10
   

what makes someone a jerk?

 
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 06:31 pm
@hamilton,
hamilton wrote:

Wink
(why are we winking at each other?)
LOL! That's sweet. I winked because I agree with your comment!
hamilton
 
  2  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 06:34 pm
@Arella Mae,
i winked because you were doing it, and i just wanted to be cool.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 06:54 pm
Wink Wink say no more

hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 07:45 pm
@H2O MAN,
they aren't jerks...
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Jun, 2011 06:26 am
@Arella Mae,
Arella Mae wrote:

My point is NOT that they are less human. My point is you don't have to have a conscience to be a human being as you seem to think. Is someone in a vegatative state any less human considering there is NOTHING going on in that brain? No, it doesn't make them any less a human being.
Well ma'am; the legal system disagrees with you... You must be able to advocate for yourself, defend yourself before the law will consider you human... If you have some one advocate for you, they must be able to argue that you are fully human, having among other qualities a will and a conscience... The reason we can execute criminals is that they have proved to people that they are not human and not worthy of human rights, such as liberty and life...
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Jun, 2011 08:28 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:

Well ma'am; the legal system disagrees with you... You must be able to advocate for yourself, defend yourself before the law will consider you human... If you have some one advocate for you, they must be able to argue that you are fully human, having among other qualities a will and a conscience... The reason we can execute criminals is that they have proved to people that they are not human and not worthy of human rights, such as liberty and life...


No, they do not have to prove you are fully human. They have to prove you are COMPETENT. If you were not human there'd be no need for a hearing at all.
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Jun, 2011 11:00 am
@Fido,
alright, fido. define human, then.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Jun, 2011 11:05 am
@Arella Mae,
Arella Mae wrote:

Fido wrote:

Well ma'am; the legal system disagrees with you... You must be able to advocate for yourself, defend yourself before the law will consider you human... If you have some one advocate for you, they must be able to argue that you are fully human, having among other qualities a will and a conscience... The reason we can execute criminals is that they have proved to people that they are not human and not worthy of human rights, such as liberty and life...


No, they do not have to prove you are fully human. They have to prove you are COMPETENT. If you were not human there'd be no need for a hearing at all.
I think it is presumed of people in court that they are human and innocent, while innocents is a consideration that is forced, humanity is accepted on appearance alone... I think what people often find is that humans are worse than any other animal; that we can kill for pleasure or political considerations while animals only kill out of necessity, and seldom kill their own kind except instinctually or accidently... When it comes to capital cases; humanity is always in doubt... Clearly people kill in hot blood, or out of stupidity, or disregard of risks... There is a reason Murder has the least rate of recidivism... We may often think we would just like to do it to some asshole, expecially if the asshole is breathing down our necks at the moment... When people consider in leisure what they did in haste, they soon realize the enormity of taking life; but some politicians and serial killers or mass murderers have no idea, and never think twice.... If a person has a conscience it works before and after the act... It is always with every human being, provided they are human...
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Jun, 2011 11:06 am
@hamilton,
hamilton wrote:

alright, fido. define human, then.
The moral being...
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Jun, 2011 11:08 am
@Fido,
again, if i looked around a bit, i could find a post that you made stating that morals dont exist.
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Jun, 2011 01:04 pm
@Fido,
What on earth are you talking about innocence for? Who said a single thing about guilt or innocence. The plain and simple fact is you said someone is not human if they don't have a conscience and you are wrong. Then you talk about going to court saying they are proven fully human when again you were wrong.

A person being a human being HAS NOT ONE thing to do with whether they have a conscience or not. Ted Bundy was a human being. A pretty nasty one, no doubt, but he was still a human being.
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Jun, 2011 02:54 pm
@Arella Mae,
you cant even be guilty in the first place. what is any one guilty of? existance? guilt is a term we use when we dont like someone else, and try to find a "wrong" they have committed.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2011 05:17 am
@hamilton,
hamilton wrote:

again, if i looked around a bit, i could find a post that you made stating that morals dont exist.

Morals do not exist, and moral forms do not exist except in minds which are themselves moral forms... Patriotism and courage and fidelity do not exist either, but that does not stop armies from giving their lives to the forms.... If we are conscious, then what are we most conscious of??? In my estimation it is of our relations to others all of which are formal to a greater or lesser extent, and governed/structured by moral forms... There is the place conscience before and after every act comes into play... We consider the consequences, the gains personally vers the risk socially... It is that ability that makes us human, but it is the moral bond however expressed: Love, Affection, sympathy, empathy that drives our moral behavior... We can only do good as good we are, and each knows himself best, and what fruit grows on the tree of his life...
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2011 05:26 am
@Arella Mae,
Arella Mae wrote:

What on earth are you talking about innocence for? Who said a single thing about guilt or innocence. The plain and simple fact is you said someone is not human if they don't have a conscience and you are wrong. Then you talk about going to court saying they are proven fully human when again you were wrong.

A person being a human being HAS NOT ONE thing to do with whether they have a conscience or not. Ted Bundy was a human being. A pretty nasty one, no doubt, but he was still a human being.

Ted Bundy was executed, and yet all human beings have the right to life so if he was executed, and legally so, it is because he convinced those with the power to execute him that he was not human and did not then have the protection of the state for his life... Don't get upset... Prove me wrong if you are able... It is certain for example, that those tortured to death by bundy did not think he was human.... I doubt he held his own existence in any regard as a spiritual entity... Some people like beings are broken at birth, or born well and soon destroyed by the people in their lives... They are for some reason missing an essential element of humanity in their being... When such people are found they should simply be destroyed with all kindness for humanity...
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2011 07:39 am
@Fido,
Okay, so exactly what kind of animal was Ted Bundy? Dog? Gorilla? Horse? You are not following me at all. This originally started because you said if a person does not have a conscience they are not human. That was an incorrect statement. You have been talking psychologically whereas I have been talking physically. I had thought when I said Ted Bundy was a human, A NASTY ONE AT THAT, you would have gotten the point.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2011 08:32 am
@Arella Mae,
Arella Mae wrote:

Okay, so exactly what kind of animal was Ted Bundy? Dog? Gorilla? Horse? You are not following me at all. This originally started because you said if a person does not have a conscience they are not human. That was an incorrect statement. You have been talking psychologically whereas I have been talking physically. I had thought when I said Ted Bundy was a human, A NASTY ONE AT THAT, you would have gotten the point.
I don't have to know what sort of animal he was to recognize that he did not measure up to a human being... We share over 99% of our genes with Chimps, and the sort of behavior bundy showed would only be likely in an extremely disturbed chimp, but it is certain such behavior can be seen without the organization a higher homonid would be capable of...

Look; AM... There are many political figures past and future who have shown as little regard for life, and have killed and maimed with as little consideration, and that fact that they are doing it for a moral purpose when it is considered our purpose gives them a pass... I don't give them a pass... Lincoln, who may have actually killed all of two animals in his life time, who said an ant has as much regard for his life as you do for yours, also ordered thousands to kill and to their deaths for mostly political considerations... I am not saying he was not right... I trust that he did suffer far more moral qualms than bundy... Those doubts were not sufficient to stop the carnage on his end, and considering that he did try, and did risk his political future to end the war sooner there are enough facts on both sides to weigh him... There is to me a difference between war and tragedy... When people can talk and share a similar culture as in the Trojan War, or our Civil War, and yet people do not use their words to address their problems and to seek mutual justice which is moral, but instead accept force against enemies they view only as objects and not as people, then they class themselves as little better than a bundy... What Stalin said: That the death of one is a tragedy, but that the deaths of ten thousand is a statistic- is clearly correct, and exacting in the picture it paints of him... We can all grasp that single death... We can grasp the death of a child, a parent, a sibling, or a friend... We cannot grasp death so manifold or distant as to be beyond conception, and yet that is exactly what the world too often presents us with.... The moral person recognizing that he or she has a relationship with all people values even more their relationships with loved ones and near... We should be suspicious of every attempt to objectify others which goes on apace is government... They are heartless killers, and if they would do it to others they would do it to us...
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2011 08:41 am
@Fido,
I see you still don't get the point so I am just going to drop it.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2011 08:55 am
@Arella Mae,
Arella Mae wrote:

