First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Baby shot
HelloKitty Muffin'King Moderator
87273 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / Mocha / Internet
Offline
Posted 3/23/13 , edited 3/23/13
Enough talking about quote pyramids and such. Please stay on topic with this discussion.

And yes I am the one who is going to delete all the unrelated posts to this topic. If you wish to talk more about quote pyramids, go duke it out in PM.

Those of you who are trying to warn other users about quote pyramids, just report to the moderators. We'll take care of the rest.

Now for the topic of this thread, the teens should be trialed as adults as for one thing they committed murder of an infant and shot the mother as well.
49288 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / US
Offline
Posted 3/23/13 , edited 3/24/13

lordseth23 wrote:


dark_paradox_21 wrote:



And what makes you think that you need to be a slave to your instincts? Why do you think that the only way to fight is through physical means?

Yes, we should resist those who harm us, but this resistance should not involve harming them because we are capable of helping them see the error in their ways and ultimately turn them into a good person.

And please do not try to preach your religion to me, because it is wrong in many ways. Yes, one should protect his or her family, but you don't understand what a "family" is if you insist on harming other people. Whether you like it or not, everyone on Earth is your family and you should strive to protect each and every member, including the confused ones like you who insist on harming people. You are only hurting yourself by subscribing to the same type of delusions as the aggressor, and you will never reach your full potential because of it.

Why do you resist the notion of empathy? Could you please explain what is wrong with it?


1) You're being pretentious and naive. Listen kid, real life isn't like a cutesy freaking anime where the villain is just a misunderstood and hurt individual who joins the hero once he's shown a little love. Life does not work like that. Live a little longer, walk in some dark alleys and you will learn (if you survive long enough). You will learn that some people really LIKE being sick. Bullying, muggings, rape, etc. are linked to a psychological disorder in which those committing the crimes get a power trip from committing them. The crime itself is irrelevant. The rush is literally addictive on the neurochemical level. I forget the exact number, but having talked with state criminal and addiction counselors, I learned that the rehabilitation rate is far less than 10%.

A man who kills his cheating wife in a moment of rage has almost 0% chance of repeat offending. Those who do try to be thugs, hurting and intimidating people for fun and profit almost always hurt others again. Again, it is a biological addiction. They like feeling tough. They like being feared. They do not want to be "good." The only way to keep everyone else safe is to keep the sickos away from everyone -- and to make their punishments so grievous that it acts as a deterrent for others before they become sickos.

How many innocent victims are acceptable while you're trying to "change" these people? Here is a reality lesson for you: There is no changing those who do not want to change and there is no saving those who do not wish to be saved.

2) I am not against empathy. Empathy is a great thing. I am trying to teach you what "emotional intelligence" is, because you obviously don't grasp it. It is the ability to understand and empathize with the emotions of others and it has NOTHING to do with what type of emotions those are. Someone who truly understands rage, hatred and sorrow are more "emotionally intelligent" than those who only want the best for people. It is not a good/bad thing, it is a level of perception. If someone is really near-sighted and can't see the TV screen, you don't say that they have great eyesight. If someone is really far-sighted and can't read a book in front of their face, you don't say they have good eyesight. Someone who sees well at all distances is said to have good eyesight. Likewise, empathy and emotional intelligence deal with both good and bad. Someone who only understands dark emotions is not emotionally intelligent or empathetic. Those who only understand kind emotions are not emotionally intelligent or empathetic. Understanding of all types of emotions is required for someone to be "emotionally intelligent" or empathetic.

3) I am not trying to preach. I am no priest. Your turn-the-other-cheek attitude usually comes from, in my experience, sheltered christian upbringings. I used terms that I thought you might understand. I can't believe that you have the audacity to tell ME not to preach and then you go on about how "everyone is family" and other lovely-dovey newage crap. I won't deny that I do believe in God, but I never said that you had to, or that your behavior should conform to my belief structure. That is what you're doing.

I wasn't preaching. I WAS giving you a history lesson on where that turn-the-other-cheek attitude originated in our western society. The west is heavily influenced by (often misunderstood) Judeo-Christian philosophy. Most Asian cultures, having not grown up with this attitude for the last 1700 years, have no problem executing violent criminals. Go ahead and try shooting some babies in Singapore or Japan and see how much time they spend trying to show you the "error of your ways" or "change you" into a good person.

Your naïveté is at truly dangerous levels. People get raped and murdered while people like you try to protect and "help" monsters.
12999 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 3/23/13

K-onfan1 wrote:


lordseth23 wrote:


K-onfan1 wrote:


Well if you don't think the world is "deepenig into evil" you must live in a land of perfection or something is just completly wrong with you.


Why do you say that? Are you disputing the work of a Harvard Professor?

http://stevenpinker.com/publications/better-angels-our-nature


Didn't a guy a while go kill some kids? didn't some guys kill some firefighters or something?
Yeah the world is going great, world peace here we come!


