The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
When i left here last night i had one question i had to think about.
Why do we turn to being dark when we grow up, is it a natural process, does everyone have it?
After some thinking i decided that it came down to being protected, if you can't be seen you cant be hurt and yet i feel there is more to it.
Society says that we should be afraid of darkness as it is associated with all thing's bad, but we have such a negative media we are constantly told those in the shadows profit and get away with murder, isnt is confusing to say not playing by the rules is bad and yet we focus on that aspect and largely ignore the good people.
Is being dark a survival tactic or a way to get ahead? when does it change from one to the other?
Is being good showing weakness ? or is it the other way round ? who are the weak people? those who cheat to get ahead or those that stay honest and get left behind?
What is more important being good or being successful.
What is the point of law's when good people lose out because of it?
Survival of the fittest or survival of the honest?
Has morality f***ed us over ?
Why do we turn to being dark when we grow up, is it a natural process, does everyone have it?
After some thinking i decided that it came down to being protected, if you can't be seen you cant be hurt and yet i feel there is more to it.
Society says that we should be afraid of darkness as it is associated with all thing's bad, but we have such a negative media we are constantly told those in the shadows profit and get away with murder, isnt is confusing to say not playing by the rules is bad and yet we focus on that aspect and largely ignore the good people.
Is being dark a survival tactic or a way to get ahead? when does it change from one to the other?
Is being good showing weakness ? or is it the other way round ? who are the weak people? those who cheat to get ahead or those that stay honest and get left behind?
What is more important being good or being successful.
What is the point of law's when good people lose out because of it?
Survival of the fittest or survival of the honest?
Has morality f***ed us over ?
Page:
No. I'm saying that you should keep an eye out for the consequences of your actions. No matter what the intentions are, if it's turning out bad then you need to think again.
You have to take every situation for it's own merit.
Stealings wrong, but not as wrong as just letting someone starve to death.
You understanding me? :-)
You have to take every situation for it's own merit.
Stealings wrong, but not as wrong as just letting someone starve to death.
You understanding me? :-)
Strafio wrote:
> Flockhart wrote:
> The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
>
> It could be. But not if you're mindful of what you are doing,
> and what the consequences of your actions are.
So what you are saying is don't get caught.
> Flockhart wrote:
> The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
>
> It could be. But not if you're mindful of what you are doing,
> and what the consequences of your actions are.
So what you are saying is don't get caught.
Flockhart wrote:
> The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
It could be. But not if you're mindful of what you are doing, and what the consequences of your actions are.
> The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
It could be. But not if you're mindful of what you are doing, and what the consequences of your actions are.
CTUbauer wrote:
> Very epic topic here, nice.
Nah i messed it up by not being clear, it started out as a answer to another post, but i started rambling and changed the subject half way through.
> Very epic topic here, nice.
Nah i messed it up by not being clear, it started out as a answer to another post, but i started rambling and changed the subject half way through.
Very epic topic here, nice.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Welfare of kids is part of morality.
It depends on how hard up they were and how much damage I was doing to someone else. If they were starving and I fed them by stealing from someone who had so much food that they wouldn't notice the difference without counting how much they had every 2 minutes to see if any was missing?
I'd barely see that as wrong.
That's a very extreme example and there would most likely be plenty of alternatives that wouldn't involve robbing someone that you could do but the point stands, it's about weighing up consequences.
It depends on how hard up they were and how much damage I was doing to someone else. If they were starving and I fed them by stealing from someone who had so much food that they wouldn't notice the difference without counting how much they had every 2 minutes to see if any was missing?
I'd barely see that as wrong.
That's a very extreme example and there would most likely be plenty of alternatives that wouldn't involve robbing someone that you could do but the point stands, it's about weighing up consequences.
I advise you read The Catcher In The Rye Flockhart. It's all about a boy called Holden Caulfield and his struggle to preserve the purity of childhood innocence in world that he believes corrupts children when they grow up. Quite a few schools study it so you may have read it already but if not. Read it.
Strafio wrote:
> Flockhart wrote:
> Being good is all well and fine if it keeps you sane, but when you
> can't afford to give your kids the life you want them to have
> because
> of your own morality, you have to question whether you have made the
> right choice.
> It's a lot about balancing priorities.
Then what would you consider a priority, your morality or the welfare of your kids(if you have any, or ever plan to)
> Flockhart wrote:
> Being good is all well and fine if it keeps you sane, but when you
> can't afford to give your kids the life you want them to have
> because
> of your own morality, you have to question whether you have made the
> right choice.
> It's a lot about balancing priorities.
Then what would you consider a priority, your morality or the welfare of your kids(if you have any, or ever plan to)
Flockhart wrote:
> Being good is all well and fine if it keeps you sane, but when you
> can't afford to give your kids the life you want them to have because
> of your own morality, you have to question whether you have made the
> right choice.
It depends.
Part of morality is choosing who's problem is more important.
Is it more important that your kid's won't be wearing the "new look" this season or that someone who used to work for you has nothing to support their family on?
I work for MacDonalds which is an ill-moralled corporation, because I need to earn a living. I'll be happier working for the fair-trade obbsessed co-op, (if they give me the job! :-D) but even though Maccy D's aren't the best behaved company in the world, I'd rather work for them than be unemployed.
It's a lot about balancing priorities.
> Being good is all well and fine if it keeps you sane, but when you
> can't afford to give your kids the life you want them to have because
> of your own morality, you have to question whether you have made the
> right choice.
It depends.
Part of morality is choosing who's problem is more important.
Is it more important that your kid's won't be wearing the "new look" this season or that someone who used to work for you has nothing to support their family on?
I work for MacDonalds which is an ill-moralled corporation, because I need to earn a living. I'll be happier working for the fair-trade obbsessed co-op, (if they give me the job! :-D) but even though Maccy D's aren't the best behaved company in the world, I'd rather work for them than be unemployed.
It's a lot about balancing priorities.
Page: