Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

UAE high court rules men can beat wives, young children if there are no visible marks

By Ethan Sacks
DAILY NEWS WRITER
Monday, October 18th 2010, 8:59 AM

It's perfectly legal for a man to beat his wife and young children in the United Arab Emirates, as long as the assault leaves no physical marks, the country's highest court ruled.
Citing Islamic law, the Federal Supreme Court made the decision earlier this month in its ruling on a case of a man who slapped and kicked his daughter and slapped his wife, Abu Dhabi's The National reported Monday.
The wife sustained injuries to her lower lip and teeth and the 23-year-old daughter suffered bruises on her hand and knee from the beating. The court ruled against the defendant, saying he crossed the line suggested by Sharia Law, because his daughter was no longer a minor and his wife had visible injuries.
But in the process, Chief Justice Falah al Hajeri stated that there are conditions when domestic violence is acceptable.
"Although the permits the husband to use his right , he has to abide by the limits of this right," al Hajeri wrote in a ruling released in a court document Sunday.
"If the husband abuses this right to discipline, he cannot be exempted from punishment."
Dr Ahmed al Kubaisi, the head of Sharia Studies at UAE University and Baghdad University, told the National that beating one's wife is at times necessary to preserve family bonds.
"If a wife committed something wrong, a husband can report her to police," Dr al Kubaisi told the newspaper. "But sometimes she does not do a serious thing or he does not want to let others know; when it is not good for the family. In this case, hitting is a better option."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/10/18/2010-10- 18_uae_high_court_rules_men_can_beat_wives_young_c
hildren_if_there_are_no_visible_m.html

This is just one story, it's appeared in many other news outlets. The bold parts made me LoL.

My wife is not going to like this.

i'm down with the ruling. some times corporal punishment is the way to go.

notice there is a difference of what is considered a beating and punishment.

wolfwood

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
My wife is not going to like this.

Tell her it's the law; she doesn't want to be an outlaw, does she.

Originally posted by King Castle
i'm down with the ruling. some times corporal punishment is the way to go.

notice there is a difference of what is considered a beating and punishment.

wolfwood

ummm, moreso than the "beating" aspect, the problem is much more that men are considered to have absolute authority over their wives, such that they would administer "punishments"

two free and equal individual adults do not have that authority over eachother

no one has the authority over another person that i do agree, especially when it comes to the law and judgment over a man or woman.

http://www.precepts.org/woe.html

but, i do believe in repercussions when a person screws some one over. that doesnt mean i would approve of slapping my wife or child b/c they argue with me. i wouldnt hit my daughter once she reached a certain age.

but, if my significant other cheated on me or screwed me over you best believe she would be praying for me just to slap her out of anger.

Originally posted by Robtard
Tell her it's the law; she doesn't want to be an outlaw, does she.

Hmmmm You don't know my wife.

Originally posted by King Castle
no one has the authority over another person that i do agree, especially when it comes to the law and judgment over a man or woman.

http://www.precepts.org/woe.html

but, i do believe in repercussions when a person screws some one over. that doesnt mean i would approve of slapping my wife or child b/c they argue with me. i wouldnt hit my daughter once she reached a certain age.

but, if my significant other cheated on me or screwed me over you best believe she would be praying for me just to slap her out of anger.



weird... such selfish and possessive ideas, at least imho, were better left in the jungle from before we became civilized creatures

if people simply abided within their own moral compass we would be fine.

more often then not we as humans as a whole dont need Laws to govern our behavior we do it every day ourselves.

i think ppl should be free to rule themselves and people know when they are stepping out of line and repercussions from one another is all the incentive one needs to stay inline.

more often then not modern laws help protect unethical/ill moral behavior of ppl from getting what they truly deserve. ppl now hide behind the law to protect them from consequences of their sh#$ baggish behavior.

I'm fine with the law as long as the Woman is allowed to attempt to defend herself. That way, at the very least if she gets beaten, it's not a matter of civil rights and one adult having authority over another, but, a matter of her simply not being a better fighter.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I'm fine with the law as long as the Woman is allowed to attempt to defend herself. That way, at the very least if she gets beaten, it's not a matter of civil rights and one adult having authority over another, but, a matter of her simply not being a better fighter. i can agree with this.

by the way i have lost to two of my girlfriend's in wrastlin when we fought.

i was of course handicapped. she was pissed and tryin to hurt me while i was tryin to enjoy the moment.

no shame in losin to a woman.

