Awashima's Comments

Awashima's Profile
Clithzby | 12-06-13, 4:59 AM
Heh heh, well that's the debate I suppose. Guess we just don't agree and thats that. Good talk. Let me look through the other topics and we'll have another one sometime.

Clithzby | 12-05-13, 3:53 PM
I guess I didn't phrase that question very well. What I meant was, if someone wants to help someone and ends up helping them, why do the reasons that person helped someone else matter?

Clithzby | 12-05-13, 1:01 PM
But why do the reasons matter?

Clithzby | 12-05-13, 7:43 AM
So helping someone because it pleases you is a bad thing?

Clithzby | 12-04-13, 10:08 AM
Do you believe that altruism is possible?

Clithzby | 12-04-13, 7:43 AM
Why is helping someone because it pleases you a bad thing?

Clithzby | 12-03-13, 5:55 PM
Well that's taking it in a completely different direction. I'm simply saying if someone helps someone else, and they want to help them, then their reasons for helping that person shouldn't matter. Also, I consider motives different than intent. Someone has the intent to do something and their motives are the reasons they have to do that thing. No one really has a motive to do good, but they can have an intent to do good because of certain motives. A situation where someones intent was good, but the result was bad is a pretty general statement. My reaction to something like this would really depend on a lot of different things.

Clithzby | 12-03-13, 3:44 PM
In that situation, I suppose i'd say they are not a good person. However, your topic talks about people who help others for their own gain. In our banker scenario, if the banker's goal is to bankrupt someone, then the banker's original intent is not to help that person, but instead, is to do them a disservice. This does not follow my logic. What I said was, if a person's intent is to help someone, their motives don't matter. In that case, your banker scenario would not apply, as the banker's intent is to harm the person that he or she is trying to bankrupt, not help them.

Clithzby | 12-03-13, 4:55 AM
When would there be a situation where someone has the desire to kill lots of people, goes through with it and, as a result, other people are saved?

Clithzby | 12-02-13, 6:58 PM
I'll take a gander at topic 4:
You say that all humans are selfish, and so-called "selfless" people are only helping others for themselves, let me ask, in the end, does it matter? If someone is, in fact, helping someone else, who cares what their motives are? Someone has benefited from someone else's help. Shouldn't that be enough? Must we have reasons other than our own happiness and commitment to help others, to assist those in need? In that sense, human selfishness could sometimes be considered beneficial, in that a person's desire to help someone else is fueled by their desire for their own happiness. So, in my opinion, regardless of motive, someone helped someone else, and that's really all that matters.

Miko_Rinyuu | 06-07-13, 7:27 AM
Sorry wasn't able to reply. Brain shut down in a short sense.

As for what you said, The psychology was there to give out a point. Most people don't know about it, or what it is about. As for the quantum mechanics I might have to rewatch it again. It is recommended to rewatch it over and over lol. Also that entire thing is just a theory which hasn't been tested in the entirety

ender95 | 03-24-13, 8:31 PM
That is a delightful topic, usually—probably my fourth, behind existentialism, dualism, and transcendentalism. I shall open with my own argument, before providing any rebuttal’s to your original assertion.

I shall argue the fact that even though Justus and equality are somewhat juxtaposed to one another, it is necessary, to insure a stable social existence. I shall use your example, to outline why it is so. If person A was to commit say…murder—which, I will assume translates to prison time, no matter where you are in the world; but for Syria currently—and person B was to do the same, but in defense of person C, in which person C received no harm, person A and person B would receive the same amount of prison time. This is quite just, in either case—fore, no matter how you look at it, it is still against the law to kill an individual. If you remove the strictness of penalties for certain times, then it negates the concept of the law’s completely, instigating wide spread breaking, with people declaring that the motive was in self-defense or in the protection of another. Taking into consideration the idea of murder, and jail time for person A and person B, there is always an alternative. In self-defense, person B could have crippled or removed the threat, without killing the target in question.

That is my stance, on this concept.

Help     FAQ     About     Contact     Terms     Privacy     AdChoices