CategoriesCasual Discussions Users List Who is Online

How life treating you

4 years ago
The Watchcat
Offline
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 32
Cregath said:
Don't be. It is a more fitting topic then what someone should do with her own campaign. The title is "How life treating you" after all.
As for an answer: Everything is relative. Who is thrown in despair more? Person A, who just got thrown into the streets straight from his villa, or person B, who was living there for years. This might be an extreme example (maybe not), but if you think about it, who has more trouble? B is used to it, while A doesn't even know what to do. Obviously, you would be aid to B first though, but he might not ask for it, because he knows how to live there. On the other hand, A is desperate.
As we are probably talking about people with lesser problems than this, then let's look at that instead.

People who complain about everything and want help that they don't accept: There is only one way to change them. Deny help. They will dislike you for it and will probably nevery see it as more than "betrayal" however, that's probably the only way. Try to talk with them and they will reply "Just help me this once" and they will keep doing it. If someone know how they are like and don't want to change, then they are ugly. They are doing nothing more then using other people's good will without a second thought. Even though they are like this, it's up to each individual how they will react to them. I personally think these to be ugly, who only seek attention and want to be a center of everything. (This is probably why I can't really handle most children.)
So, in the end, why would someone make themselves be hated or disliked, just to change them? Denying help, can lead to rivalry. If they see you as a rival, they will try to outdo you in anything, which would lead them to doing it by themselves. And also, rivalry is a sort of friendship. Maybe even better, then being helped or supported in whatever problems you might have.

And lastly: what exactly do you mean by who is the criminal? There is no criminal. Everyone does whatever they feel like. If you don't help someone who is about to die on the street and you don't even know them, you are still not doing anything wrong. It may sound cruel, but what if that person is a rapist? What if the next target is your sister? Could you forgive yourself afterwards? If you see someone on the street asking for money, will you help them even if you knew that they will spend it on whiskey and whatnot later? Probably not.
It all comes down to how you yourself think, because "Truth can change it's form depending on the observer."
There are as many answers to those questions as there are humans. There is not one single answer that everyone will say to them.


Well, things are not so bipolar like that. Like in physics, you would need infinite energy, if you want a spontaneous change. But the slower something change in physics, the less energy it needs. Let's take a train for example. The whole mass of the train is in repose (in rest). Let's take and unnamed train, which uses 2 MWh energy, and accelerate to 120 km/h by half a minute. Now let's say you want to make the train accelerate to the same speed by 15 seconds, not 30. You would suddenly need 4 MWh. Let's go further. Halving the 15, you want the same speed by 7,5 seconds. And then, you need 16 MWh energy. By halving time, the energy you need is growing exponentally. After a while, you train just could not do it, or make harm in itself. You can apply the same to humans. Add for this that we are sentimental beings, and things are looking really shaky. What you have written, is human nature, because of this. People would want the energy to change, because they can't wait, and they don't want to do it slowly. But if they get the excess energy, there is a chance they will brake down.

Also, taking the example of the train, let's say there is something happening in your life, a brutal change, and you have to cope with it. You can't change overnight. No human being can do that, in the bottom of his/her soul. Trying to do it suddenly is a lot of cause for mental breakdowns. To cope, every human needs time. Of course, there is a lot of truth what you said. You need the will. But believe me, it's really hard to dance in the middle a storm, and not searching an umbrella. Also, talking with other people (like friend. They are like gentle breaks for the train), reading, cultivating yourself is a very good way to step forward. Trying to be more smart have never been backfired for anyone.

Animfreak said:
Life? I love it theres always something that hurts me and makes me stronger, theres always someone who will beat me down and make me feel like crap (only for three seconds)
But I get back up and smile at him/her for helping, Life for me Is not a chance, Happiness, sadness, or anger
It is The taste of Improvement you do to it.


Well, improving is certainly good. But there are times when you feel that it would be really nice if Justitia and Yamaxanadu would be real. Because there are times, at least 80% in life, when things are just unjust, and someone, or a lot more people do something to you which sends you back where you came from, destroying all your hard work. When something like this happen, the last thing you will feel to smile, believe me. First, you will be angry, furious, sad. Then after a while, you will know how unjust people are, sometimes even those whose are the closest to you. And feeling unjust, thinking about what happened, then accepting it somehow, and starting to rebuild is what called improvement. But improvement doesn't necessarely means that you will do this with a happy smile on your face. Not at first, until you dusted out all the debris, and started to rebuild your castle.
4 years ago
NEET Detective
Offline
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 139
I think I understand what you want to say Ahoge however, I think I didn't say that there are only two cases (and I'm a bit lazy to reread what I wrote exactly). If I understood correctly you are saying that there are those who slowly change, but my whole message was about those, who ask for help and don't accept it. This means, if someone is changing slowly from that state, they are most likely also cutting back on these, which leads to you not being able to recognise them as that type of person anymore. (I think even I might be having a hard time understanding what I want to say, so I will just stop.)