Originally posted by King Castle
if people simply abided within their own moral compass we would be fine.

trust me on this, no we wouldn't

Originally posted by King Castle
if people simply abided within their own moral compass we would be fine.

Maybe if we turn civilization back a thousand years. Unfortunately we live in the real world, things are interconnected enough that you really can't judge how harmful any but the simplest actions may be without advice.

And honestly we let this happen anyway, you can live your whole life and have very little interaction with the law except where it relates to money. The police aren't every where at once enforcing every law for everyone all the time.

Originally posted by King Castle
i think ppl should be free to rule themselves and people know when they are stepping out of line and repercussions from one another is all the incentive one needs to stay inline.

That's stupid. You now still have laws except that there's no way anybody can learn what they are until they break them. But hey at least they're not called laws anymore.

On the other hand I see the appeal of this system. I could just shoot people like you and be done with it.

Originally posted by King Castle
more often then not modern laws help protect unethical/ill moral behavior of ppl from getting what they truly deserve. ppl now hide behind the law to protect them from consequences of their sh#$ baggish behavior.

In the US it's generally the plea bargain system that lets people walk away from their crimes not the law.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I'm fine with the law as long as the Woman is allowed to attempt to defend herself. That way, at the very least if she gets beaten, it's not a matter of civil rights and one adult having authority over another, but, a matter of her simply not being a better fighter.

Sharia law gives no modern rights to women. They'll get beaten or otherwise punished for fighting back.

Originally posted by King Castle
if people simply abided within their own moral compass we would be fine.

I don't think Jeffry Dahmer or Adolf Hitler found anything(murders, hatred etc) they did immoral, see.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Sharia law gives no modern rights to women. They'll get beaten or otherwise punished for fighting back.

Then I do not agree with this policy. In fact, if any vicious beatings of women are to be commenced, I demand that said women are trained in Krav Maga first.

Then the beating can begin.

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't think Jeffry Dahmer or Adolf Hitler found anything(murders, hatred etc) they did immoral, see.

Perhaps KC thinks that they knew what was right but did what was wrong.

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't think Jeffry Dahmer or Adolf Hitler found anything(murders, hatred etc) they did immoral, see. true.mhmm

i'll have to rephrase my wording. i'll get back to you.

@ bardock

kinda, sort of.


wanting, believing in something and acting on it is two different things.

i guess it comes down to having a combination of ethics and morality to temper both sides.

i like how singapore implements laws, i also like how the military Law keeps ppl in place for the most part it reduces crime rates per patum compared to the civilian standard and also reduces the ability to compromise punishment, its usually set. its strict but its fair

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Maybe if we turn civilization back a thousand years. Unfortunately we live in the real world, things are interconnected enough that you really can't judge how harmful any but the simplest actions may be without advice.

I don't even think it is a matter of time period

Studies find pretty constantly that it is people who consider themselves most moral or honest that are also among the most willing to act in socially destructive ways.

It is because our actions are goverened, to a large part, by processes that inform our consciousness, not the other way around. Since we believe we are moral, we are willing to do these actions, processed unconsciously, and then immedietly see why they fall in line with our own ideas of morality.

Its like, you can lie 50 times a day, and still feel like you are honest, largely because you will "excuse away" your behaviour under different contexts, each single example of a lie (exemplar) thus being explained to support your idea of being honest (schema).

We aren't as forgiving to others though, as we rarely take social circumstance into the equation when determining why people act the way they do. "That politician lied to us" is never really followed by an indepth anaylsys of the political system, economics, etc, and even if they are, these considerations rarely overcome our desire to assume static personality qualities of people, as opposed to situational qualities... god, if that makes sense...

Allahu Ackbar!

(by the way: Religion Forum?)

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't think Jeffry Dahmer or Adolf Hitler found anything(murders, hatred etc) they did immoral, see. Hitler didn't look outside the vehicle he was in because he didn't want to see the bodies.

Jeffrey Dahmer had to get himself drunk to kill those people and he cried afterward and constantly tried to stop what he did.

Though I see what you were saying, those were just different examples.

Originally posted by inimalist
trust me on this, no we wouldn't

I think you missed his point: Everyone's moral compass would eventually result in the possessors of extreme moral compasses being snuffed out. 313 Humans have ways of taking care of bidness...


Originally posted by Robtard
I don't think Jeffry Dahmer or Adolf Hitler found anything(murders, hatred etc) they did immoral, see.

