Banned
Member Since: 8/24/2003
Posts: 4,785
|
Amazing, since those examples are incredible extremes and hardly reflect how people are supposed to decide things in everyday life. Added to the fact that many people (on here especially) judge others by the way they look, which just goes to show this form of twisted altruism is practically useless, thankfully. The only one with any practical basis is the last one.
The first one goes to an incredible length to make abortion seem like the absolute end in a negative sense and then tries to vindicate itself by saying it was Beethoven. What it doesn't say is that was a rare exception and that millions of women at the same time were getting pregnant every year of their fertile lives with no choice, going through that slowly killing themselves and many with 'defective' children or miscarriages or still borns and how many of them were Beethoven? It's like saying the suffering of half of humanity is ok and we should just stick with it for the sake of one genius, who wasn't even a genius in any helpful way to that humanity which the example is trying to make out it's ok to sacrifice. Then there are all the men left behind to pick up the pieces.
The second example bears no relation whatsoever to politics and hence is completely unreliable. The Hitler one is a Wildcard not because of the criteria used to measure his moral fibre but because he was a puritan, so he was more likely to be more 'clean' and on the straight and narrow anyway and but again, is an example and an extreme one at that, that such behaviour can go either way and in his twisted view - he was cleaning the world of manipulators and secret owners of wealth/power/control, wanted to replace it with breeds of genetic purity and create an empire. I don't agree with it or the methodology obviously, I'm just saying with such puritans, they tend to be extreme one way or another and there are plenty of 'good' ones too. Candidate A is the only one which has any relation to politics at all when it says they deal with crooked politians. Plus we all know that politics isn't necessarily about moral fibre at the top but in general, having a good moral character does correlate to being able to work for the benefit of others and yes in politics, but those examples again are exceptions, why beause they're at the top or end where things generally are more volatile and there are numerous examples that could have been used showing extremes that were good who were actually good politicians and bad behavioural habits for those who were bad; all that shows is ones that seem to be bad habits for apparantly good leaders and good habits for a bad one. As shown in the fourth one it's easy to be two faced, to be or act like **** (unless there are extenuating circumstances that) and then to turn around and say something completely different, and in an almost amusing number, actually believe that they are 'good'. It's very easy for people to support or have passion for something, usually which affects them, and then act like crap or discriminate against other areas which actually have similar issues. But for others, it's just easy to be hypocritical and not care, as long as it doesn't affect them.
The Third one is just rhetoric. Since the existance and use of the ark hasn't be proved and it's significance from evidence so far appears to be symbolic and even if it was real, we'd hardly call them amateaurs and we don't in many cases. We already know that many ancient engineer/mason heirarchies/guilds etc were highly advanced and organised as well as those we deem primative. In regards to the Titanic, it didn't break down or sink of its accord, it hit an iceberg, why, because the people running it couldn't see it in the fog, the people didn't attach or use enough lighting, the people didn't react quickly or ethically, the people didn't see the need for enough lifeboats.
The Fourth one is the interesting one - I think it's helpful for people to scrutinise their presiding governments/councils/monarchies - but like I said, most people tend not to be that interested and prefer to judge people on their looks, added to wealth and status. Unfortunate, and when they do get into politics, many don't care to research as fully as it takes, they tend to stop at an opinion that suits them and copy it.
What it basically says in a roundabout way I guess, is that you can't always judge things as good or bad 100% - because there will be exceptions or circumstances. But the nature of the examples given are so extreme that it doesn't help, it's like picking out the unrealistic or impractical examples to support an argument which does nothing but make it more narrow minded. Of course there has to be idealism to aspire to, but that is not idealism, that's reaching at straws and the opposites of all the examples could be used to apparantly disprove them for any other argument with the same mindset which is: have an idea, use a rare, unrelated, unlikely and extreme example to prove it's validity and apparant truth conveniently not mentioning any of the other equally extreme examples which could easily bash the theory in the name of an equally unreasonable theory. It would be easier if people remembered that most things are neutral of and within themselves, and it depends on how they are used that makes them good or bad or practical or impractical. Further, it would nice, if people sought for a balance of that, i.e. practical and fair, rather then practical for some regardless of all costs; or impractical but fair/completely idealistic. The only sentiment I agree with in that piece is the reserving judgement bit, although, again not 100% always.
|
|
|
|