I see you still don't get the point so I am just going to drop it.
You would not suffer a witch to live, and yet we all suffer madness among us to such an extent that we live constantly in fear of even good people... If not for the trust and help of good people, bundy would have been deprived of his early victims... He did not look like an animal... He simply had no conscience...
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2011 09:15 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:

Arella Mae wrote:

I see you still don't get the point so I am just going to drop it.
You would not suffer a witch to live, and yet we all suffer madness among us to such an extent that we live constantly in fear of even good people... If not for the trust and help of good people, bundy would have been deprived of his early victims... He did not look like an animal... He simply had no conscience...
We were obviously talking about two different aspects of human beings. I tried to make that clear to you and now you want to tell me I would not suffer a witch to live? That's a mighty big assumption don't you think? If you think Bundy was an animal for killing and now you think I would kill someone........................what kind of an animal are you saying I am?

Bundy did have not have a conscience but he was still a human being whether you like it or not. He may have not been a very nice human being and he committed animalistic and cruel acts but he was still a human being. He still had blood running through his veins, as cold as it may have been. He did wrongs and rights in his life just like everyone else. He paid for his with his life, which was the life of a human being.

I don't live in constant fear of anyone. I have no need to so I guess you are talking about yourself. I still live in an area where we can actually feel pretty safe not locking our doors at night.

What gives you the right to judge someone no longer a human being?
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2011 04:06 pm
@Arella Mae,
Arella Mae wrote:

Fido wrote:

Arella Mae wrote:

I see you still don't get the point so I am just going to drop it.
You would not suffer a witch to live, and yet we all suffer madness among us to such an extent that we live constantly in fear of even good people... If not for the trust and help of good people, bundy would have been deprived of his early victims... He did not look like an animal... He simply had no conscience...
We were obviously talking about two different aspects of human beings. I tried to make that clear to you and now you want to tell me I would not suffer a witch to live? That's a mighty big assumption don't you think? If you think Bundy was an animal for killing and now you think I would kill someone........................what kind of an animal are you saying I am?

Bundy did have not have a conscience but he was still a human being whether you like it or not. He may have not been a very nice human being and he committed animalistic and cruel acts but he was still a human being. He still had blood running through his veins, as cold as it may have been. He did wrongs and rights in his life just like everyone else. He paid for his with his life, which was the life of a human being.

I don't live in constant fear of anyone. I have no need to so I guess you are talking about yourself. I still live in an area where we can actually feel pretty safe not locking our doors at night.

What gives you the right to judge someone no longer a human being?

We are moral animals... We might kill some one, if we thought they endangered us or others, but not one of us would do it on their own authority unless the situation was a critical emergency.... We think about what we do, and consider it from ever possible aspect, and even when we judge some one guilty, worthy of death, along with others we do what we do with the greatest of regrets and in great trepidation of almighty God... Animals who look like humans kill and kill and kill never making contact with their own humanity, seeing human pain, suffering and mortality as a mystery they cannot solve... They have no appreciation for their own lives let alone the lives of the innocent... I hate to say it, and say it in the face of God: What ever makes people heartless, without emotion, sympathy or pity; Good riddance, because they can never be brought back...

So; to answer your question: We all judge... We all have the sense and the right to judge... We should never act on our judgment, or even decide alone... The old notion is to spread the guilt, but I think that is nonsense since society cannot freely do what the individual should not do... It is to avail oneself of many perspectives and to look for reasons to exculpate, and show mercy... Lives once taken cannot be given back... Certainty should be beyond question, and always questioned in regard to life...
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/30/2021 at 07:49:32