HOME | DD

VonRabenherz In reply to UsurperBobO [2015-06-16 18:04:17 +0000 UTC]

There is right and wrong, yes, but it always depends upon a frame of reference. It therefore is always relative.
There is no onjective right and wrong, right and wrong do not exist independently in the universe.
They are concepts depending on our minds for existence, as such they are part of the meta-layer of human consciousness, not reality.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

UsurperBobO In reply to VonRabenherz [2015-06-16 18:36:27 +0000 UTC]

No offense but your comment doesn't really pertain to my point made in response to the description. Or the discussion I had about it. It's an entirely different topic.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

wwwarea In reply to UsurperBobO [2015-01-12 21:40:49 +0000 UTC]

Sorry but I am looking at this realistically.
I believe 'effects' are real, but killing a person as revenge or any other "reason" means more killing. That's it.
Hell some messed up people are against the death penalty only so that the killers can suffer (Event though the death penalty can get rid of the person too). They actually are against criminals wanting a painless death out of here. Why? Because they just want them to suffer for 99 years instead... This is DISGUSTING and there is no excuse for that to happen.

Anyway, it's possible for the killer to not kill anymore in his/her life.

The idea of you believing 'right' or the 'wrong' side is only based off the emotion of wanting people alive.. Meanwhile in another society somewhere: Killing is thought to be right.
But anyway, your part reminds me of the 'Golden Rule' part I said. But.. it's not golden rule to kill another person for revenge because the idea that it's "fair" is delusional; it still stops a person from living no matter the past.
So honestly if you think saving is right to you, I believe it could be fair to not believe in 'revenge' either or else it could be questionable to believe in 'saving others' kind of like how I want to save others for my personal desire.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

UsurperBobO In reply to wwwarea [2015-01-12 22:28:13 +0000 UTC]

You're looking at it from the perspective of what you believe is realistic.
You either kill the killer, or let the killer kill as much as they please. Logic dictates that the former is more productive.
But again though, that's your paradigm. If the person, let's say raped and killed someone, I'd want them to suffer. That may not be the peak of morality, but it is justice. And justice isn't always pacifism.

It is possible for a killer to reform, but that still doesn't mean they're free from consequences. They'd still have to do their time. They still killed someone, it's only fair. Fair in the sense that the person got equal treatment.
The logic about "fairness" is flawed, since I can come up and punch people all day, and my excuse would be; "hey if you'd punch me, then we'd both be in pain, so it's best that we leave it with my fist, because fairness is delusional." See the problem?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

wwwarea In reply to UsurperBobO [2015-01-13 07:07:28 +0000 UTC]

I believe mine is more realistic honestly.
It's possible to prevent the killer doing stuff in the future and not make him suffer.. This is possible.
That's still delusional and it's just pain. When you say "You want them to suffer", your just saying "I want another person suffering". It doesn't matter if he/she was guilty or not, your still causing more pain and this "justice" thing is just a belief.. Very similar to a 'God Cult' thing.. In fact, it's the same exact act in terms of behavior.
Scientifically, the idea of it being "OK then" lacks any form of evidence existing. But what I can see in a concrete way is more pain.

"It is possible for a killer to reform, but that still doesn't mean they're free from consequences. They'd still have to do their time. They still killed someone, it's only fair. Fair in the sense that the person got equal treatment"
How is it fair? No matter what you've done, nothing will ever change the past. Nothing.. So when you make someone suffer, your just causing things worse.
Thank god I'm more of a forgiver because I know that revenge is highly "wrong" in terms of Golden Rule.
So no it's not fair.. It's like what I said in the 'science' part.. Two people now suffer instead of one. The idea that it's "fair" sounds worse than calling Homosexuality a "sin".

Here is something to cause less suffering in the world:
If a person punches me but doesn't want to do it again, would I punch him back? No.. Because it's unnecessary and causes things worse.
Instead, I would forgive the person because that's better.
The only time I would do it back is self defense, but that has nothing to do with a "I think I must, it's "fair"." thing.

___

Honestly, the idea that it's "fair and equal" now is the less reality one. It's not because reality tells me that more suffering happened. That's it..
If we forgive and not make the person suffer, then there is less pain in the world. Seriously, having a person stay in jail 100 years doesn't help restore any problem, so it's unnecessary.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

UsurperBobO In reply to wwwarea [2015-01-13 11:50:51 +0000 UTC]

Of course you do, it's your opinion. Opinion is neither right or wrong. It's your personal input.
You're relying on some naive ideology. Not practicality.

