Anders Breivik declared sane

[Leifmk]

...Scandinavians have no originality?

To be fair, the rest of them are all modeled on the Danish design, which is one of (possibly THE) oldest national flag around.

 

[Winston Hughes]

There is no innocence of birth which you should be held responsible for that should come into question, ever, because humans are always a product of their peers.

Have I misunderstood you here, or are you saying that nobody bears any responsibility for their actions?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Have I misunderstood you here, or are you saying that nobody bears any responsibility for their actions?

If he has I fully endorse this statement.

 

[del62]

If he has I fully endorse this statement.

Are you saying you do not beleive you can choose your attitude to things, this is a fatalism which I profoundly disagree with. You should read some of the work of Victor Frankl.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Oh I am pretty sure that one can make choices. But I see no reason to assume that we have even a tiny bit of freedom regarding what choice we actually will choose. We have the means to be free, but aren't capable to actually utilize it. Rather those means just become convoluted chains. For we are just another brick in the wall. I don't find that fatalistic, just sober.

 

[del62]

Well it seems pretty fatalistic to me

Anway here is something Frankl said

We, who lived in concentration camps, can remember the men who walked through the huts of others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken away from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms--to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way.

Frankl also proposed in additiion to the Statue of Liberty and Statue of Responsibility should be built.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Duh, that only goes to show that the human mind doesn't work as simple as "Bad situation -> bad attitude". Apparently this level of complexity impressed Mr Frankl so profoundly that he saw himself unable to explain it with anything else than with actual free choice ("sufficient proof").
I find nothing sufficient about it though, as soon as one moves on to an understanding of the human mind that isn't as ridiculously one-dimensional one can easily explain all kinds of at first sight unlikely causations without the assumption of actually free choice.

Well it seems pretty fatalistic to me

:shrug: It is what it is.

 

[Verbose]

Well it seems pretty fatalistic to me

Anway here is something Frankl said



Frankl also proposed in additiion to the Statue of Liberty and Statue of Responsibility should be built.

I think we have an old problem partly derived from religion here. Does suffering enoble man? It's an old Christian idea at least. Suffering somehow makes you better, allowing you to rise to the occasion, like the martyrs of old.

Perhaps...

Against it is pitted a materialistic, socialist attitude, which reminds us that the problem with suffering is actually that — even with the occasional saint thrown up — what it profoundly and comprehensively does is debase and reduce human beings to a pretty nasty state.

The first one makes suffering and hardship and personal repsonsibility to face up to, alone (maybe with God as your co-pilot...). The second tends to stress that humans, and their societies, have a particular collective responsibility not to leave people to suffer in the dumps.

 

[del62]

I think we have an old problem partly derived from religion here. Does suffering enoble man? It's an old Christian idea at least. Suffering somehow makes you better, allowing you to rise to the occasion, like the martyrs of old.

Perhaps...

Against it is pitted a materialistic, socialist attitude, which reminds us that the problem with suffering is actually that — even with the occasional saint thrown up — what it profoundly and comprehensively does is debase and reduce human beings to a pretty nasty state.

I am not sure we are talking about suffering enobling man here, but that Frankl even in his suffering found that a choice could be made, nowhere is he or I advocating that people need to suffer which seems ro be the impication you are making.

The first one makes suffering and hardship and personal repsonsibility to face up to, alone (maybe with God as your co-pilot...). The second tends to stress that humans, and their societies, have a particular collective responsibility not to leave people to suffer in the dumps.

I am not sure how a collective reponsibility can work in any sense other than individuals being responisble within it or that by realising people have a personel responsibility does not necessarily mean a loss of a collective responsibility.

In fact collective responsibility without personnel responsibility seems absurd.

 

[Traitorfish]

In fact collective responsibility without personnel responsibility seems absurd.

It's called "limited liability".

 

[del62]

It's called "limited liability".

I guess no thread would be complete without you uttering something completely irrelevent, well done.

 

[Traitorfish]

So you didn't get it?

 

[innonimatu]

I guess no thread would be complete without you uttering something completely irrelevent, well done.

He just shot down your claim. And that must have bitten, judging from the childish answer. Let me guess, you are for limited liability for corporations and yet harp about the need for "individual responsibility"?
Typical "conservative".

 

[del62]

If you want to discuss limited liability then start a discussion on it, it has no relevence to what I am discussing, and is the sort of red herring type argument

 

[Angst]

...why do all Scandinavian flags look the same?

Denmark used the cross as a foundation. According to legend, it fell from the sky as a gift from God in Estonia; we're actually that blessed. Sweden's flag was seen in the sky during a mythical crusade, but was in reality most probably designed by some sort of Swedish resistance movement against the Danes.

Have I misunderstood you here, or are you saying that nobody bears any responsibility for their actions?

Kind of, but it's a little off.

You're legally responsible for your actions. Otherwise a society wouldn't make sense. But it's not the same as things being your fault. I can easily make the misinformed mistake of crossing a railroad track (which is illegal) if I didn't know it was illegal. I will even get billed for it. But how much amoral and disorderly would that make me? If I was beaten up by my father throughout my childhood, does it make me evil if my traumatized mind believes it's actually ok to pummel your kids?

You're not responsible for your innocence. Because "being civilized", well-mannered and goodwilled is something that happens after you're developed. You're not born with good; your environment shapes you and as such the idea of an innocent baby is pretty nice and all, but doesn't really matter anyhow, because it's the equivalent of talking about a cow being innocent. Or a chair.

 

[del62]

You're legally responsible for your actions. Otherwise a society wouldn't make sense. But it's not the same as things being your fault.

I don't know why we should not be considered morally responsible for our actions, lets say I get £50 to feed my family for a week (I have no other money) and I blow it on a night out with my mates drinking, I have done nothing illegal but I am morally responsible for my wrong acions, and it would be my fault.

Obviously there are some situations of poverty that people find themselves in that are not their fault, but where we have a choice and are irresponsible we have to take responsibility.

 

[Angst]

del62, do you understand how a brain works?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Brain? What brain?
Choices, dude.

 

[Borachio]

del62, do you understand how a brain works?

Well, I certainly don't understand. Do you?

But on the subject of responsibility, there was a situation in France over contamination of blood supplies where the people in charge pleaded that they were "responsible but not guilty"; i.e. they admitted that they were responsible but somehow also not responsible. Or so it looked to me.

I didn't get it then. I don't get it now. Can you explain it to me?

Or perhaps you can do it by focusing on how someone can make choices, but their choices are not their fault.

 

[Angst]

Well, their argument is simple I assume; if they did a mistake as an oversight (ie not one of carelessness but rather of misinformation or misunderstanding) they believed themselves to still be good people and not to be punished.

However, stuff like that is nonsensual to a legal system and shouldn't come into question when punishing the individual. Allowing people to plead stupid or unaware and get away with it leads down a bad, bad road.