The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Thinking about it, I wouldn't mind if all the people I didn't like in the world were thrown into a large vat of acid.
Such as All neds/townies/whatever they're called near you.
Also, I'm also quite racist. I find some cultures completely useless and annoying such as all those d*****s rappers and their fans who wear American football tops, chains et al.
And you mum.
Such as All neds/townies/whatever they're called near you.
Also, I'm also quite racist. I find some cultures completely useless and annoying such as all those d*****s rappers and their fans who wear American football tops, chains et al.
And you mum.
Page:
Stranger In Paradise wrote:
> To me it's this thinking that all beliefs are equal (and we're
> talking moral beliefs not religious ones here) that has landed the
> country in the mess it is in.
>
> To me, it is undeniable that for a person to pick a fight with
> another, to beat them senseless and leave them in the street, whilst
> drunk, is not acceptable behaviour. But get it to court and the first
> defence will be "my client was worse the wear for alcohol"
> etc. Because that's OK.
Hmmm.
I've been wondering how this fits together for a few days, a couple of things have set me off thinking about it.
Looking at your argument, well, it's hard to disagree, but I'm going to try :^)
At least in part.
You say that all beliefs are not 'equal'. But how do you distinguish? Only on the grounds of your own beliefs.
Surely anyone who judges someone else's beliefs through the viewpoint of their own beliefs, will always find the other person's don't measure up. Why? Because the beliefs are inevitably different, at least partially. And we use our own beliefs as the ideal - any difference then is an 'imperfection'.
So to truely judge the validity of someone's beliefs, we have to get away from our own set to objectively view theirs.
I agree about the overly pc thing though, there has to be some point where we actually try to shape society by our beliefs, rather than let everyone run rampant. Hell, even if we were to do the latter, it'd be an imposition of our beliefs..
However, I think it is possible to look at other peoples' beliefs objectively, at least in part.
Descatre's 'I think therefore I am' puts us on a defeatest road of accepting we know nothing more. But we can work around that.
We can make some basic assumptions to build from. Assumptions, but fairly safe ones that everyone would accept.
Everyone is, on some level, equal.
You can do what you like, so long as it doesn't affect other people (or animals, if you like that kind of thing). Or if it does affect people, they consent to it (and are sane adults etc).
I figure you can draw a reasonable, safe, set of beliefs from that basis.
Although thinking about it, not everyone seems so willing to respect those limits, which suggests they're not the universally acceptable standards they were supposed to be.
Still, from that you can draw that if someone's going around in some way harming people, since everyone is equal they consent to people harming them back, and can thus be jailed without a moral problem.
Another approach could be to examine people under their own morals. Socrates had a knack for making people's beliefs fall apart simply by questioning them until the 'victim' fell into contradiction and had to admit defeat. (An example of their beliefs aren't so equal, I guess).
I suppose in a way taking those 'universal' beliefs is an attempt to do this - set 'everyones' basic beliefs as a standard, and catch people when they contradict 'themselves'.
> It's time the country did a collective "get a clue". Or
> emigrate. I'd emigrate if I could.
Yeah, its a nice dream :^(
> To me it's this thinking that all beliefs are equal (and we're
> talking moral beliefs not religious ones here) that has landed the
> country in the mess it is in.
>
> To me, it is undeniable that for a person to pick a fight with
> another, to beat them senseless and leave them in the street, whilst
> drunk, is not acceptable behaviour. But get it to court and the first
> defence will be "my client was worse the wear for alcohol"
> etc. Because that's OK.
Hmmm.
I've been wondering how this fits together for a few days, a couple of things have set me off thinking about it.
Looking at your argument, well, it's hard to disagree, but I'm going to try :^)
At least in part.
You say that all beliefs are not 'equal'. But how do you distinguish? Only on the grounds of your own beliefs.
Surely anyone who judges someone else's beliefs through the viewpoint of their own beliefs, will always find the other person's don't measure up. Why? Because the beliefs are inevitably different, at least partially. And we use our own beliefs as the ideal - any difference then is an 'imperfection'.
So to truely judge the validity of someone's beliefs, we have to get away from our own set to objectively view theirs.
I agree about the overly pc thing though, there has to be some point where we actually try to shape society by our beliefs, rather than let everyone run rampant. Hell, even if we were to do the latter, it'd be an imposition of our beliefs..
However, I think it is possible to look at other peoples' beliefs objectively, at least in part.
Descatre's 'I think therefore I am' puts us on a defeatest road of accepting we know nothing more. But we can work around that.
We can make some basic assumptions to build from. Assumptions, but fairly safe ones that everyone would accept.
Everyone is, on some level, equal.
You can do what you like, so long as it doesn't affect other people (or animals, if you like that kind of thing). Or if it does affect people, they consent to it (and are sane adults etc).
