I have no idea what you’re even arguing right now, I think there’s a language barrier
This Forum
Yes this was exactly what I just said. That goes for anything, not just violence.
1 Like
I was afirming and jumping on board that we don’t need to be “soccer moms” or “karens and kens” when it comes to violent video game. And violence in video games and movies is ok and rated accordingly.
I also wanted to point that “oversensitised things” are similar in a sense and in correlation with the absurdity of “online threats” or involve the same thing or process.
People need to stop being too paranoid as a main idea.
Uh no.
You need to go to jail or pay a fine so that others aren’t punished.
Not because it’s inherently wrong and you did it anyways.
What if I didn’t know “stealing was wrong”?
Your logic is acting on a fixed morality basis that not everyone agrees with
Well, stealing means you do harm directly or indirectly to someone. Sure you have a moral compas, and for a child soldier in a African poor state is completely normal and fine to blow someone’s brains out for example, or stealing.
But we know is wrong because when you actively engage in malevolent intent and try to harm someone is something that goes against preservation of life. Of your life and the ones around you.
I mean sure you can attempt to take your own life, and people can say… “okay, he wants to do whatever his idiotic or sick mind wants to do” but you can’t actively try to harm someone as you have no right to attempt harm(realistically speaking) physically and full on contact, face to face traumatic type or way and mentally in this sense. And I am talking about in person stuff here mostly.
1 Like
Then you’re a DIRTY COMMIE AND COMMUNIST AREN’T PEOPLE SO YOU FORFEIT YOUR RIGHTS
1 Like
Technically that makes you a bystander, schools and colleges have been sued for this
I would love for a spetsnaz FT member
GIGN
KSK
BSOC
SAS
All nationalities
I’m not clutching pearls I’m just saying why start drawing lines when Israel comes up? That’s alls I’m sayin. Damn right I wanna make jokes about a SS totenkopf predator lmao
Well, bystanding has its ups and down. Since he could be a threat to himself and anybody…including you as a bystander, you can simply say you didn’t want to make the situation worst or even worst get yourself or others harmed. Is about your right to preserve your life and well being here and not putting it to risk to try to save or interfere on somebody who is unstable.
There is nothing you can or could have done.
Everything is dependent on the circumstances and details of course.
What about self defense? Or being in the right side of the war? Those go against the preservation of life. And who made that an objective standard?
And what if said person needs to steal to live (think cliche Alladin stealing food) it’s still malevolent but some may argue that it’s fine.
And what even is considered Malevolent. Some consider abortion malevolent while others do not. And you could apply the same question to murder.
(And just to clarify to anyone I’m not advocating for murder just a discussion on ideology of right and wrong morals.)
Ya its dumb that’s the be all end all no-no zone, any other place on the planet its ok to shit on
Self defense is not equal to actively trying to harm someone for no real reason and palpable threat to your own life and safety.
Harm for the sake of harm. Then you go into degrees of harm.
Harm itself is objective making it a good foundation for moral arguments.
You’re harmed because you’re starving. You inflict harm because you’re starving. What degree of harm did you inflict and why was it necessary?
2 Likes
But there’s also the point of who decides that.
It’s not like objectivity in art because objectivitly good art is about it’s quality. How well its built.
There’s no quality to morality. So how is it chosen and why.
Morality has quality control, called intent. An action taken for the sake of it IE: me hitting you with a car because its funny is objectively malevolent. Animal cruelty for the sake of inflicting harm = malevolent.
Animal cruelty for purposes of eating = maybe not entirely moral, but not malevolent as the end goal of the action isn’t harm itself.
1 Like
In art aside execution and technique you also have a discipline called aesthetics which studies the deeper values of what good art or what art is and is derived from philosophical study, history and research.
You have good art and bad art. Even if is good or bad is art. But can be poor quality in terms of taste. Kitsch is a form of poor quality or bad art, even if is art, that doesn’t make it good or high quality in the sense. Is still shit…
So yeah art can be objective by evaluating given the tools and disciplines at hand. And it takes thought, critical thinking and education to do or evaluate and criticize art.
On a scale grander than actions that are objectively cruel it gets complicated which is why everywhere has a complex legal system.
IE: I hit you with my car because you are a dirty communist and your worldview has inflicted mental harm onto me and I fear for the safety of my possessions and the integrity of ownership and property across the globe, acting for what I percieve as the greater good by erasing you and your ilk from the universe
In terms of short term self defense i’d be in the wrong for hitting you with my car - you hadn’t taken any action towards me or my possessions. As for my utilitarian assumption that demanded I take your life, it can’t be proven yet.
For the sake of communism, or what you say there, you know that in places like America (U.S.) is ok to steal or make shady income or trick the law system or lobby to make profit? ((which is theft)
Is kind of ironic how people depict theft and illegal action under things like communism for example when in the so called democratic world things tend o be the same even if more complex?
Not only ironic but also hypocritical.