Say three words about GEORGE BUSH, but three words only please.
mixednuts posted on Sep 29, 2008
| views: 882
Comments
-
Obama said on Sep 29, 2008....
the clown prince! -
dragonfly1 said on Sep 29, 2008....
stole two elections -
SARAH_PALIN said on Sep 29, 2008....
MONEY,MONEY,MONEY -
justincase said on Sep 29, 2008....
Fuck George Bush -
hugecock! said on Sep 29, 2008....
NO NICE WORDS -
newmoney said on Sep 29, 2008....
I like Bush! I got rich with him in office. His wife is cute as well. -
GODwaterwalker said on Sep 29, 2008....
Bush, The unforgiven -
repeat said on Sep 29, 2008....
George Bush two -
freebird1 said on Sep 29, 2008....
Bush on drugs? -
copsunite said on Sep 29, 2008....
BUST THE*CHUMP! -
mixednuts said on Sep 29, 2008....
what he thinks -
husbandhater said on Sep 29, 2008....
Incompetent,stupid,fuckup
*Note:Surprised no one used these yet. I must be early. Will check back later to see how this one progresses.Haha -
mixednuts said on Sep 29, 2008....
a rich *BITCH! -
ALT said on Sep 29, 2008....
COCK SUCKER BUSH (adult-content?) -
ALT said on Sep 29, 2008....
did I forget something?
Oh ya....
"Bush the oinker"
-
andora said on Sep 29, 2008....
nostradamus has a prediction that seemed very telling about our times....he refered to
"The Village Idiot" whose brother helped to win the most powerful position in the world. that would be jeb giving him Florida on a silver platter
-
lugiababy25 said on Sep 29, 2008....
Why is it so many people obey when they feel coerced? Social psychologist Stanley Milgram researched the effect of authority on obedience. He concluded people obey either out of fear or out of a desire to appear cooperative--even when acting against their own better judgment and desires. Milgram’s classic yet controversial experiment illustrates people's reluctance to confront those who abuse power. It is my opinion that Milgram's book should be required reading (see References below) for anyone in supervisory or management positions.
Milgram recruited subjects for his experiments from various walks in life. Respondents were told the experiment would study the effects of punishment on learning ability. They were offered a token cash award for participating. Although respondents thought they had an equal chance of playing the role of a student or of a teacher, the process was rigged so all respondents ended up playing the teacher. The learner was an actor working as a cohort of the experimenter.
"Teachers" were asked to administer increasingly severe electric shocks to the "learner" when questions were answered incorrectly. In reality, the only electric shocks delivered in the experiment were single 45-volt shock samples given to each teacher. This was done to give teachers a feeling for the jolts they thought they would be discharging.
Shock levels were labeled from 15 to 450 volts. Besides the numerical scale, verbal anchors added to the frightful appearance of the instrument. Beginning from the lower end, jolt levels were labeled: "slight shock," "moderate shock," "strong shock," "very strong shock," "intense shock," and "extreme intensity shock." The next two anchors were "Danger: Severe Shock," and, past that, a simple but ghastly "XXX."
In response to the supposed jolts, the "learner" (actor) would begin to grunt at 75 volts; complain at 120 volts; ask to be released at 150 volts; plead with increasing vigor, next; and let out agonized screams at 285 volts. Eventually, in desperation, the learner was to yell loudly and complain of heart pain.
At some point the actor would refuse to answer any more questions. Finally, at 330 volts the actor would be totally silent-that is, if any of the teacher participants got so far without rebelling first.
Teachers were instructed to treat silence as an incorrect answer and apply the next shock level to the student.
If at any point the innocent teacher hesitated to inflict the shocks, the experimenter would pressure him to proceed. Such demands would take the form of increasingly severe statements, such as "The experiment requires that you continue."
What do you think was the average voltage given by teachers before they refused to administer further shocks? What percentage of teachers, if any, do you think went up to the maximum voltage of 450?
Results from the experiment. Some teachers refused to continue with the shocks early on, despite urging from the experimenter. This is the type of response Milgram expected as the norm. But Milgram was shocked to find those who questioned authority were in the minority. Sixty-five percent (65%) of the teachers were willing to progress to the maximum voltage level.
Participants demonstrated a range of negative emotions about continuing. Some pleaded with the learner, asking the actor to answer questions carefully. Others started to laugh nervously and act strangely in diverse ways. Some subjects appeared cold, hopeless, somber, or arrogant. Some thought they had killed the learner. Nevertheless, participants continued to obey, discharging the full shock to learners. One man who wanted to abandon the experiment was told the experiment must continue. Instead of challenging the decision of the experimenter, he proceeded, repeating to himself, "It’s got to go on, it’s got to go on."
