What Happened in Vegas?

[mattiasNYC]

Sheesh, next you'll be saying whether people are good or bad is relative.

Possibly. But probably maybe not.

 

[Gold]

Okay, I get it. If someone is racist because of a rational decision they are a bad person but if someone is racist because of a mental illness they are a good person.

 

[mattiasNYC]

Okay, I get it. If someone is racist because of a rational decision they are a bad person but if someone is racist because of a mental illness they are a good person.

Is that what people said here?

 

[Gold]

Is that what people said here?

No, that's what you said. I substituted racist for some other symptom of emotional dysfunction.

 

[mattiasNYC]

No, that's what you said. I substituted racist for some other symptom of emotional dysfunction.

I used the term "bad person" to describe them in that post that you quoted? Show me.

 

[bluebird]

I don't think that's true. You have pharmaceutical companies and doctors who are heavily pushing these drugs and diagnostics onto children and adults. That's the only point you're missing in your options: more positive diagnoses today is because of higher profits.

I agree, thanks for adding this.

We also shouldn't forget that just in the 20th century over 100 million people were murdered by psychopaths. The cold blooded genocidal maniac thing, it's not new.

Also a good point.

When something happens like this and there is not a good explanation and we can't definitively point a finger at a cause, its unsettling, scary. The only thing positive that comes out of events like this are these types of discussions. There are a lot of possibility's and only a large group of people with a diverse set of values and perspectives can come close to an answer why, and how to take  preventive action. If anything we are looking deeper into the shadows of society to find some sort of explanation. bringing things to light unseen before.

But on a more obvious level regarding guns, there IS a consensus, a world view, that is being resisted by a minority.

 

[Gold]

I used the term "bad person" to describe them in that post that you quoted? Show me.

So now we are back to if racism  is rational they are a bad person but if it's the result of mental illness they aren't a bad person.

 

[mattiasNYC]

So now we are back to if racism  is rational they are a bad person but if it's the result of mental illness they aren't a bad person.

Again; where did I use the term "bad person" when talking about mental illness?

 

[Gold]

Again; where did I use the term "bad person" when talking about mental illness?

You didn't.  That's what I'm trying to figure out. It's clear that if someone is if sound mind and racist they are a bad person. If they are racist because of mental illness I can't figure out if they are a bad person.

 

[mattiasNYC]

You didn't.  That's what I'm trying to figure out. It's clear that if someone is if sound mind and racist they are a bad person. If they are racist because of mental illness I can't figure out if they are a bad person.

Ok. Well you made it sound like I had made some sort of statement or conclusion about it, which I didn't think I had.

If we really care about this we should start by defining what a "bad person" is. I have a feeling it's borderline semantics at this point.

I would like to offer the following quasi-rhetorical question as a starting point for figuring this out:

- Let's say a person has a brain injury that causes him to be attracted to children (a pedo).
- Let's say we determine that that type of injuries essentially qualify as "mental illness" (physically caused).
- Let's say you ask me if that person, who you don't know, would be a nice enough person to baby sit your kids.
- Let's say that the opposite of bad person is nice person.

-- What would you say if I told you he was a nice person, perhaps very nice person, and you later found out that he was a pedo? Would you agree with my assessment? Would you have instead considered him to be a bad person?

I admit that the above is possibly questioning our use of words more than the philosophy of it all. But we have to start somewhere, right?

 

[Gold]

Now everything is relative again. I thought good and bad were absolute. No? The ancient Greeks didn't  find pedophilia objectionable. Were they all bad people?

And it's obvious from your response it is rational to be racist.

Just to be clear  I think there is no such thing as good people or bad people.

 

[mattiasNYC]

Now everything is relative again.

Is that your belief or is it your belief of what my beliefs are?

Just to be clear  I think there is no such thing as good people or bad people.

Ok. So answer my question then. Let's ignore for a second that it was quasi-rhetorical. Place yourself in that hypothetical situation and answer what you would think if I called this to you unknown person a nice or good person when you ask if the person was nice enough to use as a baby-sitter for your kids.

