Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Aliens & UFOs
Sentient Logic ??
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="label" data-source="post: 166236" data-attributes="member: 5940"><p>To be clear justification of an act is relevant in the court of law. It does not change the action that took place. That is the point i am making here. Not sure how much time you spend on each of the above but lets consider a few things. </p><p></p><p>Consider why things are labeled good or bad. Harm is normally considered bad. Can you argue that if someone lets say a criminal does harm to you willfully and actively to a degree that the harm inflicted creates discomfort pain and or even more severe conditions. Would you accept it as a good or bad thing? </p><p></p><p>See the justification of why the person is inflicting harm becomes irrelevant because it is your body that is damaged. In general this would be considered a bad thing. Now the question here is; Why must i now fight and argue about calling it a bad thing? </p><p></p><p>Can it be that the argument/debate is meaningless because to harm someone is bad regardless of the motivation? Can you justify a criminal torturing anyone? Does the criminal's perspective/justification count? </p><p></p><p>Sadly some things are just good and others bad. Interpretation and perspective does not change facts.It may change justification but it doesn't change the facts. </p><p></p><p>Where i live "third world" people steal all the time. To feed their families and or addictions and or greed. i am sure it happens in the first world as well. The question now remains. Was an item stolen? Yes a item was stolen. That is the action. Why was the item stolen? To feed someone's starving children. Was the action of stealing good or bad? The action of steeling was BAD. The fact that someone ate afterwards was GOOD. But it doesn't change the facts that one action was BAD and the other action GOOD. </p><p></p><p>i am really sorry that you do not wish to understand this. i am really sorry that you find my point of view upsetting irrelevant and or stupid. That said consider what the victim is experiencing physically mentally and chemically. Then consider what the criminal is feeling physically mentally and chemically. Each share a different perspective but the actions remain. Hence why some actions are considered good and others bad. </p><p></p><p>It is not a question of relativity it is a question about absolutes. How those absolutes are justified doesn't change the absolute.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="label, post: 166236, member: 5940"] To be clear justification of an act is relevant in the court of law. It does not change the action that took place. That is the point i am making here. Not sure how much time you spend on each of the above but lets consider a few things. Consider why things are labeled good or bad. Harm is normally considered bad. Can you argue that if someone lets say a criminal does harm to you willfully and actively to a degree that the harm inflicted creates discomfort pain and or even more severe conditions. Would you accept it as a good or bad thing? See the justification of why the person is inflicting harm becomes irrelevant because it is your body that is damaged. In general this would be considered a bad thing. Now the question here is; Why must i now fight and argue about calling it a bad thing? Can it be that the argument/debate is meaningless because to harm someone is bad regardless of the motivation? Can you justify a criminal torturing anyone? Does the criminal's perspective/justification count? Sadly some things are just good and others bad. Interpretation and perspective does not change facts.It may change justification but it doesn't change the facts. Where i live "third world" people steal all the time. To feed their families and or addictions and or greed. i am sure it happens in the first world as well. The question now remains. Was an item stolen? Yes a item was stolen. That is the action. Why was the item stolen? To feed someone's starving children. Was the action of stealing good or bad? The action of steeling was BAD. The fact that someone ate afterwards was GOOD. But it doesn't change the facts that one action was BAD and the other action GOOD. i am really sorry that you do not wish to understand this. i am really sorry that you find my point of view upsetting irrelevant and or stupid. That said consider what the victim is experiencing physically mentally and chemically. Then consider what the criminal is feeling physically mentally and chemically. Each share a different perspective but the actions remain. Hence why some actions are considered good and others bad. It is not a question of relativity it is a question about absolutes. How those absolutes are justified doesn't change the absolute. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Aliens & UFOs
Sentient Logic ??
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top