When Bad Things Happen to Bad People

Post Reply New Topic

I really have to laugh about people being concerned about the idiotic conception of an afterlife when they neglect the great time they have just being alive. Nobody has ever confirmed or even had an acceptable reasonable theory about any afterlife.

I think we'll all be resurrected as teapots eighty years from now, and play water golf with Pater Pan ever after.

That's true. One of the reasons you're so intriguing.




What's this about? Explain please.

What I find confusing is this Sand obsession many people seem to have, whether it's saying that you're going to ignore Sand's posts or that you find Sand difficult to analyze it's always about Sand. Perhaps it's the name.

It's a far fetched theory, but perhaps its because Sand some things that get to the point and that makes people uncomfortable.

Sand is abrasive and gets in everything. No matter whether you shower, Sand will still be in your shoes and your clothes and continue to itch and annoy you. There's just no getting rid of Sand.

An interesting remark, to be sure. -.- But could we get back to the matter at hand and stop bickering among ourselves?

Aaah, but evidently Sand (True Grit) is a bad thing so we must determine if it's selective to bad people.

Well, if we're done discussing whether or not Ruveyn is fictional and the abrasive nature of Sand, I suppose I could try and point this thing back in the right direction.

I was sort of exploring the idea of non-spiritual karma, with a bit of a dig at Kantian ethics thrown in by by examining hypothetical situations in which "bad" actions done to "bad" people can have "good" outcomes. I like the "pimp gets hit by a bus" scenario because it's pretty black and white and the image is darkly humorous, at least to me. It ties in with my own ideas on karma, which place it not as a force but as more of a principle to be adhered to as I go through life, doing my part to keep things balanced.

There simply are some jerks in this world that diserve to be killed or vandalized.

Last edited by LiendaBalla on 06 Apr 2010, 12:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

The conviction that being a jerk on purpose inevitably results in bad consequences is in the same category as "step on a crack and break your mother's back".

Hence my personal philosophy that one shouldn't passively trust to karma to deliver appropriate consequences to the deserving, but should endeavor to be an active agent of karma whenever possible.

[quote="Dox47]Hence my personal philosophy that one shouldn't passively trust to karma to deliver appropriate consequences to the deserving, but should endeavor to be an active agent of karma whenever possible.[/quote]

If you've already arrived at this personal philosophy, then why is it being discussed?

If you're looking for encouragement in your beliefs, that means you doubt their validity... and you really shouldn't put them into action. Since acting as an agent of universal justice (karma) while doubting the rightness of it is, well, impulsive at best... and will probably just lead to further brain cramps down the road.

If, on the other hand, it's being discussed because you're wanting to recruit others to your philosophy... I mean, I have a lot of serious doubts of my own which prevent me from relaxing into such a simple and comforting philosophy as "harming bad people is good"--much as I really, really would like to sometimes. And part of me really *wants* you to talk me into making the ethical leap of faith it takes to really *know* that if I push that pimp off a bridge onto a train track, I'm entitled to walk away smiling.

But, I mean, isn't that kind of social culling eventually going to come around and bite me, personally, right in the a**? As it evolves from killing off those who are blatantly "wicked" to euthanising those who (rather than actively harming society) simply don't really contribute anything "valuable?" Like myself?

I'd like to gently point out that you're engaging in a logical fallacy called "false dichotomy" when you assume that there are only two possible motivations for my posting of my thoughts, when it could be a combination of reasons or perhaps another end altogether that simply isn't apparent. I may not be recruiting converts or subjecting my ideas to outside critique as a means of testing them at all, but instead may be encouraging unintuitive thought processes and opening new lines of reasoning in my audience through neural-linguistic programing. I think you get the idea.

I had actually been intentionally vague about this concept for the very reason that I didn't want people jumping to conclusions about the idea and by extension me. I used the extreme hypothetical example because it's often easier to investigate an idea when it's exaggerated, and as my audience here is primarily made up of Aspies I find it's better to stick to fairly black and white situations. In practice the idea of working as a karmic agent is much closer to tipping for good service than it is to vigilantism, but it makes for a more engaging debate to frame it in more dramatic terms. My real goal here is to encourage people to rely more on their own judgment and values and be less blindly accepting of what they are told. By examining circumstances where actions that would be considered "bad" if viewed independently lead to an outcome that most would consider "good", I hope to encourage critical thinking and independent analysis, an outcome that I doubt many would have a problem with.

I don't think it is all that black and white. Did the pimp “force” the girls into prostitution or did they choose it freely? What would prevent them from “escaping” if the pimp lived, and what would happen to them if he died? Can you even be sure that the pimp is not caring for them and perhaps helping them fill in the gaps in their education and training them for a better carer?

If you wanted to help the girls, wouldn't it be better do so in a one on one basis. Perhaps hire them for an hour and talk to them to see if there is anything you can do to help.

playing god has its consequences, not always immediate but eventually somebody gets bit good and hard in the tuchas, and since this tends to happen so far in time from the original event, it only seems like a freakishly cruel happenstance instead of the end event of an inexorable process of cause and effect.
very few human beings are so selflessly wise that they could reasonably even think about being active agents of karma. borrowing themes from the sad movie "The Butterfly Effect" as well as the happy movie "Amelie", one who unwisely forces karma is more likely to see an accumulation of disorder ["The Butterfly Effect"] rather than an organized chain of manufactured happy accidents ["Amelie"]. further borrowing from pop culture, the cartoon "Tooter Turtle" had a bumbling but good-natured turtle who was indulged in his walter mitty fantasies by an indulgent Mr. Wizard who reluctantly agreed to his dreamy schemes but always had to rescue him in the end-

Tooter: "HELP! Mr. Wizard, I'm in trouble again!" -
Mr. Wizard: "Dreezle drazzle drozzle drome, time to bring this one home!"

IRL, there is no godlike mr. wizard to chant rescue spells for anybody who plays with fire - we do so at our own collective peril, and nobody- not even god, will pull our fat from the fires we rashly make.
____________________________________________________________________
just my 2-cents' worth, adjusted for inflation