This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Does the Internet Create Lynch Mobs?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Rankkor
You've been stating constantly it would be justified if you attacked someone for verbal abusing another.
And yes Sold; if you do something bad, you have to deal with the consequences and don't try to hide it behind justification...and if you are, you know you are doing something wrong.
No,
I've been saying their anger would be justified
......and I didn't say if you did something bad you don't have to deal with the consequences I said you are not a bad person simply because you did something wrong.
Anger may be justified, but acting on that anger is not. Specially when its none of your business.
If I read on the news paper that sicko raped a 2 year old girl, as a father of a 2 year old girl myself I'll be pretty damned angry at that sicko. But from being angry at him, and acting on that anger and proceed to stalk him and harm him, there's a HUGE difference.
Leave that for the cops. Vigilantism may look awesome on paper (And indeed some of my favorite comic book heroes are Vigilantes like "The Punisher") but on reality, its not.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
If, like myself, you follow the teachings of Wicca...yeah, you kinda do; our big creed is 'Do what you will, but harm none', so for me any harm caused to another is a bad thing all the time.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
You are still doing wrong; that's still affecting you: Doesn't matter how good at heart you feel, but if you aren't trying to be better, you won't be.
So really: Any and all attempts to justify any anger to me is just a cheat and those who try to are just deluding themselves.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
committing infidelity don't make you suddenly evil. What? Cheating on your partner is one of the worst things you can do them; how the hell is that not evil?
Though, if you're losing your anger on someone who's done nothing to warrant a verbal or physical response, than you're bad. Losing your anger on some terrible person verbally abusing someone, however, doesn't make you bad, as long as you don't seriously maim or kill them, seeing someone get verbally abused and beating the crap out of that person isn't the right thing to do, but it isn't some unforgivable evil, especially since the person you're beating up isn't exactly innocent.Hey look, there's that justification again: You know who else tried to justify doing 'evil' things....Nazis
It also shows that you empathize with the victim so heavily that you get angry enough to physically attack the person hurting them.Empathy is fine; but getting that angry isn't, especially if it's just verbal abuse.
And for stealing and killing, it depends on who you killed or stole from, and why, to determine your morality.But according to you, morality isn't subjective; shouldn't all killing and stealing be bad, since anyone with good morals should be against that. Also, to myself; the only time killing anyone is justified if it's accidentally while defending someone else. Stealing is never ever justified, whether you are doing it to save a loved one or not.
that I am saying as long as you're trying to be better, then you are good.Evil done in the name of Good is still evil.
Honestly, can you please stop misinterpreting what I say, I say one thing then you interpret it to be the exact opposite of what I said, I'm not remotely subtle in what I say, if I say something there is no hidden meaning behind it, I mean exactly what I say.Be clearer on what you say then, and stop flip flopping all the time.
Edit: In other words Sold; to me, there is no justification for acting out of anger; be righteous or not.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
There's bad and then there's evil. And, you know, god forbid someone starts falling for someone else while in a relationship with another person, or succumbs to temptation.Then if that happens....get out of the relationship; but don't cheat. Seriously, that is up there with one of my biggest 'evils'; I hate cheaters, I hate cheaters who justify it, and I hate people who act like it's not a big deal; you rip out someone's else heart doing that @#$% and you wound them deeply. Don't act like it's alright; it's reprehensible and definitely on the morally evil side of the scales.
You don't seem to be capable of differentiating an understandable reason and an excuse.There is never an understandable reason to get angry enough you want to physically attack someone else.
Not everyone is a calm pacifist like you, though.There you go with labeling again; just because I don't get outraged at every little thing, doesn't mean I'm not willing to defend those who need it.
Or the person deserved to die, and if there's a good reason to steal, like you need something from that person to save your own life or the life of someone you care about, then that's justification. It's you or them, why do they have any more right to live then you? Or stealing a small amount of food from someone with plenty of wealth to feed your own starving family, how is that evil? Is anyone dying here? No, actually, people are not dying because you're stealing.If you murder, if you kill, if you steal: It's always going to be wrong, no matter how you try to wrap it up in justification.
