AtheisticNonduality

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    2,313

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by AtheisticNonduality

  1. Posted

    28 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    Fine with me. Death anyway. It's not about revenge, it's about properly allocating resources.

    Resource allocation has to take morality into account.

    I'm fine with revenge if it's truly personal and happens outside the court system.

    Once the government/civilization/legality gets its hands on it, it should be completely humane.

    Efficiency of resources here would dedicate this one's life to being scientifically studied.

    @The Mystical Man The "orator" for that "criminal psychology" video has an obnoxious voice. And the murderer did not appear to be "pretending to be crazy" since he seemed, by his actions and mannerisms and the shape of his head and the look in his eye, to be actually insane.

    I'd say the reason I've been aggressive here is because most of the masses are idiots on this topic and will blindly favor the killing of the murderer, when I (from a higher perspective of course :|) wouldn't necessarily view it that way.

  5. Posted

    Just now, Thought Art said:

    @AtheisticNonduality He’s not equal to the 17 he killed.

    Never said he was equal. I'm just saying 1 does not equal 0. Or rather, there's no good reason here to subtract 1 from 1 (execution) into 0 (another death, which serves no good purpose).

    Quote

    They weren’t mass murderers.

    Never met them. So I assume they were average humans . . .

    I see the good/virtue in everyone, and oftentimes with situations like this and conversations of the death penalty I see the evil/stupidity in everyone - so make of that what you will.

  6. Posted

    15 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

    @AtheisticNonduality Yeah well, he’s a mass murderer. What ramifications would come from his death sentence?

    What ramifications would come from 17 deaths in some random Floridian high school? Is 17 really > 1 to such an extent to where 17 dying is the worst thing in the world but 1 dying is basically nothing? Just because the 17 had loving families and a place in society, and the 1 didn't?

    As qualitative as it is, "evil" is a pretty good measurer here. "Evil" would be if somebody slaughtered 17 people with more conscious malice and homicidal happiness and torturous abandon. This one doesn't strike me as evil but rather as a damaged brain that went through too much stress and which ended up committing an egregious crime (considering real evil, think of the recent mass murderer in Thailand that actually shot and stabbed preschoolers to death during nap time). There's an important difference, which people won't see because they are too focused on their own whims.

  7. Posted

    12 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

    @AtheisticNonduality Interesting points. 
     

    But, your sort of mocking people who had their children murdered.

    Yeah, well, deciding who's going to live or die is a very serious topic with serious ramifications, so concessions should not just be made to a group of people just because of how emotionally charged and volatile they are.

  8. Posted

    Human beings are petty revengeful creatures that would kill a "brain-damaged . . . broken" person because he performed a violent incidence of insanity that killed 17 people. This may sound extraordinarily unempathetic, but the families are acting irrationally when they say the right decision is death on this one. If a fully conscious person set somebody I loved on fire and killed them, I would kill that person using torture; so I perfectly understand the instinct to eliminate threats / achieve revenge (I don't understand it in a modern, civilized, legal context). I think in terms of modernity, civilization, and legality - though - the proper route is to experiment on him rather than eliminate him for no good reason. It's just a broken "cog in the machine" that you want to destroy, when you broke it in the first place. So it's reasonable to actually find a competent way of understanding and dealing with such mentally diseased humans - instead of being a hyper-emotionally compromised idiot that deals with everything by killing or that cries, "Waaa, I wanted the government to kill this mentally ill brain-damaged cog for me."

  22. Posted · Edited by AtheisticNonduality

    @Scholar You're essentially saying the phrase beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But the "eye of the beholder" = reality. Therefore reality = beauty, or at least beauty is in reality with every inch of reality qualifiable by the nature of beauty. Absolute Beauty. There is no Absolute Ugliness because ugliness is a low amount of beauty (dark is a low level of light), even though ugliness and beauty have different effects mentally (like how dark and light have different responses even though they are both light or Light).

    But if you want a more "aggravatingly" and uselessly complicated analysis of this you could read some of Kant's aesthetics / criticisms of judgement.

  24. Posted

    3 hours ago, zurew said:

    In that case, I might agree with you, because in that case, your definition of intelligence probably entails creativity and the ability to connect with others and the ability to sense what feels good to others. The reason why i didn't agree with you first, is because people don't use the word intelligence the same way you do.

    A generally considered unintelligent woman, could have all the positive aspects that I listed above, therefore have the ability to have good sex.

    You're way too egalitarian. They're not the same.