|
Post by NigelMoore on Feb 3, 2018 17:00:43 GMT
Altruism or selflessness is the opposite of selfishness) was dissed as actually selfish action with an ultimate objective - as you want people to see how unselfish you are. An Ayn Rand student?
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Feb 3, 2018 17:15:22 GMT
It was about a man who had gone into a burning building to rescue someone, and was hailed as a 'hero' for doing it. I think it was a successful outcome, he pulled the person out alive before it was too late and the building came crashing down. I had not heard of Ayn Rand before. But there's the question - are our good actions really genuine and unselfish, or do we just want others to see how good we are? Ooh look - it's February! Time to turn the Thunderboat Calendar!
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Feb 3, 2018 17:19:21 GMT
You said: "A court outburst does not help the victim, it only helps alleviate the inevitable guilt that a parent feels as a result of letting the kid down (in their eyes), in other words it’s a selfish action." This gave me the impression that you suggest the parents ARE guilty and try to alleviate that by trying to catch up (but too late). Why would there be 'inevitable guilt'? Your second para doesn’t follow at all from your first (which was my post). If me indicating that a parent feels guilt after they find out their kid was abused by someone in a position of trust means to you that the parents are guilty, then you are quite thick and I do despair of ever having anything resembling an intelligent debate on here. People can’t read, can’t interpret written English and are just really thick. It’s depressing. Surey the concept that one can feel guilt for something that has affected one’s loved-ones whom one is supposed to be protecting, when in fact with dispassionate logic it’s clear that no blame exists, is not beyond your comprehension? Well is suppose it must be. Do you understand the difference between the written words “feeling guilty” and “being to blame”? My sister has a genetic disability. She is a mutation, it is not in the family at all (nor even in the milkman). Nevertheless my mother feels perpetual guilt about it.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Feb 3, 2018 17:32:34 GMT
Well I read your OP. I was not looking to be offended but this part quite irked me. "Anyway, to be honest I find the hysteria surrounding the abuse of children rather irritating. (Pause for shocked gasp,) In that it seems to be worse to sexually abuse children than it is to kill them. Some muppet drunk / on his phone /speeding who mows a kid down is less of a pariah than a kiddy-fiddler. Seems wrong to me." So you beleive that someone who yes may be drunk or on their phone and kills a child, is worse than a peado. This driver who woke up, got in their car and drove down a particular street and then kills a child. In that chain of events no where did they decide to become a child killer. They were involved in a tragic (preventable) accident. And I would say normally have guilt and shame for causing it. A Peado may spend years grooming a child and then spend longer sexually abusing the child. They did wake up wanting to do this, it is not a one off accident. A dead child is a dead child. The family have to live with that but an abused child has to live with that for the rest of their lives. A child abuser is more likely to abuse several children. I would like to believe some one who causes an accident will change their driving for ever. So is it your view that a child is better dead than abused? Interesting, but sorry I don’t agree. Yes there is a concept of planning (the paedo) vs carelessness or mindless recklessness (the car driver) but surely it is mostly the consequences that matter, rather than the degree of planning and intention? Or at least, the consequences are a factor. I would differentiate between the driver who was doing 30 in the 30 limit, sober and rested, when the child dashed out in front -no time to react. Vs a drunk driver speeding through a residential area. Yes the drunk driver is likely to kill only 1 child, but I’m not sure that is much consolation if it’s your child. No. It's not my view a child is better off dead. Just someone who makes a mistake should not be treated the same as a peado. Yes a child is dead. That would be tragicly sad but the consequences are didfernt and not really comparable. The crime is horrendously different. Ask a court, they struggle to lock someone for a long time who has just has an accident. How many drivers who kill cyclists goto jail? Not many. Do you feel let's day a drink driver who kills is worse than some one who abuse probably over 200 young girls over a decade or so.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Feb 3, 2018 17:45:57 GMT
Yet Nick decides it maybe the age of consent that is wrong. I did not say that. You are lying. In fact I pretty much said the opposite. If you have to lie to discredit your opponent in an argument, that is pretty pathetic, How is that a lie. That is a very strong allegation. What I did say is well "Nick decides it MAYBE the age of consent that is wrong" If you don't then did you mean by "And it is just an age threshold that varies according to how we are feeling at the time and thus has no basis in logic. After spending two paragraphs questioning it. To me that suggests you are at least questioning it. Who said I was having a argument, I said it irked me. That is all
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Feb 3, 2018 17:58:33 GMT
Anyways Nick, any comments about the rest of my post that you chopped out. The man is a monster.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2018 18:17:03 GMT
One thing I think about the law (and which people often forget), is that the law is based on a moral code. Yes we try to use logic to come up with the rules but as it's based on morals then the law will never be totally logical in everyone's eyes. It's the best system we have come up with though.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Feb 3, 2018 18:23:41 GMT
Apart from fair play to the kid for knowing how to get home. I feel that no she is not guilty. Parents all over the world entrust their children into the care of others. It is the nursery failure to keep the child in a safe environment. As parents we have to trust that all the policies set by government, council and other officials etc are in place and anywhere that looks after children has done the correct checks and balances on its on staff and own policies. Nursery is not compulsory but it's a great way to get kids used to school.
|
|
|
Post by patty on Feb 3, 2018 19:31:42 GMT
Apart from fair play to the kid for knowing how to get home. I feel that no she is not guilty. Parents all over the world entrust their children into the care of others. It is the nursery failure to keep the child in a safe environment. As parents we have to trust that all the policies set by government, council and other officials etc are in place and anywhere that looks after children has done the correct checks and balances on its on staff and own policies. Nursery is not compulsory but it's a great way to get kids used to school. I had real problems with Nursery's...daughter escaped and ended up in an auction room..housed in the same building so she then went to one that had child proof locks...follow on from Nursery she was a nightmare to get to school...I used them in order that the children learnt to interact with peer groups..my mum was pretty sick even then and having the kiddies running around whilst she was so ill no benefit to either party... As for one of my sons..he escaped from everything, when he was there he wrecked the centres..I used to sit outside whilst he attended..it was the only break I had..
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Feb 3, 2018 20:09:11 GMT
I did not say that. You are lying. In fact I pretty much said the opposite. If you have to lie to discredit your opponent in an argument, that is pretty pathetic, How is that a lie. That is a very strong allegation. What I did say is well "Nick decides it MAYBE the age of consent that is wrong" If you don't then did you mean by "And it is just an age threshold that varies according to how we are feeling at the time and thus has no basis in logic. After spending two paragraphs questioning it. To me that suggests you are at least questioning it. Who said I was having a argument, I said it irked me. That is all But you cut out the final bit, which was crucial to the meaning and intent. As usual, the sport on here seems to be manipulating / editing other people’s posts so that they then seem to say something that you can be outraged about. You said “nick decides” when I didn’t decide anything. I was putting forward a balanced argument. Although I do wonder why I bother.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Feb 3, 2018 20:10:40 GMT
One thing I think about the law (and which people often forget), is that the law is based on a moral code. Yes we try to use logic to come up with the rules but as it's based on morals then the law will never be totally logical in everyone's eyes. It's the best system we have come up with though. Blimey the only sensible post in the thread! (Apart from mine, of course!)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2018 20:20:21 GMT
One thing I think about the law (and which people often forget), is that the law is based on a moral code. Yes we try to use logic to come up with the rules but as it's based on morals then the law will never be totally logical in everyone's eyes. It's the best system we have come up with though. Blimey the only sensible post in the thread! (Apart from mine, of course!) Wasn't bad for someone who didn't go to proper skool and supports JC was it!
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Feb 3, 2018 20:31:49 GMT
Blimey the only sensible post in the thread! (Apart from mine, of course!) Wasn't bad for someone who didn't go to proper skool and supports JC was it! Don’t push it!
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Feb 3, 2018 21:27:46 GMT
How is that a lie. That is a very strong allegation. What I did say is well "Nick decides it MAYBE the age of consent that is wrong" If you don't then did you mean by "And it is just an age threshold that varies according to how we are feeling at the time and thus has no basis in logic. After spending two paragraphs questioning it. To me that suggests you are at least questioning it. Who said I was having a argument, I said it irked me. That is all But you cut out the final bit, which was crucial to the meaning and intent. As usual, the sport on here seems to be manipulating / editing other people’s posts so that they then seem to say something that you can be outraged about. You said “nick decides” when I didn’t decide anything. I was putting forward a balanced argument. Although I do wonder why I bother. The rest of that paragraph in my VIEW actually backs up that you may think it's wrong. You can say what you like about other people. Once again is that you making allegations about my posts. I enjoy the debate. Some people enjoying making a point and winning. I feel the age of consent works quite well as two people of the same age won't get into trouble but it helps protect young impressionable girls from preditry monsters. I'll admit decides was the wrong word to use. And for the record I do understand your not anti abuse or anything but just don't like the media circus that can follow abuse cases. And I have agreed with a few points you made throughout this thread.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Feb 3, 2018 21:39:58 GMT
Going back to my other view about idiot drivers and peados. A dead victim of anything is sad yes but they don't have to suffer any further where a child abuse victim will suffer for the rest of their lives.
It can have tragic effects on some people who can never recover from their ordeal.
Yes the same could be said for parents who lose children, however they lose them.
|
|