Milgram’s experiment included a number of variations. In one, the learner was not only visible but teachers were asked to force the learner’s hand to the shock plate so they could deliver the punishment. Less obedience was extracted from subjects in this case. In another variation, teachers were instructed to apply whatever voltage they desired to incorrect answers. Teachers averaged 83 volts, and only 2.5 percent of participants used the full 450 volts available. This shows most participants were good, average people, not evil individuals. They obeyed only under coercion.
In general, more submission was elicited from "teachers" when (1) the authority figure was in close proximity; (2) teachers felt they could pass on responsibility to others; and (3) experiments took place under the auspices of a respected organization.
Participants were debriefed after the experiment and showed much relief at finding they had not harmed the student. One cried from emotion when he saw the student alive, and explained that he thought he had killed him. But what was different about those who obeyed and those who rebelled? Milgram divided participants into three categories:
Obeyed but justified themselves. Some obedient participants gave up responsibility for their actions, blaming the experimenter. If anything had happened to the learner, they reasoned, it would have been the experimenter’s fault. Others had transferred the blame to the learner: "He was so stupid and stubborn he deserved to be shocked."
Obeyed but blamed themselves. Others felt badly about what they had done and were quite harsh on themselves. Members of this group would, perhaps, be more likely to challenge authority if confronted with a similar situation in the future.
Rebelled. Finally, rebellious subjects questioned the authority of the experimenter and argued there was a greater ethical imperative calling for the protection of the learner over the needs of the experimenter. Some of these individuals felt they were accountable to a higher authority.
Why were those who challenged authority in the minority? So entrenched is obedience it may void personal codes of conduct.
References
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. New York: Harper and Row. An excellent presentation of Milgram’s work is also found in Brown, R. (1986). Social Forces in Obedience and Rebellion. Social Psychology: The Second Edition. New York: The Free Press.
-
andora said on Sep 29, 2008....
baby25 said:
"Why were those who challenged authority in the minority? So entrenched is obedience it may void personal codes of conduct."
dearest,
i have been in rebellion against authority my entire existence, which is why i refer to myself as a demon. I question the voice of authority, but also know that i am the only authority about my truth. i attempt to share this with others without giving up my sovereignty.
the current paradigm is based upon predatory competition that forces everyone to justify their existence in order to survive. this makes the populist into whores with secretive existences devoid of intimacy...we really must revisit what it is we believe to be true as a collective species...until then, i see the voice of authority in today's world as Lucifer, the evil twin! I rebel against that! some people call his voice god???? go figure?
-
KathQuiet said on Sep 29, 2008....
Is a puppet.
-
KathQuiet said on Sep 29, 2008....
He meant well. (but you know what they say about the road to perdition) -
Yaboyndot said on Sep 29, 2008....
Not that stupid -
KathQuiet said on Sep 29, 2008....
Fall-boy for privateers. -
KathQuiet said on Sep 29, 2008....
Not that smart. -
KathQuiet said on Sep 29, 2008....
Could be worse. -
NoManInn-Owner-Bob said on Sep 29, 2008....
Better than Clinton ! -
curmudgeon said on Sep 29, 2008....
FOUR MORE YEARS! -
Misty_Eyed said on Sep 29, 2008....
TOLD YOU SO! -
Misty_Eyed said on Sep 29, 2008....
ALT--Let's not blame cocksuckers: They hate Bush as much as the rest of us. (Tee-hee-hee) -
one_wired_kitty said on Sep 29, 2008....
Impeach already, please. -
Misty_Eyed said on Sep 29, 2008....
I'm trying to edit my last post to say "we" in reference to "cocksuckers," because technically..." (connect the dots yourself here). -
oceanwaves said on Sep 29, 2008....
I think John McCain said it best dumb as a stump; however he voted for him so what does that tell you about McCain-dumber than a stump? PEACE-DL -
tonibell said on Sep 30, 2008....
GOOD BY W!! -
RollingC said on Sep 30, 2008....
Dumber than Dirt -
mixednuts said on Sep 30, 2008....
Clinton was a great PRESIDENT outside of the Monika thing. Maybe the best ever! -
scoro said on Sep 30, 2008....
patriotic, steadfast, true -
oceanwaves said on Sep 30, 2008....
mixednuts did you forget Bosnia? -
Whytry said on Oct 05, 2008....
humble temporary protector
Comment on "GEORGE BUSH IN 3 WORDS"
Related Posts:
WriterCarlDobbs
posted 4 days ago
| views: 50
|
Simply, the answer is NO! It doesn't jibe with the rudimentary doctrines of Jesus or even our own sense of morality. Who can condemn a newborn baby for sin? Who can say Adam condemned us all by sinning? It's a crazy concept!... read entire post
GODwaterwalker
posted 7 days ago
| views: 22
|
Sex outside of marriage is sin! Do you sin?... read entire post
BillIII
posted on Oct 27, 2009
| views: 26
|
!!!Caution!!! Enter at your own risk.... read entire post