Lost Boy: The Killing of James Bulger

Papist

Robin
This is a two-part documentary on what has to be one of the most shocking and evil crimes ever committed. In Liverpool in 1993 a two year old boy was abducted and brutally murdered. It transpired that the culprits were two ten year old boys - Robert Thompson and Jon Venables.

 

Papist

Robin
No offence, but why on Earth would anyone want to watch something like this? What are you going to gain from it? The case was so disturbing and hellish.

Placing any kind of focus on stuff like this is detrimental to your being. Just grim.
Morbid curiosity? The fact that I am very close in age to the culprits and was at school at the time it happened. I'm fascinated with psychopathy, and convinced Thompson is a psychopath, which has actually allowed him to get on with his life. However, aye, it is a grim story and very disturbing - though so is war (ever seen casualties of a phosporus bomb?), famine (ever seen the picture of a starving child praying for food?), animal cruelty, and lots of other things. I don't watch these things for pleasure, but one should understand that our own salubrious bubble is not a true representation of the world. Evil exists, psychopaths exist.

This story is fascinating because of the tender age of the culprits. What sort of a society created them? A Western one with a relatively good welfare state. It is not material impoverishment that caused them to do what they did.
 

Philonous

Sparrow
This video’s telling me I have to be located in the UK to upload the content (I’m in America). Nonethless, I well remember the story when it first came out.

I’d say it’s a good argument for once again taking seriously the study of phrenology. I think that Victorian form of medicine was wrongfully lumped with the theory of “bodily humors”—lumped with something which preceded human anatomical studies, whereas phrenology is actually based on a comprehensive comparison of a vast number of human skulls.

And tell me this—which politically powerful human entities during the Victorian era and early 20th century do you think would fight the hardest against legitimizing phrenology, if only because they themselves were psychopaths and likely to be outed by any phrenological exam of their own heads?

Perhaps members the Rothschild banking dynasty and their sister bankers behind Cecil Rhodes’ Roundtable and the founding of the US Federal Reserve?

Right now, it’s coming back. Functional MRI strongly suggests there’s legitimacy to phrenology. This, with an endless of number of almost exclusively Jewish neurologists fighting it tooth and nail—all because “it may encourage racism”.

Perhaps it would lead to a medical cure for crime, and this isn’t something the world’s most powerful criminals want.
 
Interesting how there's a pro-"phrenology" argument in a thread regarding the Robert Thompson and Jon Venables case.

Look at the picture of this man, Scott Bradley (and also how his personality is described). The so-called normal townsfolk had already judged him, and were just looking for any excuse to take their unjustified hatred further:


Future scenario?...
Interviewer: "Why did you and your friends hate that man so much? He never did anything bad to you or anyone else."
@Philonous : "Because Science told us he was evil!"

Instead of legitimizing the man-made invention of phrenology, I suggest assessing people based on the criteria of our 'psychopathic' God. (1 Samuel 16:7; 1 Kings 8:39)
 

Feyoder

Kingfisher
No offence, but why on Earth would anyone want to watch something like this? What are you going to gain from it? The case was so disturbing and hellish.

Placing any kind of focus on stuff like this is detrimental to your being. Just grim.

Also it's very old news. Do we have to dredge up this awful story?
 

Papist

Robin
Interesting how there's a pro-"phrenology" argument in a thread regarding the Robert Thompson and Jon Venables case.

Look at the picture of this man, Scott Bradley (and also how his personality is described). The so-called normal townsfolk had already judged him, and were just looking for any excuse to take their unjustified hatred further:


Future scenario?...
Interviewer: "Why did you and your friends hate that man so much? He never did anything bad to you or anyone else."
@Philonous : "Because Science told us he was evil!"

