Man urinates on dying woman, declaring it 'YouTube material'

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

Thank God it wasnt me!!! When i do nuber 1 i get the urge to do number 2....

thanks...now i'm thinking of star trek.

[joelunchbox 0]

What is sad and makes me angry is that NO ONE stopped him!!!! What does it take to get anyone involved in something??

[almaty 19]

the guy is an obvious Narcisstic Personality Disorder...with ascocial personality patterns ...rehabilitation will not work for him...prison will be the best option

[Nessa 23]

the guy is an obvious Narcisstic Personality Disorder...with ascocial personality patterns ...rehabilitation will not work for him...prison will be the best option

I think more of an Assclown Dickhead Disorder with pothead personality patterns

[almaty 19]

the guy is an obvious Narcisstic Personality Disorder...with ascocial personality patterns ...rehabilitation will not work for him...prison will be the best option

I think more of an Assclown Dickhead Disorder with pothead personality patterns

damn, sister nessa, you make an excellent psychologist..your diagnosis is 100% correct

[Heracles 417]

"A 27-year-old British man urinated on a dying woman"

Dam I wish I saw that. I would have punched him so hard they would have to use the jaws of life to get my hand out of his skull.

Now that would be Youtube material....

[~*Maria*~ 1]

OMG!! thats sick, i hope he gets everything that's coming to him. Me, i'd block his ability to pee for time he's in jail, have the inmates p!ss in to a bucket, pour some of it over his head and make him drink the leftovers!!

[DeadPoolX 9]

Apparently according to some in other threads this used to happen all the time in previous decades..

Well, it might have happened at some points in previous decades. The two main differences being that the media wasn't "everywhere" back then so they didn't have the ability to report on it like they do now and this would probably have been considered extremely deviant years ago, so it would've been "swept under the rug."

That doesn't mean the man who urinated on the woman (if caught) wouldn't be punished. It just means his story wouldn't be blasted all over the nightly news, newspapers, and so on. The media, many years ago, felt that there was a limit to what people should and should not know, based upon "good taste" and "morality."

Nothing like that today, though. Which could be thought of as either a good or bad thing, depending on how you look at it. Good because then we get relatively unfiltered reporting; bad because we probably don't need to hear about some man who felt the need to urinate on a dying woman. Unfortunately, we can't really "pick-and-choose" how we want each story or headline. It's going to be one way or the other and so we just need to deal with it.

How many more examples do we need though before some see there is a change in society. Especially in attitude towards others. The media has nothing to do with this.

Another great example is teachers who have taught the same class over 30 years and say that there clearly been a change in behavior and attitude of the kids they teach, decade by decade. Where kids have little or no respect for authority. Where kids are able to lie through their noses and have no guilt about it.

Well, maybe the difference you're speaking of comes from a changing viewpoint.

I think that today, people are more concerned about themselves and their own "personal freedoms and rights" than the "overall welfare of the community." Go back 50 or 100 or 200 years (or even more) and you'll see a much greater emphasis placed on the family and community as a whole, rather than the individual. But if you think about it, this may be more a product of the times rather than a "sudden change" in behavior.

Here's what I think has changed or what is different...

1. It's easier than ever before to travel anywhere in the world -- just hop on a plane and fly there! Practically everyone owns a car. Public transportation is even available (although it tends to be less than perfect in most North American cities) if necessary.

2. Computers and the Internet have enabled people to access stores, information, people, etc., from all over the world that they have never been able to in previous generations. Not without physically traveling there themselves!

Without capabilities such as this, very few of us would have ever met our significant others. So we're all really quite lucky, in that respect, to live in a time when we can communicate with anyone on the planet.

3. Education, for the most part, is far more widely available than in the past (universities no longer block people based on gender, race, religion, ethnicity, etc), so the chance to become successful is much greater than before. It's certainly not guaranteed, but the ability to "make something" of one's self is there.

4. Equal opportunities are now available, whereas in the past, it wasn't really this way (except under certain conditions). Members of all races, religions, ethnicities, and genders have access to the same areas of work -- unless, of course, the field in question categorically demands something that only a select group can do. For instance, if the job was "surrogate mother," then obviously a man could not fill the role. But barring such unusual circumstances, the vast majority of career fields are open to anyone.

5. There are people (mostly men, but some women) who view taking women out of the home and putting them into the workforce as one of the primary causes of society's downward spiral in values. They say that if more women were stay-at-home moms (and potentially homemakers), then they could tend to the children and raise the kids correctly. Their view is that if both parents work, then the children are left at daycare centers when young and later to their own devices at home when they're older. This allows the kids to learn primarily from their friends and the media, when they should be learning from their parents.