Yes it does matter is the person's guilty. That's the whole point. Again, you're focusing on numbers rather then the actions. It's trivial and nonsensical. It's quality not quantity.


You ask how is it fair after literally copying my answer. Fair as in equal treatment.
How is it fair to the people that got killed, raped, beaten, tortured, threatened, ect. To let monsters roam free?
It's not about changing the past, stop clinging to it. It's about changing the present and future. It's about building a safer tomorrow and securing the people now. By your logic, someone can kill your entire family and you would simply let them go because you want on less dead person, for no moral or ethical reason other then simply not to kill. How is fairness not fair to you. How is not killing the killer fair to you. It's not just about not killing, it's about the actual person. People are people, not numbers.

You have this conviction but don't know how to utilize an idea in realistic situation. That's far from reality, my friend. It's borderline delusional.
Reality is the true situation that exists, the real situation, something that actually exists or happens, a real event, occurrence, etc.
Matter of fact is humans are humans. You're proposing this utopic view that literally is the opposite of reality or practicality.

Not everyone can "reform". Not everyone will stop punching you. Will you let them because you don't want to hurt them? Then you'll suffer even more.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

wwwarea In reply to UsurperBobO [2015-01-13 23:37:46 +0000 UTC]

Sometimes opinions are arguable.. Since this is global, it's a debate.

I don't believe that there should be some kind of "quality".

It's still not fair honestly. Me killing the guy back isn't going to help solve my problem. If a person killed my whole family, my whole sadness would be completed. Nothing will ever solve my misses accept for the idea of an after life. If I kill the person, is it going to really make me happy? No. It doesn't solve my problem. Oh and sure, the future, but that doesn't really excuse revenge. What if the person in the future completely changed? (It's possible) By then, 'revenge' is 100% not necessary for anything other than simply put: Revenge. Revenge won't help me, but it won't help the future when it comes to changed people. And the idea that a person must "pay" back is completely delusional after this part.

Mine isn't delusional because I actually see a possibility. Claiming that I must do "revenge" when it's not even necessary for anything, is delusional. Hell even history proves this. Forgiveness happened before and the past just stayed the past.. Did things go wrong since then? I don't think so. Well sometimes, but nothing will 100% be perfect. It's just best to try to change more for serious things for stuff like Golden Rule even though that's not a bio thing..

You don't know that. Anyone can change, and you know what? Either way, there are thousands of ways around revenge if we had to follow the basic freedom moral thing. And no, as I said, Self Defense is something different than the idea of "He did a bad, therefor" crap.

____________

Honestly another point about this I think is that I don't want people to be viewed as "Messed up" just because of something they did one time that's considered "wrong".. Truth tells me that, it's just something that happened in life.. like anything. Right and Wrong doesn't exist but effects/events do.
Nobody is really "innocent" because everything we do effects another thing. Nobody is 100% perfect and it's not possible.
Yet, what is "perfect"?
Let's not forget that even 'murder' being viewed as wrong is still an opinion because a whole different society views 'murder' as right.

I think my main point of this is just a basic mind set of 'sense'.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

UsurperBobO In reply to wwwarea [2015-01-14 00:39:07 +0000 UTC]

That's the point, it's based on your own convictions. As I've pointed out the fundamental flaw withing that.

You're not paying attention. Killing the killer won't solve your problem, but it will prevent more senseless killing from happening. It's not solving, it's preventing from happening again, at the expense of someone's life. Someone who's generally not a psychopathic murderer.

"If I kill the person, is it going to really make me happy?" -And that's it right there. You're not looking at this from an objective, logical standpoint. You're looking this through your emotions. The question isn't "will this make me happy" but "will this stop the killings".
You have this blissful utopia mindset that everyone can change. No they can't. Some are narrow, and always remain narrow. You're only applying your argument to "well, what if people can change". What if they can't? What then? Then that logic collapses on itself.
Just because someone's sorry, doesn't mean they're free from any consequences. Revenge is emotionally driven, I'm not talking about that, I'm simply talking about returning what they rightfully deserve, that's the definition of fairness. Fairness is taking responsibility, not avoiding it.

