Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although probably some of you pedantic posters would argue that the woman who died during a tornado because a tree fell in her house wasn’t a victim since “she cHoSe to live in a place with tornados” or “she chose to have trees within the vicinity of her house”

It makes them feel safe to figure out why everyone who has a tragedy was somehow responsible.

This exactly.

It us called the Just World Hypothesis (a psychological defense mechanism).

See also, Fundamental Attribution Error.

Or maybe it makes the thrill seekers feel better that nothing is in their control. No free will. It’s all pre determined.

Nope, it’s the other way around, especially on this thread.

You mean the people crying "can you even leave your house!" when people say think a little first? Because clearly there is no gray space between being sane and throwing all caution to the wind.

You can think all you want about each of your activities. You can also come to a different conclusion than someone else. What I think is rude is blaming the people who died when you weren’t in their position, you don’t have all the information, and no one cares about your opinion.

You do. Clearly. You can't stand the fact that people are judging people who disregard warnings. You aren't going to change minds by continually arguing. Bad decisions were made, tragedy ensued in a completely foreseeable situation.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although probably some of you pedantic posters would argue that the woman who died during a tornado because a tree fell in her house wasn’t a victim since “she cHoSe to live in a place with tornados” or “she chose to have trees within the vicinity of her house”

It makes them feel safe to figure out why everyone who has a tragedy was somehow responsible.

This exactly.

It us called the Just World Hypothesis (a psychological defense mechanism).

See also, Fundamental Attribution Error.

Or maybe it makes the thrill seekers feel better that nothing is in their control. No free will. It’s all pre determined.

Nope, it’s the other way around, especially on this thread.

You mean the people crying "can you even leave your house!" when people say think a little first? Because clearly there is no gray space between being sane and throwing all caution to the wind.

You can think all you want about each of your activities. You can also come to a different conclusion than someone else. What I think is rude is blaming the people who died when you weren’t in their position, you don’t have all the information, and no one cares about your opinion.

Apparently, you care.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although probably some of you pedantic posters would argue that the woman who died during a tornado because a tree fell in her house wasn’t a victim since “she cHoSe to live in a place with tornados” or “she chose to have trees within the vicinity of her house”

It makes them feel safe to figure out why everyone who has a tragedy was somehow responsible.

This exactly.

It us called the Just World Hypothesis (a psychological defense mechanism).

See also, Fundamental Attribution Error.

Or maybe it makes the thrill seekers feel better that nothing is in their control. No free will. It’s all pre determined.

Nope, it’s the other way around, especially on this thread.

You mean the people crying "can you even leave your house!" when people say think a little first? Because clearly there is no gray space between being sane and throwing all caution to the wind.

You can think all you want about each of your activities. You can also come to a different conclusion than someone else. What I think is rude is blaming the people who died when you weren’t in their position, you don’t have all the information, and no one cares about your opinion.

You do. Clearly. You can't stand the fact that people are judging people who disregard warnings. You aren't going to change minds by continually arguing. Bad decisions were made, tragedy ensued in a completely foreseeable situation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although probably some of you pedantic posters would argue that the woman who died during a tornado because a tree fell in her house wasn’t a victim since “she cHoSe to live in a place with tornados” or “she chose to have trees within the vicinity of her house”

It makes them feel safe to figure out why everyone who has a tragedy was somehow responsible.

This exactly.

It us called the Just World Hypothesis (a psychological defense mechanism).

See also, Fundamental Attribution Error.

Or maybe it makes the thrill seekers feel better that nothing is in their control. No free will. It’s all pre determined.

Nope, it’s the other way around, especially on this thread.

You mean the people crying "can you even leave your house!" when people say think a little first? Because clearly there is no gray space between being sane and throwing all caution to the wind.

You can think all you want about each of your activities. You can also come to a different conclusion than someone else. What I think is rude is blaming the people who died when you weren’t in their position, you don’t have all the information, and no one cares about your opinion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although probably some of you pedantic posters would argue that the woman who died during a tornado because a tree fell in her house wasn’t a victim since “she cHoSe to live in a place with tornados” or “she chose to have trees within the vicinity of her house”

It makes them feel safe to figure out why everyone who has a tragedy was somehow responsible.

This exactly.

It us called the Just World Hypothesis (a psychological defense mechanism).

See also, Fundamental Attribution Error.

Or maybe it makes the thrill seekers feel better that nothing is in their control. No free will. It’s all pre determined.

Nope, it’s the other way around, especially on this thread.

You mean the people crying "can you even leave your house!" when people say think a little first? Because clearly there is no gray space between being sane and throwing all caution to the wind.

There's always the risk of being struck by a meteor. It's just not worth it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although probably some of you pedantic posters would argue that the woman who died during a tornado because a tree fell in her house wasn’t a victim since “she cHoSe to live in a place with tornados” or “she chose to have trees within the vicinity of her house”

It makes them feel safe to figure out why everyone who has a tragedy was somehow responsible.

This exactly.

It us called the Just World Hypothesis (a psychological defense mechanism).

See also, Fundamental Attribution Error.

