[General Battuta]

He does have a clear idea of morality, and it's completely twisted.

Heck, he doesn't condem Hitler, Stalin and similar ilk (he sent me a lengthy PM) - he claims they are good if their motivations for all those killings were good (example - a better world), and that that's the only thing that matters - Ones motivation and how one feels about it.

Well, in that case he's probably wrong -- motivation is subject to cognitive bias, which we are all full of.

It's hard to agree on what 'good' means, granted, but if you deviate too far from the societal consensus, you're probably going to get hammered down.

[Ghostavo]

Perhaps not in that extreme case, but ordinarily, yes.

by what logic? I can't fanthom how you came to that conclusion....

You've made a strawman out of the argument. No one thinks in such extremes such as that. That was what I meant.

You are sacrificing something that belongs to them, either their privacy or their free time (and free will and patience). Hence you are sacrificing something for "the greater good".

So you are suggesting contradicting yourself. You may proceed to bury yourself more at that point, but as soon as you make the argument that the end doesn't justify the means, you are better off letting them be.

No, I'm not contradicting myself. You're stretching the meaning of the word sacrifice.
By your logic we should abolish jails and all mental institutions - after all, we have no right to put anyone in there.

I'd never hurt anyone or kill - that's what I mean by sacrifice.
Privacy? Don't make me laugh.
If anything I'd have to sacrificing MY time to watch over those people.

But you are trying to force people who have done nothing wrong to sacrifice something of theirs so YOU somehow feel better about it. Innocent until proven guilty, no?

Jails are for people that *gasp* have commited some sort of crime. Yeah, puzzling isn't it? Again, these people have done nothing wrong. Anything done before they commit some sort of crime or without evidence they would commit it, is pure prejudice.

You seem to be confused. Either you think the ends justify the means or you don't. Any sort of compromise involves some sort of slippery slope.

I'm not confused. I'm perfectly aware of everything I said and everything I believe.

Herra got what I was saying.

Yet you want others to sacrifice their freedom when they have done nothing wrong. It's contradictory with what you profess.

He does have a clear idea of morality, and it's completely twisted.

Heck, he doesn't condem Hitler, Stalin and similar ilk (he sent me a lengthy PM) - he claims they are good if their motivations for all those killings were good (example - a better world), and that that's the only thing that matters - Ones motivation and how one feels about it.

I think I know who you are talking about, but please refer to whom you mean when you say he.  I wouldn't want to be confused with him.

[TrashMan]

You've made a strawman out of the argument. No one thinks in such extremes such as that. That was what I meant.

.
No strawman. Extreeme situations do happen. He gave quite a few examples of rather "ordinary" situations himself

But you are trying to force people who have done nothing wrong to sacrifice something of theirs so YOU somehow feel better about it. Innocent until proven guilty, no?

Jails are for people that *gasp* have commited some sort of crime. Yeah, puzzling isn't it? Again, these people have done nothing wrong. Anything done before they commit some sort of crime or without evidence they would commit it, is pure prejudice.

If you're so self-righteous I'll dare you to spend a few days living in the same house with patients from a mental institutions. Them being completely free.
We'll see how well you'll sleep.

I think I know who you are talking about, but please refer to whom you mean when you say he.  I wouldn't want to be confused with him.

the guy on the other forum. The one who's posts are what this thread is about.

[Ghostavo]

But you are trying to force people who have done nothing wrong to sacrifice something of theirs so YOU somehow feel better about it. Innocent until proven guilty, no?

Jails are for people that *gasp* have commited some sort of crime. Yeah, puzzling isn't it? Again, these people have done nothing wrong. Anything done before they commit some sort of crime or without evidence they would commit it, is pure prejudice.

If you're so self-righteous I'll dare you to spend a few days living in the same house with patients from a mental institutions. Them being completely free.
We'll see how well you'll sleep.

