself that darling

:/pwn://:

by Guest Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:27 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Like I said - it shows you have no idea what I am talking about.

://?roflmao?/:

You keep telling yourself that darling

:/pwn://:

You seem to think there is a possibility that I am wrong and you are right when I say you do not know what I am talking about.

Interesting.

by Guest Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:31 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

://?roflmao?/:

You keep telling yourself that darling

:/pwn://:

You seem to think there is a possibility that I am wrong and you are right when I say you do not know what I am talking about.

Interesting.

You do not know what you are talking about and from the very beginning made a huge gaff that was picked up on by not only me but others. This clearly showed you really had no idea what you were talking about as you clearly discounted many predictabilities and were basing your argument on a possibility not knowing if it could actually happen. Just about the worst pseudo science you can get, hence why you were easily exposed for not understanding this

by Guest Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:41 pm

Warren Moon wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Sweetie the question is "is violence contagious" not "is violence always contagious".

I can be around people in the infections stage of a cold 10 times - I will not catch a cold every single time. Yet the cold is still considered contagious.

I think this is a prime example of Sphinx placing a dirty big egg on Didge's face.

The amazing, all-seeing, all-knowing, never wrong Didge has been.....

Good afternoon Warren.

That's why I don't read his posts anymore because they are like reading the side of a tin of paint.

by ALLAKAKA Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:46 pm

Shady wrote:
Warren Moon wrote:

I think this is a prime example of Sphinx placing a dirty big egg on Didge's face.

The amazing, all-seeing, all-knowing, never wrong Didge has been.....

Good afternoon Warren.

That's why I don't read his posts anymore because they are like reading the side of a tin of paint.

Matt black or ------ Is Violence Contagious? - Page 2 Captur52

by Guest Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:49 pm

Shady wrote:
Warren Moon wrote:

I think this is a prime example of Sphinx placing a dirty big egg on Didge's face.

The amazing, all-seeing, all-knowing, never wrong Didge has been.....

Good afternoon Warren.

That's why I don't read his posts anymore because they are like reading the side of a tin of paint.

I would be suprised if you knew what to do with a tin of paint.

by Guest Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:03 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

You seem to think there is a possibility that I am wrong and you are right when I say you do not know what I am talking about.

Interesting.

You do not know what you are talking about and from the very beginning made a huge gaff that was picked up on by not only me but others. This clearly showed you really had no idea what you were talking about as you clearly discounted many predictabilities and were basing your argument on a possibility not knowing if it could actually happen. Just about the worst pseudo science you can get, hence why you were easily exposed for not understanding this

No I do know exactly what I am talking about.

The problem is you think I am talking about something else and because what I am talking about is different from what you think I am talking about you do not know what I am talking about. As you cannot comprehend yourself failing the only conclusion that is open to you is that I do not know what I am talking about.

Just cause I feel sorry for you I will try and simplify it.

Is violence contagious? Yes.

Is it always contagious? No

Is it contagious to all people? No

Is it contagious in all situations? No

by Guest Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:14 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

You do not know what you are talking about and from the very beginning made a huge gaff that was picked up on by not only me but others. This clearly showed you really had no idea what you were talking about as you clearly discounted many predictabilities and were basing your argument on a possibility not knowing if it could actually happen. Just about the worst pseudo science you can get, hence why you were easily exposed for not understanding this

No I do know exactly what I am talking about.

The problem is you think I am talking about something else and because what I am talking about is different from what you think I am talking about you do not know what I am talking about. As you cannot comprehend yourself failing the only conclusion that is open to you is that I do not know what I am talking about.

Just cause I feel sorry for you I will try and simplify it.

Is violence contagious? Yes.

Is it always contagious? No

Is it contagious to all people? No

Is it contagious in all situations? No

It has not been scientifically proven it is contagious, hence you do not know what you are talking about. there is theories on this at the moment none of which has been proven because the basic problem is the disease model of violence. Medical professionals are used to running controlled experiments, using clinical trials, and are unaware of how to perform empirical social science research outside a laboratory setting. As seen it is assumption based on violence creating other violence when there are other explanations that can counter this view of contagious. All you offered later in the debate was a a possibility, not evidence that it would actually happen, clearly showing you are using pseudo science.
Sorry also your first post was utter garbage showing you clearly do not know what you are talking about

by Guest Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:14 pm

ALLAKAKA wrote:
Shady wrote:

Good afternoon Warren.

That's why I don't read his posts anymore because they are like reading the side of a tin of paint.

Matt black or ------

That's very,very naughty.

by Guest Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:16 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:
No I do know exactly what I am talking about.

The problem is you think I am talking about something else and because what I am talking about is different from what you think I am talking about you do not know what I am talking about. As you cannot comprehend yourself failing the only conclusion that is open to you is that I do not know what I am talking about.
Gobbledygook, what a Rodney statement

Just cause I feel sorry for you I will try and simplify it.

Is violence contagious? Yes.

Is it always contagious? No

Is it contagious to all people? No

Is it contagious in all situations? No

It has not been scientifically proven it is contagious, hence you do not know what you are talking about. there is theories on this at the moment none of which has been proven because the basic problem is the disease model of violence. Medical professionals are used to running controlled experiments, using clinical trials, and are unaware of how to perform empirical social science research outside a laboratory setting. As seen it is assumption based on violence creating other violence when there are other explanations that can counter this view of contagious. All you offered later in the debate was a a possibility, not evidence that it would actually happen, clearly showing you are using pseudo science.
Sorry also your first post was utter garbage showing you clearly do not know what you are talking about

by ALLAKAKA Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:18 pm

Shady wrote:
ALLAKAKA wrote:

Matt black or ------

That's very,very naughty.

So is SELECTIVE CENSORSHIP.

by Guest Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:19 pm

Good afternoon Folks.

Have any of you who have posted on this thread had any experience of prolonged use of violence?

If you have,I would be interested in how you feel about it.

by Guest Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:22 pm

Sorry didge I must have missed the bit where the OP asked if violence had been scientifically proven to be contagious.

by Guest Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:24 pm

sphinx wrote:Sorry didge I must have missed the bit where the OP asked if violence had been scientifically proven to be contagious.

The big question mark was a dead give away and words like "suggest", showing how much you really do not read anything

by Guest Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:26 pm

sphinx wrote:Sorry didge I must have missed the bit where the OP asked if violence had been scientifically proven to be contagious.

Good afternoon Sphinx.

Sphinx do me a favour please.......Get rid of your avatar because it's getting on my nerves.

by Guest Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:28 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:Sorry didge I must have missed the bit where the OP asked if violence had been scientifically proven to be contagious.

The big question mark was a dead give away and words like "suggest", showing how much you really do not read anything

My god I need to go back to school. I thought that question mark was an ordinary size not a big one and everyone knows ordinary ones just mean that something is a question and not a question demanding a scientifically proved answer.

by Guest Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:30 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

The big question mark was a dead give away and words like "suggest", showing how much you really do not read anything

My god I need to go back to school. I thought that question mark was an ordinary size not a big one and everyone knows ordinary ones just mean that something is a question and not a question demanding a scientifically proved answer.

Guess you do :D

Tad funny this, that you thought it was proven

by Sponsored content