Instead of legitimizing the man-made invention of phrenology, I suggest assessing people based on the criteria of our 'psychopathic' God. (1 Samuel 16:7; 1 Kings 8:39)
That story is tragic. It's sadly the result of two things:

i) Gossip - malicious and often stupid people are often terribly excited by a scandal, and as nothing happens in their pointless, miserable lives, they will often have to invent it.
ii) Thuggery - if I am being charitable they will be motivated by displaced anger borne out of evil the world has inflicted upon them, but often they just want to hurt somebody and the excuse they can use in cases like this is that they are predicting their community, their family and avenging those harmed by the victim of the gossip.

Both gossip and thuggery are evil.

Phrenology? I would like to think it's nonsense, however I often judge people based on instinct. I will admit that I have sometimes been wrong, but some people have an aura which suggests hidden knavery and more often than not I am right.
 

Philonous

Sparrow
Interesting how there's a pro-"phrenology" argument in a thread regarding the Robert Thompson and Jon Venables case.

Look at the picture of this man, Scott Bradley (and also how his personality is described). The so-called normal townsfolk had already judged him, and were just looking for any excuse to take their unjustified hatred further:


Future scenario?...
Interviewer: "Why did you and your friends hate that man so much? He never did anything bad to you or anyone else."
@Philonous : "Because Science told us he was evil!"

Instead of legitimizing the man-made invention of phrenology, I suggest assessing people based on the criteria of our 'psychopathic' God. (1 Samuel 16:7; 1 Kings 8:39)
The first OT quote you offered was from Samuel (the Book of Samuel) talking about how the Israelites were foolishly impressed with Saul’s tall height and otherwise kingly appearance. Yet it has utterly no bearing on what I was saying.

There is nothing visually “impressive” about having small portions of the sides of one’s head enlarged several millimeters beyond the mean average of skull proportions. You can’t even see them without a set of calipers, or some measuring device that would serve the same ends.

What I’m talking about amounts to a physical infirmity, not a physical boon in any aesthetic sense.

And there is nothing in the NT that suggests a physical infirmity should go uncorrected.

The second OT quote you offered is irrelevant (here) for an entirely different reason. In that context, the Bible is referring to the human heart metaphorically, meaning “conscience”. It’s not a literal interpretation. People can and do have heart transplants without turning into psychopaths, or persons devoid of human conscience.

The human brain is the organ through which the human soul constructs practical physical actions for its will. If this will be corrupted by selfishness, and the person possessing such will indulges selfish plans and ambitious over a long course of time, then he is training certain areas of his brain to be unduly neurologically active. The body accommodates by increasing blood nourishment to those regions. He is thereby adding proteins to them—and once thusly added to an organ does not immediately diminish on its own.

This is akin to the effect of Graves Hyperthyroidism on the thyroid gland, generally brought about by a protracted period of excessive physical exertions (this, along with a hereditary predisposition). In this disease the entire gland becomes enlarged, and being thusly enlarged, does more work and produces more thyroid hormone. The person’s metabolism then increases beyond normal functioning. They gradually lose the ability to sleep and grow emaciated. The only way to correct it is to destroy those overgrown portions of the gland, either by surgery or radiated iodine.

Phrenological surgery would be no more than the correction of specific overactive regions of the brain through a considerably more targeted surgery than that offered in the treatment of Graves Disease. And it wouldn’t even have to be invasive—the results could be achieved through magnetically restricting the blood flow to those portions and those portions alone.

And yes, blood flow can be safely and predictably restricted through magnetism. This was proven in a series of studies undertaken by Dr. Ching Jen Chen of Florida State University in the 1990s.

Similarly, functional MRI is now showing how behavioral impulses—including baser ones, such as those inclining a person to steal, rape, or otherwise brutalize others—can and do recur in specific topographical regions of the cerebellum:
Such is an infirmity waiting to be fixed. Yet it seems you would argue for it go uncorrected. I can only wonder why.
 
The first OT quote you offered was from Samuel (the Book of Samuel) talking about how the Israelites were foolishly impressed with Saul’s tall height and otherwise kingly appearance. Yet it has utterly no bearing on what I was saying.

There is nothing visually “impressive” about having small portions of the sides of one’s head enlarged several millimeters beyond the mean average of skull proportions. You can’t even see them without a set of calipers, or some measuring device that would serve the same ends.