I could argue, with little effort, that the moral compass of others saw to the mitigation of those two individual's borken moral compass. Know what I mean?

In the case of Hitler, there really was no enforceable international law he was breaking. Then came along the outside world, abiding by their moral compass.

See what I mean?


Here's a nother way of looking at things: laws are morals made official.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Hitler didn't look outside the vehicle he was in because he didn't want to see the bodies.

Jeffrey Dahmer had to get himself drunk to kill those people and he cried afterward and constantly tried to stop what he did.

Though I see what you were saying, those were just different examples.

Because he was a squeamish vegetarian and didn't like to see icky blood and death.

Only at first was alcohol needed, as the kills went on, he became more accustomed to it. He cried because he was gay. Probably just said that after he was caught.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think you missed his point: Everyone's moral compass would eventually result in the possessors of extreme moral compasses being snuffed out. 313 Humans have ways of taking care of bidness...

Originally posted by inimalist
Studies find pretty constantly that it is people who consider themselves most moral or honest that are also among the most willing to act in socially destructive ways.

It is because our actions are goverened, to a large part, by processes that inform our consciousness, not the other way around. Since we believe we are moral, we are willing to do these actions, processed unconsciously, and then immedietly see why they fall in line with our own ideas of morality.

Its like, you can lie 50 times a day, and still feel like you are honest, largely because you will "excuse away" your behaviour under different contexts, each single example of a lie (exemplar) thus being explained to support your idea of being honest (schema).

We aren't as forgiving to others though, as we rarely take social circumstance into the equation when determining why people act the way they do. "That politician lied to us" is never really followed by an indepth anaylsys of the political system, economics, etc, and even if they are, these considerations rarely overcome our desire to assume static personality qualities of people, as opposed to situational qualities... god, if that makes sense...

it is not the people with extreme moral compases that would be the problem

its like a good monster movie, the monster is terrifying, but its the people you are trapped with that are going to kill you

Originally posted by Robtard
Because he was a squeamish vegetarian and didn't like to see icky blood and death.

Only at first was alcohol needed, as the kills went on, he became more accustomed to it. He cried because he was gay. Probably just said that after he was caught. lol rob

Originally posted by Robtard
Because he was a squeamish vegetarian and didn't like to see icky blood and death.

Only at first was alcohol needed, as the kills went on, he became more accustomed to it. He cried because he was gay. Probably just said that after he was caught. Lolz... and he drilled holes and dismembered his victims? He did it, but it was more like an addict going back to something than a "I just don't give a damn".

Ted Bundy may be close to what you're looking for.

It's also legal to marry an 8 year old in Malaysia because Mahummad did it.

Originally posted by the ninjak
It's also legal to marry an 8 year old in Malaysia because Mahummad did it.

It's illegal for anyone under 17 to marry in Yemen where Muhammed was born.

Originally posted by ExodusCloak
It's illegal for anyone under 17 to marry in Yemen where Muhammed was born.

different countries make up their own rules to suit their wants.

Originally posted by the ninjak
It's also legal to marry an 8 year old in Malaysia because Mahummad did it.

"Eight year olds, Dude."

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Hitler didn't look outside the vehicle he was in because he didn't want to see the bodies.

Jeffrey Dahmer had to get himself drunk to kill those people and he cried afterward and constantly tried to stop what he did.



Damn, maybe i had those bastards pegged all wrong.

Vlad Tepes is the baddest dude in all history.....by a longshot!

Originally posted by the ninjak
Vlad Tepes is the baddest dude in all history.....by a longshot!

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/vlad-the-impaler-no-worse-than-other-princes/story-e6frfku0-1225890085142



Also, here's a dude more bad than Vlad (I rhymed, b*tches):

Mao Tse-Tung





And I would argue that Stalin is the worst in History, more so than Hitler.

Originally posted by inimalist
it is not the people with extreme moral compases that would be the problem

its like a good monster movie, the monster is terrifying, but its the people you are trapped with that are going to kill you

I don't see how that post of yours, quoted, abides with cognitive dissonance. The person tries to rationalize it away because of cognitive dissonance, meaning, they know what they did was bad to begin with.

Someone that is in a constant state of rationalization, like that, is definitely not normal: they are in the extreme, and, therefore, fit outside what I referred to as normal.

