Boston

Pages: 1234
Because happy people don't kill people. Some foul shit must have happened to that person to do something like that.

Besides, if you don't show compassion, you are that person...
Besides, if you don't show compassion, you are that person...

You're not that person unless you blow people up. Compassion doesn't have much to do with it.
I hate what i have been reading in yahoo news comments section, people just presume they are all terrorists and don't care that they have been tortured, I point out that they are innocent untill proven guilty some one else said "of course they are guilty they are 'MUZOs' "!

these are the people our governments want to vote for them, not anyone with more depth than that.

Sad to hear about the Boston attack.

@chrisname Reason no one heard about it was because a car bomb in Iraq is about as normal as waking up in the morning so everyone usually overlooks it.
You're not that person unless you blow people up.

I don't think quantifying the tragedy makes a difference. If you're really against doing wrong, then you have to do right by even those who do wrong.

Compassion doesn't have much to do with it.

I guess it will have to be enough that it has something to do with it :)
closed account (3qX21hU5)
Because happy people don't kill people. Some foul shit must have happened to that person to do something like that.


Some people are just evil plain and simple. Thier past has no place in the justification of what they have done.
No, some people lack the chemical that generates a feeling of empathy.
Your opinion is the cause of cyclic violence.
I don't think quantifying the tragedy makes a difference.

You don't think quantifying the tragedy makes a difference, yet you equate committing an atrocity with the same level of "wrongness" as not having compassion for a person who committed an atrocity. Seems like quantification to me.

If you're really against doing wrong, then you have to do right by even those who do wrong.

I honestly don't know what you're trying to say. Or, at least, I can't figure out how it relates to feeling compassion or how it supports the idea that a person who didn't feel compassion was as morally bankrupt as a person who set off bombs in public places with the intention of killing civilians. One doesn't need to feel compassion to believe in fair treatment.
@ LB: perhaps sympathy is a more accurate word?

Seems like quantification to me.

I suppose it is, I have labeled them both "wrong". Putting them in the same category allows me to apply the same rules to them.

My girlfriend gets mad when I do this, I think it works.

So I say that the person who lacks compassion is the same as the person who blows people up because they're both thinking "you did something bad, I don't care about you".

Of course, the guy who blows a bunch of people up is a little tweaked, to say the least.

I don't have any answers as far as what the "right" thing would be, but I do think it starts with having compassion (Sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others) for everyone, not to just pick and choose.

I honestly don't know what you're trying to say.

I don't know that I've answered that.

One doesn't need to feel compassion to believe in fair treatment.

Fair treatment isn't necessarily "nice" treatment.
I suppose it is, I have labeled them both "wrong". Putting them in the same category allows me to apply the same rules to them.

That's kind of like saying "The guy going 30 mph is moving. The guy going 70 mph is moving." Since they're in the same moving category, we should give them both tickets for exceeding the 30 mph speed limit.


My girlfriend gets mad when I do this, I think it works.

I think it doesn't.


I don't have any answers as far as what the "right" thing would be, but I do think it starts with having compassion (Sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others) for everyone, not to just pick and choose.

Sounds more like fairness you're describing to me.


Fair treatment isn't necessarily "nice" treatment.

Neither is "right" necessarily "nice" or "compassionate."
That's kind of like saying "The guy going 30 mph is moving. The guy going 70 mph is moving." Since they're in the same moving category, we should give them both tickets for exceeding the 30 mph speed limit.


That isn't close to what I said. I said the guy going 31 is doing the same wrong thing as the guy going 70.

Edit: They are the same because they both think "I don't have to go the speed limit".

The solution to build cars so they don't go faster than the speed limit.
Last edited on
That isn't close to what I said. I said the guy going 31 is doing the same wrong thing as the guy going 70.


That's absurd.
If you believe anyone who killed 170+ people should go to jail you're obviously blinded by media. United States exceed this amount of killing every day for sure. Should they be jailed? Before you say that we're at war with the Middle East or something similar to that, they're at war with us to. They shouldn't be criticized for killing those of another country during WAR.

War is unnecessary. I guess its just something hardcoded in human genes.

That's like saying the English soliders all deserved to die because they killed Americans when they were rebelling. Bull****.

Now I'm not saying I'm happy with the bombing or anything, but you guys have to think about other factors before you start to say things.
That's absurd.

How so?
Last edited on
That isn't close to what I said. I said the guy going 31 is doing the same wrong thing as the guy going 70.

It's very close to what you said, you just don't realize that your arbitrarily defined speed limit isn't realistic. You would give both people who don't feel compassion for murderers and people who purposely maim and kill the same "your morals suck" ticket.

Your speed limit is broken.
How so?


Because going 31 when the limit is 30 is nowhere near as dangerous as going 70. To treat both of them as the same crime is stupid.

Crime.... and really any kind of social policy... is not black and white. There's no fine line between "right" and "wrong". Exceptions have to be made, rules have to be bent, etc, etc.

To rigidly adhere to arbitrary guidelines like some kind of robot is absurd.
fredbill wrote:
War is unnecessary. I guess its just something hardcoded in human genes.


War is entirely necessary. As nice as it would be to live in a Utopian society where everybody has agreeable moral standards and no serious conflicts... that simply isn't realistic.

It's not a human trait, either. Warlike behavior is observed across the animal kingdom (and arguably even in other kingdoms). It's just a part of life.

I'm not saying I like war. But sometimes violence really is the only solution to a problem.
Two posts using the word arbitrary, do I dare use it myself? :) How about suggestive?

I hear what you're saying. 31 isn't a big deal because of 70. However, 70 isn't a big deal because of 150. My attempt was to transcend the scale itself.

The world seems to be getting more violent. Whether or not violence is necessary, I think it's time we start giving some other ideas a try. Which is why I really hope whoever did this in Boston isn't instantly villainized.

But sometimes violence really is the only solution to a problem.

Hmm, I think I would say violence is the only solution to violent problems (person to person violence, I think we're all okay with a cure for cancer). My hope for the future is that we look to solve the causes of these violent problems, rather than to just put down the violence.
Last edited on
31 isn't a big deal because of 70.


No, 31 isn't a big deal because of 30.

31 in a 30 zone is 103%
70 in a 30 zone is 233%

Yes the exact value of 30 is arbitrary... which is why it shouldn't be taken so literally. It should, however, be taken as a guideline.

Law enforcement knows this... which is why a cop is more likely to pull you over for going a few MPH over the limit in a high-risk area (like a residential zone) than they would a low-risk area (like a straight stretch of highway in the middle of nowhere).

The world seems to be getting more violent.


I don't agree. The world has always been extremely violent.

Look into WW1. Or Ghengis Khan. Or the Crusades. Or ancient Rome. Or the Aztecs.

And that's just the stuff that's documented. I'm sure there were even worse before that.

My hope for the future is that we look to solve the causes of these violent problems, rather than to just put down the violence.


We can definitely try to reduce the frequency of violent problems through education and social reform... but to think that you could ever dissolve it completely is foolhardy, IMO.
Last edited on
Pages: 1234