Would you think it would be ok to use that person as a baby-sitter?
If you did, and nothing happened to your kids, would you retroactively upon learning the truth that the person was a pedo be upset with me for having described the person as "nice"?

Just answer.

 

[Gold]

No, I wouldn't hire a peophile as a babysitter.  Yes I would be upset if you recommended them. I have my opinions about just about everything. I don't think my opinions represent Universal Truth.

 

[mattiasNYC]

No, I wouldn't hire a peophile as a babysitter.  Yes I would be upset if you recommended them. I have my opinions about just about everything. I don't think my opinions represent Universal Truth.

Right. So you would probably call that pedo something, you'd probably characterize them using some sort of language, yet you don't want to use it here. You wouldn't call them "bad people" apparently, which is one place we clearly disagree with each other (because 'yes', I would call them that, unless you can somehow define the term "bad people" in a different way I agree with), because you don't think there is such a thing as a bad or good person.

So I'm really curious about just what terms you would use.

Secondly though, and on a meta-level, what's the point of talking about some "Universal Truth"? Without defining it further, I'd say that the only universal "truth" we know of isn't even "truth", but it's the closest we have gotten to it; quantum physics. In Quantum Physics you can describe an outcome with 100% accuracy as long as you have 100% of the information required to perform the equation. That's as close as we get to "truth". And the problem that remains is that because we don't have 100% of all the required information a lot of the time we are left with assigning a probability of something happening rather than ascertaining whether or not it will (with certainty).

So anything outside of that won't be "truth".

Since that's the case I would argue that it's entirely meaningless to disqualify any statement because it supposedly doesn't constitute absolute or universal truth. Of course there is no such thing. The problem is that we can apply this to any topic however. Any time anyone makes a statement that supposedly refers to something being true we have the ability to question that statement on these grounds.

So what's the point of talking about anything?

I would argue that the fact that most people on the planet, a vast majority of them, think pedophilia is something bad, tells us something about it. It tells us that we have something that while not being an absolute universal truth is as close to it as we can get. But I would also argue that if there is no such thing as universal truths which then invalidates the concept of a person being bad we can similarly say that rape or pedophilia isn't really 'bad' either, because saying that would be a universal truth.

So again; what's the point of talking about anything if everything is subjective and just an opinion?

 

[Gold]

Wow, that is a very confused reply. There are bad actions. Causing harm to others is bad. Thinking about causing harm to others is none of my business.

And once again I totally and completly reject characterizing people as good or bad in a way that could send them to prison or have them be social pariahs.  I could tell you whether I think they are good or bad but I wouldn't expect you to agree.

 

[mattiasNYC]

Wow, that is a very confused reply.

Only if you don't understand it.

There are bad actions. Causing harm to others is bad. Thinking about causing harm to others is none of my business.

And once again I totally and completly reject characterizing people as good or bad in a way that could send them to prison or have them be social pariahs.  I could tell you whether I think they are good or bad but I wouldn't expect you to agree.

So to you people can be good or bad?

 

[Gold]

Only if you don't understand it.

I certainly don't. There are so many self contradicting ideas I won't start.

So to you people can be good or bad?

I'll say it again. I believe people can and do bad things. I don't want to associate with people who harm others.

I think Ho Ho's are bad. I hate the taste and I think processed food is terrible for both mind and body. If you like Ho Ho's I think that is bad. I would still talk to you.

 

[DaveP]

This question has already been settled by the jury system.

It is a majority decision or a unanimous one, that way the question of right or wrong or bad or good is decided in a practical way.

Ultimate  accountability is God's province.

DaveP

 

[Gold]

Ultimate  accountability is God's province.

I don't know that with certainty. I do know with certainty it is not the province of MattaisNYC

 

[mattiasNYC]

I certainly don't. There are so many self contradicting ideas I won't start.

Clearly you don't understand. If you did you wouldn't see what I wrote as contradictory.

I'll say it again. I believe people can and do bad things. I don't want to associate with people who harm others.

That's not what I asked you.

You wrote: "I could tell you whether I think they are good or bad"

I asked: So to you people can be good or bad?

It's a simple yes or no question.