I simply do not believe in such an 'effect'.
I simply do not believe in such an 'effect'.
It doesn't explain why a collection of people are immobilised when it comes to being labelled as 'bystanders'.
It doesn't explain why a collection of people are immobilised when it comes to being labelled as 'bystanders'.
By what right do these academic works have to call these people 'bystanders' when they're viewing each situation from a wholly impersonal standpoint.
Having situations labelled is a superficial way of explaining away complex human reactions and interactions,
and I simply do not believe in such an 'effect'.
I doth protest but they don't care; like the MMGW argument there's a lot of theory but very little practical evidence to convince those it exists beyond journals.
Which is why I politely decline to expand on my previous points regarding 'litigation' and bow out, firstly wishing that swift justice is applied, 'bystander cobblers' or not.
I doth protest but they don't care; like the MMGW argument there's a lot of theory but very little practical evidence to convince those it exists beyond journals.
Someone has actually tried to qualify why people don't get involved. I'm shocked, I really am! Simple reason, it's called litigation and I am absolutely appalled that someone managed to find time to write the wiki (which is absolute drivel BTW) but not to help the person in distress.
What a spineless society we have become!
It doesn't explain why a collection of people are immobilised when it comes to being labelled as 'bystanders'. By what right do these academic works have to call these people 'bystanders' when they're viewing each situation from a wholly impersonal standpoint.
Having situations labelled is a superficial way of explaining away complex human reactions and interactions, and I simply do not believe in such an 'effect'.
I doth protest but they don't care; like the MMGW argument there's a lot of theory but very little practical evidence to convince those it exists beyond journals.
Which is why I politely decline to expand on my previous points regarding 'litigation' and bow out, firstly wishing that swift justice is applied, 'bystander cobblers' or not.
Oxenholme (May 2006, there's plenty about it to be found online) was an already violent situation which tragically led to the murder of the individual who intervened with the very best of intentions.
Two sides of the same coin, not everyone is simplistic as you make them out to be, and besides I have done no theorising, just opining, which I'm entitled to do without the patronising.Who would an average person rather believe? Proper scientific research papers published in a reputable journal or some bloke who spouts his own theories but refuses to back them up with hard solid evidence or reasoning?
Just a personal opinion but there seems to be a heck of a lot of 'utter twaddle' in this thread ! - presumably, it's just me.
Two sides of the same coin, not everyone is simplistic as you make them out to be, and besides I have done no theorising, just opining, which I'm entitled to do without the patronising.
Your are entitled to express an opinion, subject to the forum rules, of course, but others are just as entitled to challenge you!
The question is really how much weight others will give to mere opinions when presented with no evidence in support of them
Just a personal opinion but there seems to be a heck of a lot of 'utter twaddle' in this thread ! - presumably, it's just me.
Again no need to be patronising; I can express opinions without evidence and if that irks/bothers people they can challenge me without further need to be priggish.
It really is that simple, Greenback.
Two sides of the same coin, not everyone is simplistic as you make them out to be, and besides I have done no theorising, just opining, which I'm entitled to do without the patronising.
It's my fault as I started the thread, wish I hadn't, at the end of the day this is some bloke who as tried raping this poor women, he needs to be cought as the next step with a pervert is far serious.
How is that patronising? It wasn't intended to be, it was meant as an illustration of the reality of life!
As I said, you can express opinions without evidence, but don't expect people to accept them, and don't get upset if they don't.
As for academics only questioning, that gave me a good laugh.
Academics always question, never reiterate,
But it's far from the 'reality of life' and that's the problem.People express opinions every day.
They can explain why they feel that why but they're certainly not devalued if they're not backed up with evidence.
That's the essence of a debate. If their explanation starts quoting what they perceive as factual then by all means they SHOULD back it up with evidence. In this case, my opinion is that the 'bystander effect' is entirely pseudo-scientific with no basis in reality. My evidence: I used to witness people crowding around whilst crimes were committed and their reasons were different for not intervening. Every situation is different and it cannot be explained away by one big umbrella term. Now people have retorted with links to academic research but have given me no reason, besides superficial re-assurances that they're somehow 'reputable', to trust their content. I may read the literature but I don't have to accept it and, moreover, no obligation to explain why.
But it's far from the 'reality of life' and that's the problem.People express opinions every day. They can explain why they feel that why but they're certainly not devalued if they're not backed up with evidence.