What I’m talking about amounts to a physical infirmity, not a physical boon in any aesthetic sense.

And there is nothing in the NT that suggests a physical infirmity should go uncorrected.

The second OT quote you offered is irrelevant (here) for an entirely different reason. In that context, the Bible is referring to the human heart metaphorically, meaning “conscience”. It’s not a literal interpretation. People can and do have heart transplants without turning into psychopaths, or persons devoid of human conscience.

The human brain is the organ through which the human soul constructs practical physical actions for its will. If this will be corrupted by selfishness, and the person possessing such will indulges selfish plans and ambitious over a long course of time, then he is training certain areas of his brain to be unduly neurologically active. The body accommodates by increasing blood nourishment to those regions. He is thereby adding proteins to them—and once thusly added to an organ does not immediately diminish on its own.

This is akin to the effect of Graves Hyperthyroidism on the thyroid gland, generally brought about by a protracted period of excessive physical exertions (this, along with a hereditary predisposition). In this disease the entire gland becomes enlarged, and being thusly enlarged, does more work and produces more thyroid hormone. The person’s metabolism then increases beyond normal functioning. They gradually lose the ability to sleep and grow emaciated. The only way to correct it is to destroy those overgrown portions of the gland, either by surgery or radiated iodine.

Phrenological surgery would be no more than the correction of specific overactive regions of the brain through a considerably more targeted surgery than that offered in the treatment of Graves Disease. And it wouldn’t even have to be invasive—the results could be achieved through magnetically restricting the blood flow to those portions and those portions alone.

And yes, blood flow can be safely and predictably restricted through magnetism. This was proven in a series of studies undertaken by Dr. Ching Jen Chen of Florida State University in the 1990s.

Similarly, functional MRI is now showing how behavioral impulses—including baser ones, such as those inclining a person to steal, rape, or otherwise brutalize others—can and do recur in specific topographical regions of the cerebellum:
Such is an infirmity waiting to be fixed.
I appreciate that you took your time to clarify where you personally stand on this. I agree with you that physical (head) infirmities should have physical (surgical) intervention when needed, not just being dismissed with the victim left to suffer unnecessarily. You are also correct in stating that "there is nothing in the NT that suggests a physical infirmity should go uncorrected." Quite the opposite; the writer of the bible book of Luke, was a physician (Colossians 4:14).

My issue is that the original "phrenology" and "physiognomy" - I would expand to say that the modern application is "lookism" - the idea of compartmentualizing a person's entire character and moral worth, based on head-bumps, or (pronounced) aesthetic features that are considered unappealing. Both phrenology and physiognomy were used (abused?) to do just that. Perhaps it's the history of the (mis)application of the two fields that are the most concerning, rather then the fields themselves?

As for Saul; remember that if something superficial impresses people into a misguided 'auto-positive' evaluation, then someone who lacks (or is the opposite of) that superficial trait will be given a misguided 'auto-negative' evaluation.

Yes, the human heart, as mentioned in 1 Kings, is referencing, not the literal organ, but a person's deepest motivations. My original inclusion of that scripture was to further emphasize what most people now foolishly ignore, that being "it's what's on the inside that truly counts". And it is.

Yet it seems you would argue for it go uncorrected. I can only wonder why.
You'll have to enlighten me (elsewhere) as to what you're suggesting with this.

@Papist
Out of respect, I'll end my comments on your thread with this post. My original, related observation, is now veering off into hijacking your thread with another issue.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
...
My issue is that the original "phrenology" and "physiognomy" - I would expand to say that the modern application is "lookism" - the idea of compartmentualizing a person's entire character and moral worth, based on head-bumps, or (pronounced) aesthetic features that are considered unappealing.
...
I use the term "physiognomy" to refer generally to the correlation between someone's looks, mannerisms, and "vibe," with their moral character.

There is no doubt at all that people look different and give off different vibes and energies based on their moral qualities and the state of their soul.

The phrase "the eyes are the windows to the soul" exists for a reason.
 
Top