Derren Brown: Archive
| Message ID: 04033 | [ Previous ] [ Next ] [ Up Thread ] |
From: killerb_0187
Date: Wed Apr 2, 2003 3:51pm
Subject: Re: INDUCE....Ouch then urghh
--- In a previous message huntjoanne89
wrote:
> --- In a previous message killerb_0187
> wrote:
> > --- In a previous message huntjoanne89
<>
> > wrote:
> > > For educational purposes only?
> > >
> > > That means nothing. If you post the method and say you've tried
> it
> > > successfuly on yourself, which you did...Isn't it obvious that
> some
> > > people are going to try it on themseleves whether you
write 'for
> > > educational purposes only' or not?
> > >
> > >
> > > You might say something like 'well if they're stupid enough to
> try
> > it
> > > then it's their own fault if it goes wrong because I already
> warned
> > > them not to...'
> > >
> > > Thats not the point...you posted it with the knowledge that
> people
> > > will try it.
> > >
> > > Just a matter of responsibility thats all.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > You amaze me.
> >
> > You cannot tell me that if I give you a gun, I will *know* that
> > you're going to go out and shoot somebody? That's absurd.
>
> Different situation. A Gun is obviously very dangerous, squeezing
> the neck is not so obvious to a lot of people.
>
> > Have you ever searched the web thoroughly? Now you'll find info
on
> > just about anything. How to make dynamite, how to kill people and
> get
> > away with it. Probably even stuff on building a nuclear warhead.
> Now
> > stop and think...
>
> I know there's this stuff. I've been using the net for over 6 years
> now. I am however correct in saying that this stuff is put on the
> net very irresponsible people.
>
> > I posted something that would allow you to cure a headache =
GOOD.
> > AND induce it = BAD. I wrote both the good and bad. What you use
it
> > for is upto you. How can we know if somethings bad if we haven't
> been
> > taught it? It's common sense.
> >
> > You can get a hammer and hit someone with it, or you can build
> > yourself a fence. Responsibility is in the hands of oneself. Now
if
> I
> > posted ways in which you can hit someone with a hammer. Does that
> > make me irresponsible?
>
> Again, it's a bad analogy because hitting yourself with a hammer is
> obviously going to hurt and is dangerous. Stopping the blood
supply
> to your brain for even a short time to many people might not seem
too
> dangerous or painful, just a bit of fun, when in fact it is likely
a
> lot more dangerous than hitting yourself with a hammer.
>
> No. It's the same with self-defence. People
> > learn how to fight, yes FIGHT. They don't learn 'self-defend'
they
> > learn how to physically harm someone. BUT it's taught in the
manner
> > of "Self-defence", and are taught to only use it in the context
of
> > defending oneself.
> >
>
> I see your point about knowledge only being dangerous if it is used
a
> certain way, but that doesn't change the fact that when you present
> an internet group with this very dangerous method of 'giving
yourself
> a headache', people are goign to try it. ESPECIALLY if you say
you've
> tried it on yourself with success.
>
> Your whole post was written in 'try it if you think you know what
> you're doing' sort of way. Of course people are going to think
they
> know what they're doing, even if they don't!
I'm just going to add one more point here....
But isn't that with hypnosis aswell? Now hypnosis is can EXREMELY
DANGEROUS. Ormand Mcgill wrote his book in a similar fashion. Now I
do belive that his book is 'publically available'. And if you read
it, he explains two techniques which are by far more dangerous then
the one I described.