If left to their own moral compass, and assuming there would never arise a large governing body, I think humans could take care of themselves because the average moral compass would be fine. However, that's not possible and where there are humans (as we currently know them) there will always exist a hierarchy which includes a governing body.

This is due to human intelligence and extreme social trait: we tend to categorize everything and represent it, symbolically. Our thoughts are so symbolic that we start thinking, symbolically, as infants. We will, inevitably, end up with social hierarchies, due to this symbolic thought (weird, but it's not that far of a stretch).


But let me be clear that I am very near to speaking completely out of my ass. I am delving into the realm of your studies and probably look like a fool to you.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't see how that post of yours, quoted, abides with cognitive dissonance. The person tries to rationalize it away because of cognitive dissonance, meaning, they know what they did was bad to begin with.

actually, they don't enter a phase of cognitive dissonance, the justification for action comes as part of the narrative we tell ourselves. The act is right because they are, in the way they narrate existance to themselves, a good person.

and science would tell you this is true for ~50% of people who consider themselves to be absolutly moral, which is a significant portion of the population.

This is almost identical to the concept of "depressive realism", where depressed people are more aware of how they apear to others than are non-depressed people. The fact is, people have hugely inflated ideas of their own ability and how impressive they are to others, and losing the ability to tell these lies to ourselves is related to being clinically depressed. People are unable to see themselves as anything but what their personal narritives tell them that they are. I know at least 70-80% of the people reading this think that I am talking about "other" people, but this is one of the most fundamental parts of our cognition, everyone does this. You build ideas about the way things are, and then interpret all further events in that light, not as neutral things.

EDIT: you are absolutly right though, someone who was in a constant dissonate state would be outside of the realm of "normal", and because of this, our brain creates a story and sticks to it, no matter what, thus, we never have dissonance.

Originally posted by inimalist
actually, they don't enter a phase of cognitive dissonance, the justification for action comes as part of the narrative we tell ourselves. The act is right because they are, in the way they narrate existance to themselves, a good person.

and science would tell you this is true for ~50% of people who consider themselves to be absolutly moral, which is a significant portion of the population.

This is almost identical to the concept of "depressive realism", where depressed people are more aware of how they apear to others than are non-depressed people. The fact is, people have hugely inflated ideas of their own ability and how impressive they are to others, and losing the ability to tell these lies to ourselves is related to being clinically depressed. People are unable to see themselves as anything but what their personal narritives tell them that they are. I know at least 70-80% of the people reading this think that I am talking about "other" people, but this is one of the most fundamental parts of our cognition, everyone does this. You build ideas about the way things are, and then interpret all further events in that light, not as neutral things.

EDIT: you are absolutly right though, someone who was in a constant dissonate state would be outside of the realm of "normal", and because of this, our brain creates a story and sticks to it, no matter what, thus, we never have dissonance.


To the first part, I thought that's what was part of cognitive dissonance?: doing something that goes against our perceived morals and then immediately justifying it, afterwards, due to cognitive dissonance kicking in. How is what you're talking about, lying all the time, and justifying it immediately afterwards, any different? Deep down...you could get that person to admit that what they were doing is wrong. I think the "justification of righteousness" is superficial to deep-seeded...but, if pressed in the right way, you could get that person to admit that they were going against their own set of morals.


And, really? 50 ****ing percent? That's huge! I definitely do not consider myself to be absolutely moral...that would not only be extremely retarded of me but it would be very disrespectful to the person I call God. (No, I'm not confusing that for moral absolutism, I really meant what I said.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/vlad-the-impaler-no-worse-than-other-princes/story-e6frfku0-1225890085142
Also, here's a dude more bad than Vlad (I rhymed, b*tches):
Mao Tse-Tung
And I would argue that Stalin is the worst in History, more so than Hitler.

The guy is just looking for publicity for his show riding off the vampire phenomenom. I would like to see his proof.

Originally posted by dadudemon
To the first part, I thought that's what was part of cognitive dissonance?: doing something that goes against our perceived morals and then immediately justifying it, afterwards, due to cognitive dissonance kicking in. How is what you're talking about, lying all the time, and justifying it immediately afterwards, any different?

you are essentially right (as in, I'd be nit picking to correct your definition of dissonance), but, you are adding an extra step in the process of action and justification. It goes a little something like this:

-Preconscious motivation to act based on current goals and maintaining homeostasis
.
-Motor system prepares to act, before you become consciously aware of your desire to act
.
-you act
.
-based on the immediate contexts and your previous beliefs about yourself/everything, you come to a narrative conclusion about what happened

you are adding a stage between the 3rd and 4th stages that has people weight or evaluate themselves and the consequences of their actions, which does not exist (it is called an anxiety disorder if people are constantly going over what they have done in their heads). People go straight from acting to why their act was congruent with their beliefs, not to evaluating the content of what they have done versus some moral principle.

