The Paranormal

[chairdriver]

(Oh, BTW, don't bother with Paranormal Activity 2. Saw it, it left me with nothing.)

[Grazza]

But what if the ghost used his power to move objects, as they appear to have to scare people, to push the man into killing the other person?

 

Who says they can move objects? It sounds like you're taking the TV programmes too seriously.

[Cube]

But what if the ghost used his power to move objects, as they appear to have to scare people, to push the man into killing the other person?

 

Hypothetically, no matter how much he's pushed he's still killed someone. So it should be prison. The whole thing about "pleading insanity" is just so rich people who can afford expensive lawyers can get lesser sentences. Sanity shouldn't even be considered IMO.

 

But as ghost's don't exist, it isn't likely to happen.

[Diageo]

Does it look like I believe in this crap? People say that they are haunted, tables creak, laughs are heard, things break.

 

Why can they talk to people and make sounds, vibrating air, but not move objects?

[Grazza]

Does it look like I believe in this crap? People say that they are haunted, tables creak, laughs are heard, things break.

 

Why can they talk to people and make sounds, vibrating air, but not move objects?

 

Ah well, I don't believe in any of that. I suspect they're a visual phenomenon and that's about it.

[Diageo]

Well this question was more for Serebii, who likes his mind open.

 

Let's say the visual phenomenon spelt out, "300 people will die in 20 minutes if you do not kill this man, including your family,"

[Paj!]

[Grazza]

Let's say the visual phenomenon spelt out, "300 people will die in 20 minutes if you do not kill this man, including your family,"

 

Look, there's no point inventing things that don't happen. Ghosts get seen by people who, by any standard, are sane, intelligent, critical thinkers. People who hear voices, on the other hand, can be proven to be insane.

 

At the end of the day, a Court of Law has to base its rulings on scientific fact. No one in their right mind would say there's enough evidence to prove ghosts exist. Nor is anyone telling you to believe in ghosts. Now that would be gullible, totally believing in something because someone told you so. Sadly, people lie.

 

My point in this thread has been that it's quite irrational to tell someone they didn't see a ghost, because the witness has more data than the sceptic. As long as the witness is, as I say, sane, intelligent and a rational thinker, they are the person best-placed to decide if what they saw could have been a hallucination, a dream or a misidentification.

 

A murderer does not deserve to be credited with those qualities.

[Diageo]

So in practical senses we do not need to consider ghosts.

[ReZourceman]

(Oh, BTW, don't bother with Paranormal Activity 2. Saw it, it left me with nothing.)

 

ORLY. What did the first one leave you with?

[Serebii]

I hope you're not laughing at me.

 

 

Anyway Serebii, let's look at it this way.

Let's suppose a man hears voices and sees a ghost, and the ghost tells him to kill someone, so he goes and does it. He is arrested and put to trial.

You are the judge, he has confessed of the murder and says a ghost told him to do it. What would you do?

A) Send him to prison, he is lying.

B) Send him to a mental institution, where he may be cured of his mental disorder.

C) Take his vision as plausible and either let him free, or take him into a laboratory setting where you can research his claims further.

 

What would you realistically do?

Everyone is responsible for their own actions. If a human forced a person to kill others, the person would still be liable but the circumstances would be considered during sentencing, as it would be here.

 

However, the judicial system doesn't allow for scientific theory so the chemical imbalance in the brain which caused the person to either hear things that weren't real or in a massively hypothetical situation, a being outside of our dimension, would be classed as a mental disorder

Edited October 28, 2010 by Serebii

[Diageo]

Everyone is responsible for their own actions. If a human forced a person to kill others, the person would still be liable but the circumstances would be considered during sentencing, as it would be here.

 

However, the judicial system doesn't allow for scientific theory so the chemical imbalance in the brain which caused the person to either hear things that weren't real or in a massively hypothetical situation, a being outside of our dimension, would be classed as a mental disorder

Is that wrong?

[Serebii]

Regardless of if it is right or wrong to, a person is still responsible for their own actions, regardless of any circumstances that brought them to it

[heroicjanitor]

If you were a betting man Serebii, would you put money on ghosts existing or ghosts not existing? What are the odds of a mutation in our brain allowing us to see into other dimensions where other beings, who look exactly like us, not only exist but can fly? A mutation which would allow us to see light which is undetectable to all current physics? Occam's razor, seriously.

[Diageo]

Regardless of if it is right or wrong to, a person is still responsible for their own actions, regardless of any circumstances that brought them to it

It is not regardless of circumstances. If a human waited until you were holding a knife, and then threw you into another person, would you be held responsible? If you had your car stopped and someone pushed into the back of your car which then pushed another car in front of a train, is it your fault?

 

If ghosts could make you kill people, and you believe there's a chance they exist, why wouldn't you trust the man, why couldn't he have the mutation?

 

I agree with HeroJan, it's not plausible in any sense. And any credited scientist wouldn't want to be associated with believing in ghosts.

 

It's not practical, it's not applicable in any section of life, it benefits no one, it's not plausible in the least. There is no reason to believe in ghosts.

[Cube]

It is not regardless of circumstances. If a human waited until you were holding a knife, and then threw you into another person, would you be held responsible? If you had your car stopped and someone pushed into the back of your car which then pushed another car in front of a train, is it your fault?

 

No, because you've been physically pushed.

[Serebii]

If you were a betting man Serebii, would you put money on ghosts existing or ghosts not existing? What are the odds of a mutation in our brain allowing us to see into other dimensions where other beings, who look exactly like us, not only exist but can fly? A mutation which would allow us to see light which is undetectable to all current physics? Occam's razor, seriously.

Ghosts as in the spirits of the dead? Possible but unlikely

 

Ghosts as in the possibility of extra dimensional beings being perceived as ghosts by people? Sure why not

[Diageo]

No, because you've been physically pushed.

If ghosts are so possible, why does "otherwordly" pushed not count?

[Serebii]

If ghosts are so possible, why does "otherwordly" pushed not count?

Clearly because there is no evidence that they do exist

[Diageo]

Wayhay, so why not take that view for the rest of our lives, instead of just the courtroom?

[Cube]

Wayhay, so why not take that view for the rest of our lives, instead of just the courtroom?

 

Some people do take that view...

[Diageo]

Ghosts as in the spirits of the dead? Possible but unlikely

 

Ghosts as in the possibility of extra dimensional beings being perceived as ghosts by people? Sure why not

 

You have no evidence for either, why is one more likely than the other?

 

Some people do take that view...

 

I know, talking to Serebii here.

[Serebii]

Because dismissing things is not the way I was raised. I'm not saying the entire world should suddenly accept any and all plausible explanations. I'm saying that there are possibilities and we should not just dismiss them outright

[Guy]

This thread continues to provide.

[Diageo]

I don't think people should stick to the way they were raised.

 

I need evidence, and if something has no evidence, then I don't bother with it, I don't see a point. There is an unlimited amount of things that could exist, that we have no evidence for, and so I see no point in seeing it as a plausible possibility. That is not to say that if evidence is revealed I will refuse to believe it. To me evidence is paramount. That is the complete opposite of what I was raised, but it is how I think.

 

This thread continues to provide.

 

Why don't you provide back, or at least contribute in any way, maybe by even outlining what it provides.