I figure you can draw a reasonable, safe, set of beliefs from that basis.
Although thinking about it, not everyone seems so willing to respect those limits, which suggests they're not the universally acceptable standards they were supposed to be.
Still, from that you can draw that if someone's going around in some way harming people, since everyone is equal they consent to people harming them back, and can thus be jailed without a moral problem.
Another approach could be to examine people under their own morals. Socrates had a knack for making people's beliefs fall apart simply by questioning them until the 'victim' fell into contradiction and had to admit defeat. (An example of their beliefs aren't so equal, I guess).
I suppose in a way taking those 'universal' beliefs is an attempt to do this - set 'everyones' basic beliefs as a standard, and catch people when they contradict 'themselves'.
> It's time the country did a collective "get a clue". Or
> emigrate. I'd emigrate if I could.
Yeah, its a nice dream :^(
Light wrote:
> Jealousy rearing it's ugly head eh Bell? Don't worry; one day a woman
> will show you her boobies. Then you can show her yours...
Is Stranger in Paradise actually Belldandy?
> Jealousy rearing it's ugly head eh Bell? Don't worry; one day a woman
> will show you her boobies. Then you can show her yours...
Is Stranger in Paradise actually Belldandy?
Yup.
Stranger In Paradise wrote:
> Whitestripes DX wrote:
> "Sorry you've had a crap childhood, but it's made you unfit to
> live in normal society - we're going to have to put you down."
>
> Except there are tons of people who have a crap childhood, and go on
> to live perfectly good law abiding lives.
Well obviously. This would only be used for people who commit a string of crimes and try to fall back on the psychological defence of a troubled childhood.
Maybe they do have a problem and really can't stop themselves, but they're still going to have to be taken away from normal society as you can't give them the chance to keep doing it.
> Whitestripes DX wrote:
> "Sorry you've had a crap childhood, but it's made you unfit to
> live in normal society - we're going to have to put you down."
>
> Except there are tons of people who have a crap childhood, and go on
> to live perfectly good law abiding lives.
Well obviously. This would only be used for people who commit a string of crimes and try to fall back on the psychological defence of a troubled childhood.
Maybe they do have a problem and really can't stop themselves, but they're still going to have to be taken away from normal society as you can't give them the chance to keep doing it.
Stranger In Paradise wrote:
>places like Sudan, Iraq, Afghanistan, even India...... Yet they do
> not have the problems we have.
>
>
I realise the point is about children turning into thugs or whatever, but......hahahahaha. No.
>places like Sudan, Iraq, Afghanistan, even India...... Yet they do
> not have the problems we have.
>
>
I realise the point is about children turning into thugs or whatever, but......hahahahaha. No.
Sure those places have problems,, but not related to kid's behaviour.
How do you know?
A stable, incredibly wealthy nation has more problems with its youth than Sudan, India or Iraq?
It might do, I don't know. I was just wondering if you do?
A stable, incredibly wealthy nation has more problems with its youth than Sudan, India or Iraq?
It might do, I don't know. I was just wondering if you do?
There are some indicators in various UN publications online but partly it is common sense as well. Some of these places will cut your hand off or stone you to death for stealing anything whatever your age. Plus, for example, in rural India children are relied on to bring in money for their family (imagine that here!) etc.
Another small example. UNODC surveyed children in the USA, Europe (30 nations) and Uzbekistan. Ages ranged 10-16. People were asked about drug use - had they used or experiend illegal drugs.
In the USA 40% had, in Europe around 37%, in Uzbekistan 3%. In terms of punishment UK law is about the softest it gets with youth crime, and adult crime as well.
Another small example. UNODC surveyed children in the USA, Europe (30 nations) and Uzbekistan. Ages ranged 10-16. People were asked about drug use - had they used or experiend illegal drugs.
In the USA 40% had, in Europe around 37%, in Uzbekistan 3%. In terms of punishment UK law is about the softest it gets with youth crime, and adult crime as well.
Interesting. I guess the drugs thing is arguably because we are such an affluent nation - drugs are rather more prevelant (perhaps), because youth doesn't have quite the same pressure put upon it.
To be honest, I'd rather live here than any three of those nations, or places with the removal of hands (no matter how effective it is!) - Sudan as it is now, same with Iraq, and India has hundereds of murders attributable to the caste system - which is so entrenched that it's almost immovable from society.
To be honest, I'd rather live here than any three of those nations, or places with the removal of hands (no matter how effective it is!) - Sudan as it is now, same with Iraq, and India has hundereds of murders attributable to the caste system - which is so entrenched that it's almost immovable from society.
Yep, my main point with those examples was to counter this idea that bad childhood automatically leads to kids being moronic/violent adults and teens. In some cases yes, but the vast majority it isn't the case, they just know they can get away with murder, literally in many cases. If it was the case then the world would be swamped with criminals.
Page: