It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Jana12
although i do understand what you mean, the issue i have with this type of thinking is it sounds like an opportunity to make up crap about people and then have them axed on the pretext that their sociopaths. and the problem with that is, the definition of what a sociopath is changes, depending on who is doing the looking.
for example, i find advocating slavery or capital punishment of any kind, to be wrong. however, some would suggest that there are people who deserve, slavery or capital punishment of various kinds because of __________ fill in the blank. the following are reasons why i feel this is wrong:
1) some reasons given are generational. for example, generational curses, suggesting that people 40, 80 or even hundreds or thousands of years later, should pay with their lives or livelihoods because of what someone else in their ancestoral and/or gender-specific line, did. (i.e., eve sinned in the garden, therefore women should shut up in church or synagogue or mosque or politics. white man enslaved black man so now it's white man's turn to be enslaved (ignoring that black man has enslaved black man as well but ya can't enslave yourself..kinda silly ya know? how about we just toss out that whole revenge thing and get over it?).
2) money=corruption and therefore, you should be disenfranchised of what you have. although i admit that being wealthy can sometimes involve compromising your morals, what constitutes wealth is drastically different from society to society. for example, a woman with a fine dirt floor with special features such as a fresh water well, in some places in africa, would be considered rich in their community, and the envy of the other townspeople. can't very well steal a dirt floor to make up for it, but you can go in there and tear it up so now neither of you have a nice dirt floor... you get the idea i hope!). certainly wouldn't justify killing her because her dirt floor is nice and definitely not an indication that she compromised her morals to have it unless it can be proven she sold her body for dirt.
this list could get extremely long
Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Laokin
WOW, been a long day.
Sorry, as I replied to you, in thinking you were the source of my second post.
My apologizes.
Being up at 3:30am is taking a toll on me today
reply to post by Laokin
I also think IQ should be a requirement.
reply to post by apacheman
"what goes around, comes around".
Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Laokin
I also think IQ should be a requirement.
i think that depends. i'm not sure whether tests are available that can conclusively measure things like common sense or if there are tests capable of that since common sense is often predicated on social norms. what seems sensible to you or me or some guy in botswana, would not seem sensible to somebody in tibet or brazil. ya get the idea. i realize we have to draw the line somewhere when pondering these big questions, but it worries me that this may branch out into punishing people because they have material possessions. it seems a human foible to begrudge other people their prosperity. it also seems a human foible to become grossly prosperous at the expense of debilitating others, although a certain amount of that is necessary to maintain society. certainly not to the point of impoverishment of that society.