;p u people still believe in perfection~ it makes no sense wachu talkin about when u look at science
Posted 3/24/13
For some reason I feel posting news on here is just irrelevant
4169 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 3/24/13

Nyuboom wrote:

For some reason I feel posting news on here is just irrelevant




No not always
30425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 3/24/13 , edited 3/24/13

dark_paradox_21 wrote:


1) You're being pretentious and naive. Listen kid, real life isn't like a cutesy freaking anime where the villain is just a misunderstood and hurt individual who joins the hero once he's shown a little love. Life does not work like that. Live a little longer, walk in some dark alleys and you will learn (if you survive long enough). You will learn that some people really LIKE being sick. Bullying, muggings, rape, etc. are linked to a psychological disorder in which those committing the crimes get a power trip from committing them. The crime itself is irrelevant. The rush is literally addictive on the neurochemical level. I forget the exact number, but having talked with state criminal and addiction counselors, I learned that the rehabilitation rate is far less than 10%.

A man who kills his cheating wife in a moment of rage has almost 0% chance of repeat offending. Those who do try to be thugs, hurting and intimidating people for fun and profit almost always hurt others again. Again, it is a biological addiction. They like feeling tough. They like being feared. They do not want to be "good." The only way to keep everyone else safe is to keep the sickos away from everyone -- and to make their punishments so grievous that it acts as a deterrent for others before they become sickos.

How many innocent victims are acceptable while you're trying to "change" these people? Here is a reality lesson for you: There is no changing those who do not want to change and there is no saving those who do not wish to be saved.

2) I am not against empathy. Empathy is a great thing. I am trying to teach you what "emotional intelligence" is, because you obviously don't grasp it. It is the ability to understand and empathize with the emotions of others and it has NOTHING to do with what type of emotions those are. Someone who truly understands rage, hatred and sorrow are more "emotionally intelligent" than those who only want the best for people. It is not a good/bad thing, it is a level of perception. If someone is really near-sighted and can't see the TV screen, you don't say that they have great eyesight. If someone is really far-sighted and can't read a book in front of their face, you don't say they have good eyesight. Someone who sees well at all distances is said to have good eyesight. Likewise, empathy and emotional intelligence deal with both good and bad. Someone who only understands dark emotions is not emotionally intelligent or empathetic. Those who only understand kind emotions are not emotionally intelligent or empathetic. Understanding of all types of emotions is required for someone to be "emotionally intelligent" or empathetic.

3) I am not trying to preach. I am no priest. Your turn-the-other-cheek attitude usually comes from, in my experience, sheltered christian upbringings. I used terms that I thought you might understand. I can't believe that you have the audacity to tell ME not to preach and then you go on about how "everyone is family" and other lovely-dovey newage crap. I won't deny that I do believe in God, but I never said that you had to, or that your behavior should conform to my belief structure. That is what you're doing.

I wasn't preaching. I WAS giving you a history lesson on where that turn-the-other-cheek attitude originated in our western society. The west is heavily influenced by (often misunderstood) Judeo-Christian philosophy. Most Asian cultures, having not grown up with this attitude for the last 1700 years, have no problem executing violent criminals. Go ahead and try shooting some babies in Singapore or Japan and see how much time they spend trying to show you the "error of your ways" or "change you" into a good person.

Your naïveté is at truly dangerous levels. People get raped and murdered while people like you try to protect and "help" monsters.


How do you know that people "like" being sick? How do you know that these people cannot be changed? Could you please use some actual proof to back up your claims if you want people to believe you?

What makes you think that the woman does not understand all types of emotions?

Why do you say that empathy is a great thing when you are perfectly fine with killing other people? You obviously don't know what empathy is if you refuse to engage in it, so please stop trying to push your immorality on to me.

Why do you think that I have a turn-the-other-cheek attitude? Are you deliberately trying to put words in my mouth to fit your own agenda?

Do you actually believe that I don't want to help victims? Why are you so frightened of people that you insist on calling them monsters?

How is anything that I have said wrong?
Posted 3/24/13

lordseth23 wrote:

Why do you say that empathy is a great thing when you are perfectly fine with killing other people? You obviously don't know what empathy is if you refuse to engage in it, so please stop trying to push your immorality on to me.



It is a fallacy to conclude that a person who is willing to kill another has no empathy. Sometimes one must do so; in fact, soldiers and law enforcement have to make those difficult decisions all the time. Many have to go through therapy, and some can't go back to it; either they transfer out of field duty or retire. There is a huge difference between accepting that someone must be killed and actually enjoying the idea. To be unfortunate enough to be tasked with the responsibility and the decision whether someone lives or dies, is an enormous burden to bear.
30425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 3/24/13 , edited 3/24/13

WackyFiasco wrote:

It is a fallacy to conclude that a person who is willing to kill another has no empathy. Sometimes one must do so; in fact, soldiers and law enforcement have to make those difficult decisions all the time. Many have to go through therapy, and some can't go back to it; either they transfer out of field duty or retire. There is a huge difference between accepting that someone must be killed and actually enjoying the idea. To be unfortunate enough to be tasked with the responsibility and the decision whether someone lives or dies, is an enormous burden to bear.


