- Feb 4, 2006
- 46,773
- 10,977
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
I think we have abundant evidence to support the rule. A man just died for a $20 theft.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So the idea of thinking for yourself is demonstrably bad rather than requiring more evidence to support such a broad generalization?
And that was just?I think we have abundant evidence to support the rule. A man just died for a $20 theft.
And that was just?
Eyeroll.
If I could offer a wonderful thing (you may see today or another day how much so), it's so much better not to make a habit of trying to find fault in others. It's so self-defeating to do that. Each time you accuse others of whatever wrongs as you've been doing, saying other people are 'cherry picking', 'copy and paste', etc., -- that's the thing that's costing you so much (even if it's not clear yet). To leave that behind would be like dumping a load of rocks you are carrying around all the time. You'd not only gain from making less false accusations (or worse even, saying others are doing something you turn out to be the one actually doing more), but there's an even stronger gain -- you just get out of a circular dead-end track that kind of searching for fault causes to begin with. It's a 'mental trap', and we should all hope to avoid it.
So, instead of trying to find a way to make a negative characterization, try instead to really understand what people are saying.
Also, if you spend less time attacking others or their posts, then they will possibly begin to read more of yours, instead of just ignoring what you write. Of course, it could help to begin by apologizing to them for past derogatory characterizations.
Pretty sure I never said thinking for yourself was meant to be some free for all principle, because what an individual thinks makes sense is not the same as being honest and critical enough to look further than thatI think we have abundant evidence to support the rule. A man just died for a $20 theft.
If you're just going to deflect away from the man dying for a $20 theft as seemingly just by your implicit "approval", then it suggests you don't really want to address the problem and place blame on something else to avoid that.Is the rioting, looting, and destruction "just"?
Protestors have shut down a major highway where I live (this after several nights of destroying a popular business district), which will affect thousands of people trying to get home from work. What's "just" about that?
Before this is over innocent people are going to die at the hands of these 'vigilantes'. What's "just" about that?
If you're just going to deflect away from the man dying for a $20 theft as seemingly just by your implicit "approval", then it suggests you don't really want to address the problem and place blame on something else to avoid that.
I don't think anyone is claiming the rioting is just, but protesting and rioting are not remotely the same thing, there's a domino effect going on here seemingly where the protests are encouraging, unknowingly, people to just lash out in a destructive fashion and it makes the whole thing collapse in terms of anything meaningful, unfortunately
Pretty sure I never said thinking for yourself was meant to be some free for all principle, because what an individual thinks makes sense is not the same as being honest and critical enough to look further than that
We have an agreed upon standard about crime in terms of its meaning, the disagreement is in either the punishment or the degree of the acts that are disapproved of.
No, we don't need revelation that stealing is wrong (barring extenuating circumstances), we only need to consider based on the golden rule and principle of reciprocity thereof, that it would be better that we don't inflict that upon others, because we wouldn't want it inflicted on us. Basic empathy dictates morality far better, along with considering consequences and benefits to society at large as well as individual edification. If all you have is an authority, then demonstrating the incompetence of the authority or contradictions would make your moral system crumble
Perhaps a different approach to protesting would help. Street protests are an attempt to obtain change "quick and dirty", as the saying goes, without any meaningful effort or commitment. It's no different than a child shouting at his parents, "I want what I want when I want it", while throwing a tantrum.
Instead they might go into those poor neighborhoods and explain why education is necessary, that teenagers shouldn't become parents, that they should care for their health better, that they should not use or sell drugs, that they should obey the law, and that they should respect each other more.
Empathy is the cake, the law is the shaping around it, the frosting would be more social norms and such, if we're using the metaphor. Empathy is hardly something unnecessary, you're assuming seemingly that we should just adhere to the law without considering WHY we adhere to the law in principle, that's totalitarian thinking: obey or elseThe law is the cake. Empathy is just the frosting on the cake.
The problem becomes how some parents will throw a fit because they think the schools are indoctrinating their children, without understanding that indoctrination is not the same as educationPerhaps our schools could teach our kids 'the law of unintended consequences'. Maybe use dominos as a visual aid, or actual events such as the death of Mr. Floyd.
Empathy is the cake, the law is the shaping around it, the frosting would be more social norms and such, if we're using the metaphor. Empathy is hardly something unnecessary, you're assuming seemingly that we should just adhere to the law without considering WHY we adhere to the law in principle, that's totalitarian thinking: obey or else
I wouldn't say it's quick and dirty, the idea is not necessarily to get an instant change, because systemic problems are solved systemically, not by revolution unless it's deemed absolutely necessary
You think there aren't groups trying that? Part of the issues is how public schools with partisan politics involved behind the scenes make it increasingly difficult for these groups to appear because of limited funding (same problem with how the arts are supposedly dying out in terms of students getting access to them in schools)
The problem becomes how some parents will throw a fit because they think the schools are indoctrinating their children, without understanding that indoctrination is not the same as education
If you read my posts, you'll find I'm confident about things that are shown true by outcome -- for instance here on CF very often I'm describing things I've tested extensively, and have a lot of outcomes/results to gauge.Pointing out flaws is hardly a problem in itself. The self confident tone used by you and others, much as you intend otherwise, is the major motivation for taking you down a peg in terms of being honest and humble about your position being a mere belief and nothing close to knowledge. If you just assume you have the right position and talk down to people like this, it isn't helping, I'm not positing that I have some world changing idea, I'm not nearly so arrogant to talk like I can change people that easily, call me cynical.
You think you could do the same thing and not characterize me like you claim I'm always doing for you? If you asked questions instead of assuming you already know the answer, it'd help in the idea that you think you're offering some sage wisdom instead of sounding like you're patronizing in your tone.
If they can quote such things and demonstrate it is the case, then I'm not unwilling to apologize, but generalized claims with no substance are obfuscating the discussion by suggesting personal attacks with no basis
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?