And what mental illness do these people have that stop them from being free in society? People don't go to mental institutions just because someone doesn't like them.

You are comparing absolutely different things. First you point out the jail example when they've done no crime at all, then you point out the mental institution when they haven't got a mental illness. What's next?

P.S.
And about self-righteousness, I'm not the one who started an entire thread about something that I thought was clearly wrong.

[TrashMan]

You are (again) barking up the wrong tree.

I used the prison and mental institutions purely as an example of society intervening when it feels necessary. That doesn't mean  I want people locked up or put in a straight jacket (his hospitalization is not for me to determine anyway).

However, I would want things like counceling.
Or do you feel that's horrible too? Maybe we should abolish anger managment sessions or Alchohol/drugs/smoke rehab meetings? Truly, we are a horrible society for having instruments of torture like that!

EDIT:
B.t.w. - the guy posted something interesting again. I quote:

What if I said I didn't believe in empathy? Would that make sense?


So yeah...since we're on this subject, answer me this Einstein - what is, in your oppinnion, the difference between a good person and a evil person?

[General Battuta]

Your point of view.

[Ghostavo]

You are (again) barking up the wrong tree.

I used the prison and mental institutions purely as an example of society intervening when it feels necessary. That doesn't mean  I want people locked up or put in a straight jacket (his hospitalization is not for me to determine anyway).

However, I would want things like counceling.
Or do you feel that's horrible too? Maybe we should abolish anger managment sessions or Alchohol/drugs/smoke rehab meetings? Truly, we are a horrible society for having instruments of torture like that!

EDIT:
B.t.w. - the guy posted something interesting again. I quote:

What if I said I didn't believe in empathy? Would that make sense?


So yeah...since we're on this subject, answer me this Einstein - what is, in your oppinnion, the difference between a good person and a evil person?

And yet again you seem to be the one confused.

Any of those examples you just gave are either voluntary or a result of a crime. Neither of which apply here. You are suggesting forcefully putting those people who have done nothing wrong to be put into a situation they possibly don't want (if they did, it would be voluntary).

The difference between a good person and an evil person is dependent upon the eyes of the beholder. One is evil if one does evil actions in the eyes of the beholder. Absolute evil and absolute good are fantasies.

[TrashMan]

And yet again you seem to be the one confused.

Any of those examples you just gave are either voluntary or a result of a crime. Neither of which apply here. You are suggesting forcefully putting those people who have done nothing wrong to be put into a situation they possibly don't want (if they did, it would be voluntary).

Wants have nothing to do with it. People don't want to do a whole lot of things yet they have to. I don't want to pay taxes. I don't want to work. I don't want to get up early. What I want is pretty much irrelevant.

And you're wrong about that. Someone doesn't have to be a menace of society to be forced to go to AA meeting or counseling. Kids these day go to counseling in schools for far more laughable reasons.
If lack of empathy or remorse is shown at a person he should get some kind of counseling. It should help him to fit in the society.

The difference between a good person and an evil person is dependent upon the eyes of the beholder. One is evil if one does evil actions in the eyes of the beholder. Absolute evil and absolute good are fantasies.

I thought you would say that. Since all morals are absolutely subjective,  I guess you can't claim Hitler was evil for the Holocaust then? I mean, you could, but you're comdemnation of him would be totally worthless, without any weight or deeper meaning. Shallow.
After all, who are you to put you definitions of good and evil over his? Who is anyone?

[Ghostavo]

And yet again you seem to be the one confused.

Any of those examples you just gave are either voluntary or a result of a crime. Neither of which apply here. You are suggesting forcefully putting those people who have done nothing wrong to be put into a situation they possibly don't want (if they did, it would be voluntary).

Wants have nothing to do with it. People don't want to do a whole lot of things yet they have to. I don't want to pay taxes. I don't want to work. I don't want to get up early. What I want is pretty much irrelevant.

And you're wrong about that. Someone doesn't have to be a menace of society to be forced to go to AA meeting or counseling. Kids these day go to counseling in schools for far more laughable reasons.
If lack of empathy or remorse is shown at a person he should get some kind of counseling. It should help him to fit in the society.

All right, what would you do if someone tomorrow got next to you and said "You like video games, therefore you are a liability for society since games obviously increase violent tendencies. You are to go to a rehab/mental institution until you are cured". Not so pleasant now is it?

People to be forced to go to a meeting must have done something wrong. They don't just force people to do so on a flimsy reason. Kids are a different matter, as they're dependent on other people for legal reasons.

Yet, you continue to follow up with replies that are borderline pointless. Not wanting to pay taxes? Not wanting to go to work? What does that have to do with the situation being discussed? Absolutely nothing.

The difference between a good person and an evil person is dependent upon the eyes of the beholder. One is evil if one does evil actions in the eyes of the beholder. Absolute evil and absolute good are fantasies.

I thought you would say that. Since all morals are absolutely subjective,  I guess you can't claim Hitler was evil for the Holocaust then? I mean, you could, but you're comdemnation of him would be totally worthless, without any weight or deeper meaning. Shallow.
After all, who are you to put you definitions of good and evil over his? Who is anyone?

I can claim he was evil in our societies' eyes and in ours. It's not shallow, it's the way it is.

As for the rest, can you claim there is some sort of absolute morality without attributing it to something as controversial as god? As I said, it's in the eyes of the beholder.

[General Battuta]

That's the thing -- good and evil are up to us. We have to decide when to go out there, condemn something, and try to stop it.

We can't put responsibility in the hands of an invisible God or an intangible idea of objective morality.

Hitler is evil because we've agreed he's evil. That's all.

[castor]

What is so difficult here? I think its simple:

Cause harm unto others => u suck! period!
The more you do it, the more you suck. If you do it a hell of a load, you suck too much to be tolerated. There is your evil defined.

(harm == pain & suffering. Anyone knows what that is)

[terran_emperor]

so where does the military fall then?

[TrashMan]

All right, what would you do if someone tomorrow got next to you and said "You like video games, therefore you are a liability for society since games obviously increase violent tendencies. You are to go to a rehab/mental institution until you are cured". Not so pleasant now is it?

given that I am fully capable of empathy, and have feeling of remorse and guilt, and that I strongly believe that killing innocent people is injustifiable (unlike that guy) I don't really think anyone would see anything dangerous about me.

[Ghostavo]

All right, what would you do if someone tomorrow got next to you and said "You like video games, therefore you are a liability for society since games obviously increase violent tendencies. You are to go to a rehab/mental institution until you are cured". Not so pleasant now is it?

given that I am fully capable of empathy, and have feeling of remorse and guilt, and that I strongly believe that killing innocent people is injustifiable (unlike that guy) I don't really think anyone would see anything dangerous about me.

That's not the point. The point was that given that you've done nothing wrong nor have you given any indication that you will, is it right for people to force you to do something just because you have a certain atribute?

Isn't that what segregation was about?

[Scotty]

Isn't that what segregation was about?

Segregation was a bad thing.  The idea was based off of a purely superficial trait, and is morally wrong anyway (someone challenge me on that, I dare you).

If a person displays the attribute we are speaking about, that is indications that he will do something wrong by the mores of society.  Yes, it is right.  It would be wrong to allow him to harm someone else before he is (looking for a better word here) incarcerated.

Ghostavo, on a completely unrelated note, video games have no proven link to increased violent tendencies.  I have research to back that up if I need too. 

[Ghostavo]

If a person displays the attribute we are speaking about, that is indications that he will do something wrong by the mores of society.  Yes, it is right.  It would be wrong to allow him to harm someone else before he is (looking for a better word here) incarcerated.

How so? Speaking of hypothetical situations is not a crime, nor is thinking about it. There's a difference between thinking it and doing it.

Ghostavo, on a completely unrelated note, video games have no proven link to increased violent tendencies.  I have research to back that up if I need too.

I have nothing against video games, quite the opposite. I was just using it since this is a forum dedicated to... well... a video game.

Hence the italics. 

[TrashMan]

All right, what would you do if someone tomorrow got next to you and said "You like video games, therefore you are a liability for society since games obviously increase violent tendencies. You are to go to a rehab/mental institution until you are cured". Not so pleasant now is it?

given that I am fully capable of empathy, and have feeling of remorse and guilt, and that I strongly believe that killing innocent people is injustifiable (unlike that guy) I don't really think anyone would see anything dangerous about me.

That's not the point. The point was that given that you've done nothing wrong nor have you given any indication that you will, is it right for people to force you to do something just because you have a certain atribute?

Isn't that what segregation was about?

So people shouldn't be divided based on any possible attribute? Like let's say intelligence? Violence? Political beliefs? Religion?
ANY attribute at all? Yeah...dream on.

Man, I can't believe you're trying to play the racism card. That is insta-fail.

So I ask you - do you think a person that doesn't show empathy or remorse can function normally in our society? Maybe he can, but he wouldn't understand guilt or empathy - he would mimic only. Would you trust that person?
Oh, and I would think that advaocatin mass murder and genocide IS a indication that something ain't right.

[Ghostavo]

All right, what would you do if someone tomorrow got next to you and said "You like video games, therefore you are a liability for society since games obviously increase violent tendencies. You are to go to a rehab/mental institution until you are cured". Not so pleasant now is it?

given that I am fully capable of empathy, and have feeling of remorse and guilt, and that I strongly believe that killing innocent people is injustifiable (unlike that guy) I don't really think anyone would see anything dangerous about me.

That's not the point. The point was that given that you've done nothing wrong nor have you given any indication that you will, is it right for people to force you to do something just because you have a certain atribute?

Isn't that what segregation was about?

So people shouldn't be divided based on any possible attribute? Like let's say intelligence? Violence? Political beliefs? Religion?
ANY attribute at all? Yeah...dream on.

Man, I can't believe you're trying to play the racism card. That is insta-fail.

So I ask you - do you think a person that doesn't show empathy or remorse can function normally in our society? Maybe he can, but he wouldn't understand guilt or empathy - he would mimic only. Would you trust that person?
Oh, and I would think that advaocatin mass murder and genocide IS a indication that something ain't right.

No, people shouldn't be divided into different classes of citizens because of how they think. You on the other hand seem to want to create second classes of citizens based on that. How is that any better than segregation based on religion, political beliefs or race?

Also segregation and racial segregation are different things.

Finally, he isn't advocating mass murder and genocide, he's saying that the ends justify the means and that you shouldn't feel empathy or guilt because of an action took on those principles, even if later it proves to be the wrong decision. While controversial, it's not something something that he should be discriminated for.

[TrashMan]

Discrimination? Dear God, do you even know what that word means?
Second class of citizens? What nonsense are you sprouting here?


First of all, I have EVERY right to divide people into any category I see fit ESPECIALLY depending on their behavior.

Second, I'm not discriminating him - I'm actually reviled by any person who thinks like that.

Thirdly, counseling it there to help him.

[Ghostavo]

You just said you would force people like that to attend some sort of counseling/rehab/mental institution.

I'm fine with giving the option of attending counseling on their own will, but anything further than that IS discrimination. You are giving up part of their liberty because of how they think.

Yes, you have the right to divide people into any category you see fit. But not a society based on equal opportunity.


You are going to complain about my following argument, but since you've already used part of it in this thread I don't think it will be as bad. 

"Hitler didn't discriminate jews, he was just reviled by them."

See how much sense that makes? It makes about as much sense as what you just made in light of trying to force them to do things, although I'll admit, at least you are not trying to murder them.