I disagree, anybody that chooses to kill someone has no empathy. There is never a situation in which one must do so, it all comes down to the choice of the individual willing to kill someone. A soldier doesn't have to obey orders, he can choose to disobey and drop out of the military if he does not agree with his superiors, and the same can be applied to law enforcement. If you believe that someone must be killed under a certain circumstance, then you have a serious flaw(s) in your moral intuition.
Posted 3/24/13 , edited 3/24/13

lordseth23 wrote:



I disagree, anybody that chooses to kill someone has no empathy. There is never a situation in which one must do so, it all comes down to the choice of the individual willing to kill someone. A soldier doesn't have to obey orders, he can choose to disobey and drop out of the military if he does not agree with his superiors, and the same can be applied to law enforcement. If you believe that someone must be killed under a certain circumstance, then you have a serious flaw(s) in your moral intuition.


That is an ethics fallacy, a Kantian one. It can be found under "Consistency Obsession" here, for brevity:

http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/rb_fallacies.html

In a way you are correct; you never have to kill someone else, but theories and studies on justice and morality have shown that often the choice of whether or not to do so can be a correlative and causative phenomenon, when not choosing to end one life results in the loss of many more lives, i.e. "the moral dilemma" of choice.

I am a mother, and it is in my instincts - my biological self interests - to protect my child, even if it means that within the time constraints I am unable to foresee any other way to save my child but to end the life of the perceived threat. However, if I knew my child later planned to kill many people and there was no way to dissuade her, I would try to find a way to incarcerate her, but in failing this and time was dwindling toward that moment, I would end her life. There is no mitigation of my love for her nor diminishing of my empathy towards what she feels or may experience while dying, and I probably would be in a very dark, bad place for a very long time, afterward, if I survived the grief.

As a child I threw myself over a bee to save it from my friends. As an adult I would get upset when people mindlessly killed spiders near me. I stepped in when I saw a drunk roughing up his girlfriend, even though she defended his abuse. I actively support The Heroic Imagination Project. I signed the Charter for Compassion. If I wasn't such an objective and pragmatic person, I would take exception of your implcations about my level of empathy.
30425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 3/24/13

WackyFiasco wrote:

That is an ethics fallacy, a Kantian one. It can be found under "Consistency Obsession" here, for brevity:

http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/rb_fallacies.html

In a way you are correct; you never have to kill someone else, but theories and studies on justice and morality have shown that often the choice of whether or not to do so can be a correlative and causative phenomenon, when not choosing to end one life results in the loss of many more lives, i.e. "the moral dilemma" of choice.

I am a mother, and it is in my instincts - my biological self interests - to protect my child, even if it means that within the time constraints I am unable to foresee any other way to save my child but to end the life of the perceived threat. However, if I knew my child later planned to kill many people and there was no way to dissuade her, I would try to find a way to incarcerate her, but in failing this and time was dwindling toward that moment, I would end her life. There is no mitigation of my love for her nor diminishing of my empathy towards what she feels or may experience while dying, and I probably would be in a very dark, bad place for a very long time, afterward, if I survived the grief.

As a child I threw myself over a bee to save it from my friends. As an adult I would get upset when people mindlessly killed spiders near me. I stepped in when I saw a drunk roughing up his girlfriend, even though she defended his abuse. I actively support The Heroic Imagination Project. I signed the Charter for Compassion. If I wasn't such an objective and pragmatic person, I would take exception of your implcations about my level of empathy.


So you are a utilitarian and believe that many lives should be sacrificed in order to save the majority of lives? How is that correct in any way?
Posted 3/24/13

lordseth23 wrote:

So you are a utilitarian and believe that many lives should be sacrificed in order to save the majority of lives? How is that correct in any way?


No, I'm not, and I don't believe that - you're being too broad. It's much more complex a process than this.

Try these.

http://www.justiceharvard.org/

http://www.yourmorals.org/

I moderated a few Ethics Bowls, and I'd love to stay and debate, but my little girl wants me to watch her dance, so ciao!



Posted 3/24/13


Curious question, what do you study? ... Irrespective of what you research in your own time.
62293 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/24/13 , edited 3/24/13

lordseth23 wrote:


WackyFiasco wrote:

It is a fallacy to conclude that a person who is willing to kill another has no empathy. Sometimes one must do so; in fact, soldiers and law enforcement have to make those difficult decisions all the time. Many have to go through therapy, and some can't go back to it; either they transfer out of field duty or retire. There is a huge difference between accepting that someone must be killed and actually enjoying the idea. To be unfortunate enough to be tasked with the responsibility and the decision whether someone lives or dies, is an enormous burden to bear.


I disagree, anybody that chooses to kill someone has no empathy. There is never a situation in which one must do so, it all comes down to the choice of the individual willing to kill someone. A soldier doesn't have to obey orders, he can choose to disobey and drop out of the military if he does not agree with his superiors, and the same can be applied to law enforcement. If you believe that someone must be killed under a certain circumstance, then you have a serious flaw(s) in your moral intuition.


So all soldiers that fought , killed and died in battle ; do they have empathy ?
Eater of Worlds
Bedlam 
57091 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / East Coastin'
Offline
Posted 3/24/13
This thread has gone completely off-topic. I'm locking this. If you guys wish to discuss morality and ethics, there's a thread in extended discussion for that. Locked.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.