|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 5:20 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 1:17 am
|
|
|
|
Oh yeah, people used to think the world was flat, really believed it, but that does not mean it was truely flat, like you could just MAKE the world flat for thinking it was. It was really round the whole time. Unless you want to tell me you're a Flat Earther and DO still hold that the world is and always has been flat and the "round world" is all a conspiracy? xp Just because you think something is the truth doesn't mean your right. Just like how people find out they've been lied to all the time. "Suesy thought Carol was going to visit an aunt on Friday and that was why Carol would not be at her, Suesy's, birthday party. She then over heard Carol on the phone telling Beth about coming late to Suesy's birthday party to surprise her and because the gift that had been gotten wouldrequire extra time to transport to Suesy's house." Learning an old belief was wrong does not mean you should just throw out the window all possibility of anything or anyone ever being right or knowing the truth or that there even is a truth. Knowledge, like that learning the earth was round and not flat, is cumulative. It builds off what we already know and new information and ways of gathering information. These new things can prove us right or wrong, if wrong we can get a new answer which better fits what we now know then the old answer. Often, that we have wrong answers is merely because we've either made the best estimate we could with insufficient information and the problem was that we just didn't have enough information at the time, OR people just want to be stubborn and try to deny things because the real answer does not satisfy them.
And to your post before that, NO. Exactly the opposite. People have rights, those rights should be respected, and it's because of this that you can't just say "everybody no matter what they believe is good and bad is just as right as the next person" because if that's the case then when somebody acted upon their beliefs and violated somebody's rights, as long as you want to uphold people's rights (as you should) you're going to HAVE to tell somebody that their actions, which were based on their beliefs, were wrong/bad. Because if what they did was really "good", where would be the justice in punishing them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 8:18 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 6:18 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 11:00 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 2:52 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:14 am
|
|
|
|
I think she means the alleviating circumstances. Often the criminals get away with their crimes if they have a mental illness, the victim was dressed provokingly, the victim did something that made the criminal do it...
I guess it's worse to see the criminal who violated you or someone close to you get away with all the things they've done, all the while the victims suffering continues.
I'd say humans should act more on the scale of what's good to them, act more selfish. At first this might sound harsh and stupid, but think of it. If you go out and kill people, you'll get caught and put into jail. That isn't acting for your own good now is it? I don't think there is any "good" and "evil". There are just gain, benefit and inconvenience, handicap.
Something I do for myself might cause minor inconvenience to someone else, so I'd most likely want to make sure the loss to the other won't hurt me later. I'd want to seem a nice and likeable person, so people wouldn't have any reason to treat me badly. If someone comes and attacks, hurts or causes discomfort to me, I have every and all rights to try and avoid it. If I can't I think I do have every right to fight back and defend myself, stand up for myself.
And when I act seemingly "unselfisly", like am nice to someone or help someone, it's still deep down selfish because I'm doing it either because it fits my moral code and acting on it makes me feel good - which in itself is a benefit - or being nice to others makes people want to be nice to me, which also benefits me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 2:54 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 9:08 am
|
|
|
|
I don't think the benefit is good and the handicap bad, I think the benefit is a benefit to the one getting the benefit and the handicap is a handicap to the one being handicapped. If it was, like you said, the benefit being the good and the handicap being the bad, we'd be doing bad things while we do good things.
It's always someone losing and someone winning, all there is to do is to make sure the loss isn't overwhelming without a good reason, if you hurt someone for your own benefit, but people hate you for that, it's no benefit at all. It will cause difficulties to you later on.
If they're your enemy and they're getting handicapped because of your actions, it's not doing evil to them. It's doing what benefits you. And if other people see them as evil, it will make you look good and benefit you even further.
Everything is an act of selfishness and humans see selfishness being a bad thing, so following this logic, everyone is evil. Humans aren't capable of pure unselfishness, there is always a motive behind their good actions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|