I think you're misusing the term. There's a huge difference in some tragedy befalling a person participating in daily activities and someone being struck by lightning when they intentionally take a sailboat into the ocean during a hurricane because it's exciting. The latter defies commonsense.

And what’s that difference? That you feel sad for the person who died mowing the lawn but you think it makes sense to blast the person who went on the sailboat? So if someone does something you wouldn’t do then you don’t care if they died?

You can certainly care less about their death if you want. But to me there’s a big difference between silently thinking that and trying to demonize people who died.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although probably some of you pedantic posters would argue that the woman who died during a tornado because a tree fell in her house wasn’t a victim since “she cHoSe to live in a place with tornados” or “she chose to have trees within the vicinity of her house”

It makes them feel safe to figure out why everyone who has a tragedy was somehow responsible.

This exactly.

It us called the Just World Hypothesis (a psychological defense mechanism).

See also, Fundamental Attribution Error.

Or maybe it makes the thrill seekers feel better that nothing is in their control. No free will. It’s all pre determined.

Nope, it’s the other way around, especially on this thread.

You mean the people crying "can you even leave your house!" when people say think a little first? Because clearly there is no gray space between being sane and throwing all caution to the wind.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although probably some of you pedantic posters would argue that the woman who died during a tornado because a tree fell in her house wasn’t a victim since “she cHoSe to live in a place with tornados” or “she chose to have trees within the vicinity of her house”

It makes them feel safe to figure out why everyone who has a tragedy was somehow responsible.

This exactly.

It us called the Just World Hypothesis (a psychological defense mechanism).

See also, Fundamental Attribution Error.

Or maybe it makes the thrill seekers feel better that nothing is in their control. No free will. It’s all pre determined.

Nope, it’s the other way around, especially on this thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although probably some of you pedantic posters would argue that the woman who died during a tornado because a tree fell in her house wasn’t a victim since “she cHoSe to live in a place with tornados” or “she chose to have trees within the vicinity of her house”

It makes them feel safe to figure out why everyone who has a tragedy was somehow responsible.

This exactly.

It us called the Just World Hypothesis (a psychological defense mechanism).

See also, Fundamental Attribution Error.

I think you're misusing the term. There's a huge difference in some tragedy befalling a person participating in daily activities and someone being struck by lightning when they intentionally take a sailboat into the ocean during a hurricane because it's exciting. The latter defies commonsense.

+100 …this point though, has been beaten into the ground and everyone is still arguing. I haven’t checked this thread in a while and it’s still the same back and forth BS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although probably some of you pedantic posters would argue that the woman who died during a tornado because a tree fell in her house wasn’t a victim since “she cHoSe to live in a place with tornados” or “she chose to have trees within the vicinity of her house”

It makes them feel safe to figure out why everyone who has a tragedy was somehow responsible.

This exactly.

It us called the Just World Hypothesis (a psychological defense mechanism).

See also, Fundamental Attribution Error.

I think you're misusing the term. There's a huge difference in some tragedy befalling a person participating in daily activities and someone being struck by lightning when they intentionally take a sailboat into the ocean during a hurricane because it's exciting. The latter defies commonsense.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although probably some of you pedantic posters would argue that the woman who died during a tornado because a tree fell in her house wasn’t a victim since “she cHoSe to live in a place with tornados” or “she chose to have trees within the vicinity of her house”

Or she didn't get into the basement or outdoor shelter.

You're just making up stupid comparisons.

Not me. I agree with you and was just adding on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although probably some of you pedantic posters would argue that the woman who died during a tornado because a tree fell in her house wasn’t a victim since “she cHoSe to live in a place with tornados” or “she chose to have trees within the vicinity of her house”

Or she didn't get into the basement or outdoor shelter.

You're just making up stupid comparisons.

Anonymous wrote:Although probably some of you pedantic posters would argue that the woman who died during a tornado because a tree fell in her house wasn’t a victim since “she cHoSe to live in a place with tornados” or “she chose to have trees within the vicinity of her house”

Or she didn't get into the basement or outdoor shelter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although probably some of you pedantic posters would argue that the woman who died during a tornado because a tree fell in her house wasn’t a victim since “she cHoSe to live in a place with tornados” or “she chose to have trees within the vicinity of her house”

It makes them feel safe to figure out why everyone who has a tragedy was somehow responsible.

This exactly.

It us called the Just World Hypothesis (a psychological defense mechanism).

See also, Fundamental Attribution Error.

I think you're misusing the term. There's a huge difference in some tragedy befalling a person participating in daily activities and someone being struck by lightning when they intentionally take a sailboat into the ocean during a hurricane because it's exciting. The latter defies commonsense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although probably some of you pedantic posters would argue that the woman who died during a tornado because a tree fell in her house wasn’t a victim since “she cHoSe to live in a place with tornados” or “she chose to have trees within the vicinity of her house”

It makes them feel safe to figure out why everyone who has a tragedy was somehow responsible.

This exactly.

It us called the Just World Hypothesis (a psychological defense mechanism).

See also, Fundamental Attribution Error.

Or maybe it makes the thrill seekers feel better that nothing is in their control. No free will. It’s all pre determined.