Personally, I don't agree with this. Okay, maybe it'd be nice if mom could stay home with the kids (assuming she even wants to), but in most situations, it's just not financial possible to do so. Most families are two-income homes now, not always by choice, but by necessity. I'm sure there are quite a few mothers who'd like to take more time off after having children to be with their kids, but can't because they need to work. That's just the way things are today and unless one spouse makes a ton of money or they're independently wealthy, there's really no choice.

6. Marriage, for many, is no longer seen as a pact or commitment. Most new husbands and wives consider themselves nothing more than "roommates with benefits." When a problem arises (and make no mistake, it will), neither one wishes to work on it. If this situation continues, then the marriage will ultimately fail (as do the great majority of marriages today).

7. Parents aren't being parents anymore; at least not most of them. From what I've noticed, far too many parents are "afraid" of upsetting their child (or worse yet, making their kid "dislike" them) to discipline them and instill rules and a sense of values. I'm not going to say just "what" those values need to be (everyone thinks differently), but if the parent doesn't do this, the child will learn their values from their friends or popular media. A parent's place is to be a parent. They are not there to be the child's "friend." This doesn't mean the parent needs to be harsh, unrelenting or unforgiving. It just means that they need to know when to say "enough is enough."

That's pretty much all I can think of at the moment. Maybe I'll come up with something else later.

[Heracles 417]

That's pretty much all I can think of at the moment. Maybe I'll come up with something else later.

Now that is a freakin post. Don't see too many of those around here..

Edited September 20, 2007 by Boo-Yah!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Apparently according to some in other threads this used to happen all the time in previous decades..

You see – you make provocative statements like this yet balk when your opinions are subject to criticism.

As far as this goes I think you would be hard pressed to deny that there weren’t stupid, ignorant or evil people living in any decade you choose to name.

[Jasman0717 9]

^{This is truly weird}

[Heracles 417]

Apparently according to some in other threads this used to happen all the time in previous decades..

You see – you make provocative statements like this yet balk when your opinions are subject to criticism.

As far as this goes I think you would be hard pressed to deny that there weren’t stupid, ignorant or evil people living in any decade you choose to name.

The stigma with doing something like this has changed. I don't think even in the dark ages would someone disrespect a dead person by urinating on them for fun.

Actually come to think about it, ever seen the following?

[SteveLaura 0]

^{This is truly weird}

Hey, Jim, is this your two-fingered gesture to those who don't appreciate your large fonts?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Apparently according to some in other threads this used to happen all the time in previous decades..

Well, it might have happened at some points in previous decades. The two main differences being that the media wasn't "everywhere" back then so they didn't have the ability to report on it like they do now and this would probably have been considered extremely deviant years ago, so it would've been "swept under the rug."

That doesn't mean the man who urinated on the woman (if caught) wouldn't be punished. It just means his story wouldn't be blasted all over the nightly news, newspapers, and so on. The media, many years ago, felt that there was a limit to what people should and should not know, based upon "good taste" and "morality."

Nothing like that today, though. Which could be thought of as either a good or bad thing, depending on how you look at it. Good because then we get relatively unfiltered reporting; bad because we probably don't need to hear about some man who felt the need to urinate on a dying woman. Unfortunately, we can't really "pick-and-choose" how we want each story or headline. It's going to be one way or the other and so we just need to deal with it.

How many more examples do we need though before some see there is a change in society. Especially in attitude towards others. The media has nothing to do with this.

Another great example is teachers who have taught the same class over 30 years and say that there clearly been a change in behavior and attitude of the kids they teach, decade by decade. Where kids have little or no respect for authority. Where kids are able to lie through their noses and have no guilt about it.

Sure it does - there have been studies on how the media, for example alters the public perception of crime - making people think that certain crimes (rape for example) are more common than they really. Common sense if you really think about it - if your newspapers and nightly news are full of outrageous stories about violent, crazy people how is this not going to change how you view those people and those crimes.

The real test might be in asking yourself how many of these 'extreme' people do you meet in your day to day life? Probably not too many.

I think this guy deserves the full punishment of the law - IMO he doesn't deserve being elevated onto some sort of pedestal as an example of 'what's wrong with the modern age'. That IMO is rather unfair to everyone else who isn't like that.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

coulda been worse, he coulda taken a dump on her.