And also, your idea of justice is not someone else's. So you can't claim that you hold some universal truth when its literally the opposite. It is in fact, a delusion to think otherwise.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

wwwarea In reply to UsurperBobO [2015-01-15 04:00:12 +0000 UTC]

Honestly my point is that I was making a global debate, and I believe that I have a lot of realistic views for many reasons.

Yeah but "revenge" is something like that. Revenge is the idea that involves "must" when that does nothing.
But that's still another problem too. Killers can still stop in the future and you know what? Even if a killer didn't do anything at first, the person could still kill someone at first anyway possibly.
The idea (Fear) that they will "do it again" and somehow "therefor: revenge" sounds more like a cult to me.. Yet, there are so many ways around this.

Umm, you asked me about that.. You were asking if I would want revenge in someway..
"No they can't. Some are narrow, and always remain narrow."
You need to prove that.. You actually don't know that. The possibility still stands honestly and even if they couldn't, I'm sure "revenge", so-called "fairness", etc doesn't make sense.. Perhaps send the person to an island for that purpose instead. And.. what if they can? It makes no sense to only based the "what if they can't" for a delusional belief of "right or wrong" or that "we must".. We must not forget the "what if they can" part too.. But all I see is: "Umm um.. just in case, let's fear the future and trap people based off past".

"Just because someone's sorry, doesn't mean they're free from any consequences. Revenge is emotionally driven, I'm not talking about that, I'm simply talking about returning what they rightfully deserve, that's the definition of fairness. Fairness is taking responsibility, not avoiding it."
This is the less reality thing I'm talking about.. Why should they "pay back"?
If they are really sorry, then it's unnecessary. That's why I base some stuff off: "It's not going to reverse the past". The idea of "must" that has nothing to do with the imaginary re-offend gene is the least reality one and it makes me think that "right" and "wrong" is just bullcrap to me.

The same goes with your idea.. Since we enforce your idea, then it may be arguable.. That's why I suggest mine because of so.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

UsurperBobO In reply to wwwarea [2015-01-15 11:53:05 +0000 UTC]

Again, not paying attention. Like I said, imposing justice is not equivalent to emotionally driven acts. You're narrowing everything down to emotions, that's your problem. Not logic but emotion. I say justice, you say revenge. I say security, you say fear. Do you see the pattern? Problem is that you're relying on theoretical fallacies, not realistic outcome. You're deliberately mislabeling my arguments based on your strawman. You're confusing "can" with "will". Believing everyone can change is is as naive as naive goes. That's not reality, that's fantasy. You're putting all your bets on an unlikely and insanely delusional idea that puts the notion of world peace to shame.
Also, that's not how "cult" is utilized. Do you even know the definition?

What do you mean I need to prove that? Look around you, humans are what humans do. It's psychology 101. Not everyone is a flower child. In fact most people aren't.
And I don't know what? That some people have narrow views? Yes I can, I know many. My assertions can be proven via observational evidence. Can you prove yours? Of course not. Yours are just off the rail, bast case scenario, deus ex machina theories. Far from reality that you so adamantly, supposedly cling on to.

Here's the deal, that you've obviously missed with "what if they can't". That wasn't my paradigm. That was question posed to you broken theory. Because your "what if they can" relies on a hypothetical scenario that would work only on some, not all, yet you'd want to utilize it as if it's an obsolete matter like water. It's so broken, that a simple "what if they can't" disassembles your entire "pitch perfect" plan.

"why should they pay back" Next time you steal something, use that line. I mean all you have to do is be really sorry and boom, you have free stuff for life.
Next time a murderer kills your family, let 'em go. They're sorry. Maybe send them to an island. Which by the way, is the stupidest, most impractical idea I've heard in a long while.

The difference between you and me is that I'm not claiming I hold an undeniable truth. My views are based on practicality, observational evidence and common logic. You think your theories are wishful thinking that somehow should reflect the entire humanity because that's how naive it is.

👍: 1 ⏩: 0

wwwarea In reply to Chiminix [2015-01-12 21:30:37 +0000 UTC]

I believe life has some purpose.. For everyone to enjoy it there way and such, but that doesn't mean I must believe in right or wrong.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

wwwarea In reply to HopeSwings777 [2015-01-12 21:28:52 +0000 UTC]

I believe science is better; it means reality often... 'Right and Wrong' is only an opinion by some parts of society and some other societies has a different belief of it.
I see no evidence of it being real.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0