And I believe right and wrong are objective, many actions however are objectively right or wrong depending on the situation, reasons behind them, etc. I believe killing is a neutral action, you are evil for killing someone if that someone did nothing to you or anyone else (as far as you know, at least) and if you had no need to kill them (as in self defense). You are not evil however for killing someone in self defense, or some terrible scumbag who does enough to warrant death instead of mercy, or because they're too dangerous to let live.And what right do you have to make that call? That's what laws are for.
Doesn't really contradict anything I've said thus far.Bull puckey: You've said it's alright to kill and steal if the reason was 'good enough'; but both of those are evil acts, and stain the soul when you do them.
Didn't say there was, only that under certain circumstances a person can have a good enough reason for doing so, that they can't be called bad. You seem to have a more strict view on morality than me, ironically.Again: Bull crap; if you do evil, it's evil, really that simple. You can pretend otherwise, but most will see the truth of it.
And yes actually I do Sold: For me, certain things will always fall into the category of Evil, Bad, Wrong Morality, it's really that simple.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I don't know that Sold is saying that it's "All right " as much as saying that there are degrees of wrong between being absolutely good and absolutely evil. Like shades of grey, and when someone is justifiably angered he sees them as being at a lighter shade of grey when they react in the wrong way than someone who does the same thing without being driven to it emotionally, or without justifiable anger.
I think the reason this might be frustrating for others, Sold, is that this is the same exact concept that most of us believe, and which you have told us is invalid and you don't understand because it's subjective. For you to now not only understand it, but use it as your own argument for how you arrive at your opinion seems like a really sharp turnaround. It can be aggravating that when we were telling you that there were shades of gray depending on the circumstances, you told us we were making no sense and we were objectivists and immoral because we believed that, but now that we're asking you how an action that's bad can be "not that bad" depending on the circumstances you are describing, you seem to be equally unable to understand why we're not looking at it as having shades of grey.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Ok then if you understand that when we say things are relative, we're talking about the shades of gray thing above, and the fact that the same type of act can be good or bad depending on the circumstances (like you said above), and not that we mean that anything at all is moral based on personal view, will you promise to never say that we're relativists and your're an objectivist again, since we all mean the same exact thing? Can we agree that for the most part we all agree, and just debate the details now =D
If we can, I bet we just had a major bonding moment as a forum!
EDIT: And also, Adams- will you at least concede that someone who does something wrong out of a justifiable anger is committing less of a transgression than someone who does the same thing for greed, or amusement? I think that's what sold means- that motive is just as important as action when determining how bad something was.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
EDIT: And also, Adams- will you at least concede that someone who does something wrong out of a justifiable anger is committing less of a transgression than someone who does the same thing for greed, or amusement? I think that's what sold means- that motive is just as important as action when determining how bad something was.
To me; doing a wrong act doesn't sit well anyways. You can wrap it up however you want to, but to myself it's always going to ring wrong.
(cheating on your spouse because you coudn't control your sexual urges, or because you started to like someone else but were too afraid to break up with your current girlfriend because you didn't want to hurt their feelings.Oh yes, because Cheating on them is so much better /roll eyes There is never any reason to justify cheating, at all. It's wrong simple as that.
Post by
Magician22773
Sooo.
If you caught your spouse (girlfriend, boyfriend, goat....ect) in the act of cheating on you, and the guy she was with just verbally went off on you...telling you she needed a real man, ect....
What would your reaction to this be?
Post by
Adamsm
On the off chance that is aimed my way: Turn around walk out, then come back later with friends and get all my stuff, after which it's time to talk to a divorce lawyer. If there are no kids, never see the cheater again except in circumstances that it's forced.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Really? I'd be done with my guy that second. No ultimatum, no second chance, no care for an "explanation".
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
one infidelity in a serious relationship
A serious relationship doesn't have one infidelity.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.