Supernatural
By rongo12 - 11/05/2012 21:41
By rongo12 - 11/05/2012 21:41
By void bowels() { cry(); } - 26/11/2014 20:45 - United Kingdom - Caerphilly
By fsfs - 17/08/2013 16:27 - Germany - Kiel
By Anonymous - 25/06/2009 02:06 - Canada
By Lilly_28 - 11/08/2009 14:01 - United States
By shelbylove115 - 22/02/2013 05:35 - United States - Nevada City
By Anonymous - 15/07/2021 20:01 - United Kingdom - Glasgow
By breeeeeh - 21/06/2013 22:18 - France - Brou-sur-chantereine
By haunted - 24/11/2011 20:30 - United Kingdom
By Scaredshitless - 03/02/2010 13:48 - France
By Anonymous - 31/07/2013 23:19 - United Kingdom - Falkirk
That's what I would've thought. Oh wait, I wouldn't have thought that. Cause it's kinda stupid, and this is a kid saying that
Whew you're right that was close. You almost overreacted for a second there
You do know there is no such thing as ghosts right?
And what kind of proof do you have to denounce the existence of ghosts?
In this thread: two fools spewing logical fallacies and a chick who just got told Santa isn't real. OfficeNinja: it's a disgrace you got thumbed down like that and it makes me sad that the people who did that somehow smuggled internet-ready devices into their cells at the mental institution. Weird to see such crappy security.
93- I don't think any of us are in a position to denounce people's beliefs, and then call them clinically insane for it. People are entitled to their beliefs, if not anything else. It's like me calling Noor a crazy terrorist because ignorant extremists in her religion kill people 'In the name of Islam'. Both unfounded and unfair. Now, I'm not saying ghosts do or don't exist, though I have an open mind, and am not suprised by much; I'm saying that regardless of how anyone feels, we should respect people's beliefs, and get past a few petty disagreements. Live and let live.
@61 The complete absence of proof that they do exist? You seem to understand the concept of burden of proof backwards.
#61: Burden of proof. Imagine a scenario in which the OP, for some reason, DIDN'T learn the truth behind what he saw. He isn't allowed to just say, "I don't know why it happened, therefore it must have been a ghost." Besides that, though, a few things always bothered me. Things that bear striking resemblances to the sorts of things that might be products of being not-very-well-thought-out fabrications. 1: Why are ghosts always members of cultures with which the ghost-spotter is at least vaguely familiar? It practically seems like ghosts only started appearing around the Victorian era. Aside from a few specific haunts, you never, ever hear anyone say, "And the spectral Babylonian came through the wall..." (Okay, they'd need someone to identify it as such, but with the abundance of "ghost photography" you'd think that'd be pretty easy, right?) 2: Why are ghosts clothed? Do clothes have souls too, then? If they can just bring whatever they want with them, why is that all they have? 3: Lastly, why are ghosts always so darn eager to affirm the religious beliefs of whoever happens to see them? Any time they're reported to make any reference to religious/spiritual issues at all, it always happens to reinforce the ghost-spotter's existing beliefs - usually Christianity, but not always. Are ghosts Unitarians?
See, know you're not going to be able to properly react when it really IS the ghostly remains of a murdered child.
This is when someone says "but Billy's been dead for 30 years" and you shit a brick
I would of shit my pants haha
Gotta catch 'em all.
poor kid lol
Keywords
I would've done the same thing. I've seen to many scary movies to know a little young boy in your house is a bad sign.
You're not cool enough to be haunted op