This isn't to be condescending, but a lot of people outside of psych seem to have this "rational actor" idea of human behaviour, where we think people are these thinking and reasoning beings. It just isn't true. I think you might be a bit caught up in that type of thought here.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Deep down...you could get that person to admit that what they were doing is wrong. I think the "justification of righteousness" is superficial to deep-seeded...but, if pressed in the right way, you could get that person to admit that they were going against their own set of morals.

theoretically, yes, but then you would be forcing them into the dissonant state.

However, anecdotally, the task you have described would be like convincing JIA that the bible contains contradictions or inaccuracies. This 50% of moral people just wont agree with you, and unless you have some awesome abilities in persuasion, they will easily dismiss your words in the exact same fashion that they dismiss their behaviour in the first place.

This is somewhat related to the fact that reading political statements that you don't agree with does not activate your logical brain, but causes dissonance. Indicating that you don't rationally think about stuff that disargees with your opinion, you just straight up do whatever you can to dismiss or ignore it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And, really? 50 ****ing percent? That's huge! I definitely do not consider myself to be absolutely moral...that would not only be extremely retarded of me but it would be very disrespectful to the person I call God. (No, I'm not confusing that for moral absolutism, I really meant what I said.)

and for people who believe that they can do bad things, this phenomenon almost is non-existant. You are generally aware when you lie, but come up with more utilitarian or pragmatic reasons to justify it, rather than just saying you have the moral high ground.

I might say it is better for people to be aware that they can do bad things, because it does at least give them a better understanding of the way their actions impact people, it is important to note though, people who do or do not consider themselves moral lie at the same rate. Knowing you can do bad does not make you act better, just more aware of how society would judge your actions (with the obvious exploits that come with it)

Originally posted by inimalist
This isn't to be condescending, but a lot of people outside of psych seem to have this "rational actor" idea of human behaviour, where we think people are these thinking and reasoning beings. It just isn't true. I think you might be a bit caught up in that type of thought here.

Reminds me of an episode of Bones where a psychologist testifies that "doctor Brennan is hyperrational, she can rationalize absolutely anything."

Originally posted by inimalist
This is somewhat related to the fact that reading political statements that you don't agree with does not activate your logical brain, but causes dissonance. Indicating that you don't rationally think about stuff that disargees with your opinion, you just straight up do whatever you can to dismiss or ignore it.

I've always found this terrifying. Not because it means that the people around me will do stupid dangerous things but because it implies that even if I try really hard to make reasonable decisions about the world I can never really know. That's straight up Lovecraft style creepy to me.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Reminds me of an episode of Bones where a psychologist testifies that "doctor Brennan is hyperrational, she can rationalize absolutely anything."


I like that show, it's not particularly great written, and very predictable. And the dialogue and plots can be lame and shallow, but it's also not very offensive and it has its moments.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I like that show, it's not particularly great written, and very predictable. And the dialogue and plots can be lame and shallow, but it's also not very offensive and it has its moments.

The plots are just... absurd. Good casting, though.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The plots are just... absurd. Good casting, though.

I agree. I enjoy Boreanaz a lot especially.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I've always found this terrifying. Not because it means that the people around me will do stupid dangerous things but because it implies that even if I try really hard to make reasonable decisions about the world I can never really know. That's straight up Lovecraft style creepy to me.

I totally agree. And whats worse, is that knowing about it, and trying not to fall victim to it, you really just find ways to convince yourself that you are being open to new ideas while dismissing any evidence that shows you aren't open to ideas.

its this crazy stuff that makes me love the brain, but ya, when I think about what it means for me, it is a little terrifying and depressing

EDIT: Ive never seen bones though

Originally posted by inimalist
you are essentially right (as in, I'd be nit picking to correct your definition of dissonance), but, you are adding an extra step in the process of action and justification. It goes a little something like this:

-Preconscious motivation to act based on current goals and maintaining homeostasis
.
-Motor system prepares to act, before you become consciously aware of your desire to act
.
-you act
.
-based on the immediate contexts and your previous beliefs about yourself/everything, you come to a narrative conclusion about what happened

you are adding a stage between the 3rd and 4th stages that has people weight or evaluate themselves and the consequences of their actions, which does not exist (it is called an anxiety disorder if people are constantly going over what they have done in their heads). People go straight from acting to why their act was congruent with their beliefs, not to evaluating the content of what they have done versus some moral principle.

This isn't to be condescending, but a lot of people outside of psych seem to have this "rational actor" idea of human behaviour, where we think people are these thinking and reasoning beings. It just isn't true. I think you might be a bit caught up in that type of thought here.

lol, did writing up that middle part seem a little bit like a test you had to take as an undergrad? (seemed like a test style essay.) I hope I didn't bring out the ol' test anxiety memories from back in the day. lol

To address your point, part of cognitive dissonance is the "outcome" of the conflicting state and actions are taken.

* Change our behavior.
* Justify our behavior by changing the conflicting cognition.
* Justify our behavior by adding new cognitions

http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/cognitive_dissonance.htm

What I was referring to does not occur between steps 3 and 4, it is step 4...sort of. It's more of a step 5.

From my understanding of cognitive dissonance and that websites understanding of cognitive dissonance, it would be more of a "rationalizing actor", lol.

And, no, it wasn't condescending, it just just doesn't apply to me on this particular subject. From what I am gathering from your post, you assert A and B and then conclude with not all of B. I see a partial conflict in your reasoning. The justification occurs after the dissonance and if I understand your post correctly, the dissonance, or uncomfortable feeling, is the narritive? If so, then I just misunderstood your point 4 and no conflict is in your post.

And, yes, with dissonance, I could probably convince JIA of some of the faults that I myself experienced dissonance about and concluded that there's no logical way around it: there ARE mistakes and contradictions. Using dissonance is a persuasive method, especially if done gently and with care for the person.

One important example of using cognitive dissonance as a persuasive tool is socialism. All the time, I hear anti-socialistic sentiments. A quick and easy way to create dissonance about their take on "evil socialism" is saying something like this: "Socialism isn't that bad or are you saying you want to end your police and fire services for your community and kick your grandmother off of medicare?"

Anyway, do not read into my post as me being "snarky" or combative. That has lead into shitty pissing matches and I don't want to do this. I'm more or less curious and want to resolve my understanding of cognitive dissonance with what you know. Again, I'm on the border of talking out of my ass on this subject so I'll probably agree with whatever you post next.

THERE IS NO DISSONANCE

the justification occurs to prevent it, lol

Originally posted by inimalist
THERE IS NO DISSONANCE

the justification occurs to prevent it, lol

I don't get it.

Let's take it to PMs.

it is really easy though. dissonance only exists when there are two possible cognitive states (ie: "I'm can do bad things" or "I can't do bad things". people who know, without doubt that they don't do bad things never entertains narratives that allow for anything else, thus avoiding any dissonance

Originally posted by inimalist
it is really easy though. dissonance only exists when there are two possible cognitive states (ie: "I'm can do bad things" or "I can't do bad things". people who know, without doubt that they don't do bad things never entertains narratives that allow for anything else, thus avoiding any dissonance

To keep with your example, the person that lies 50 times a day is a pathological liar and, therefore, never experiences dissonance? Is that what you're saying?


Cause I would still disagree. Pathological liars are very much aware of their lying most of the time. I would say that they have 'desensitized" themselves to the dissonance and just don't give a **** until they experience those depressive periods where they do experience dissonance.

Originally posted by dadudemon
To keep with your example, the person that lies 50 times a day is a pathological liar and, therefore, never experiences dissonance? Is that what you're saying?


Cause I would still disagree. Pathological liars are very much aware of their lying most of the time. I would say that they have 'desensitized" themselves to the dissonance and just don't give a **** until they experience those depressive periods where they do experience dissonance.

but this isn't a theory about "pathological liars", it is about "people-who-think-they-can't-do-bad-things", and even then, only accounts for 50% of the people who believe this. It simply is an explanation for a group of subjects who said they never lie, lied, and then completely dismissed the moral implications of their action, they still saw themselves as not lying.

"desensitizing" or "not giving a shit" are cognitive strategies, much like "dismissing", that prevent the person from experiencing dissonance

Originally posted by Bardock42
I agree. I enjoy Boreanaz a lot especially. and to rest of the Bones related posts