And as for things that are unjust: justice and everything depends on the one making it. That's why I think justice and injustice don't exist. And here comes another unlikely example: Let's say that A's brother kill B's. B kills A's brother. A didn't know about about what his brother did, thus calls it injustice. B on the other hand will call it justice. Even is A knew the whole thing, he will most likely still think about just how unjust B was. However, what would a person C think who is not connected to either? Was what B did justice? What if A's brother would have been able to get away with it otherwise? We would call it injustice, right? But since this was the only way to make him answer for his crime, can it still be called injustice? And if it is injustice, then that would mean that we couldn't have dealt with A's brother's act in a just way. Wouldn't that mean that his crime was in fact just? This is why I think justice simply can't exist in this world and thanks to that, it's opposite is also nonexistent. They are merely pretty words that people use to give reason to something they did or experienced, or try to ignore those very reasons in a justified way.
4 years ago
The Watchcat
Offline
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 32
Cregath said:
I think I understand what you want to say Ahoge however, I think I didn't say that there are only two cases (and I'm a bit lazy to reread what I wrote exactly). If I understood correctly you are saying that there are those who slowly change, but my whole message was about those, who ask for help and don't accept it. This means, if someone is changing slowly from that state, they are most likely also cutting back on these, which leads to you not being able to recognise them as that type of person anymore. (I think even I might be having a hard time understanding what I want to say, so I will just stop.)

And as for things that are unjust: justice and everything depends on the one making it. That's why I think justice and injustice don't exist. And here comes another unlikely example: Let's say that A's brother kill B's. B kills A's brother. A didn't know about about what his brother did, thus calls it injustice. B on the other hand will call it justice. Even is A knew the whole thing, he will most likely still think about just how unjust B was. However, what would a person C think who is not connected to either? Was what B did justice? What if A's brother would have been able to get away with it otherwise? We would call it injustice, right? But since this was the only way to make him answer for his crime, can it still be called injustice? And if it is injustice, then that would mean that we couldn't have dealt with A's brother's act in a just way. Wouldn't that mean that his crime was in fact just? This is why I think justice simply can't exist in this world and thanks to that, it's opposite is also nonexistent. They are merely pretty words that people use to give reason to something they did or experienced, or try to ignore those very reasons in a justified way.


Well, I warped up a little unorthodox what you have written. You never wrote that there are two cases, but they way you categorized that there are people who want to change, and people who don't. Everybody wants to break out from a situation like this, and I tried to give you the mechanism why some people just can't.

About justice, it's subjective, yes. It's made from two people, fractions, or whatever's opposite view on the world. Taking your example, let's just say That A killed B's brother, and that's all. Let's say everyone was innocent, and A killed B's brother just because he/she can. No matter what you say, killing other people just for fun in humanity is unjust. Of course, B can take a vendetta, and hunt down A. The whole world is full of vendettas, and feelings pushed to the extreme. Everyone's justice is someone else's unjust. And this is how we, humanity, are so fond to set things between us with aggression. This is what we have in us from before we were humans. Settling things without aggression is what need a lot of intelligence. And this is my unjust. When people use aggression. I think everything can be settled without aggression, but way more better efficacy. And this, the latter, is my justice. No matter how many people do the opposite.
Modified by AhogeExcel, 4 years ago
4 years ago
NEET Detective
Offline
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 139
Yes, most of the problems can be solved with intelliegence. You may most definitely call aggression injustice. Those to words are enough to question your justice's certainty. Staying on the example, if the no one has solid proof of the crime, but for those who are connected to it can be 100% sure about the criminal, then aggression would still be the only way to settle it. However you would still call it injustice for the simple fact that it's as you said 'aggression'.
Sure, those who murder just for fun are called unjust by most of humanity. Don't get it wrong, I'm not protecting them, though and not judging them either. What I'm trying to say is, if they did it for entertainment, then they most likely won't call themselves unjust. They will have a "reason" for it, which you will most likely just shove aside, simply because you don't want to understand. I don't want to understand it either, but they have their "reason", which justifies their act for themselves. This means that not all of humanity will call it injustice. Justice and injustice are two sides of the same coin and since everything we do or see is one of these "coins" and we want to see only one side of them, they are nothing more than pretty words.
Of course you will see a coin as just while someone else will see it as unjust however, since the answer is both, the whole argument about it is meaningless. So instead of saying which side of it I see, I'll deny both and stay silent about how I see it. Justice isn’t something that you can just proclaim. It’s a feeling you should keep near your heart.
For some reason I feel like whatever I say is incoherent.
4 years ago
Otaku Philosopher
Offline
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 86
I'll answer simply, I see no reason to see how life treats me If I choose to be happy
4 years ago
The Watchcat
Offline
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 32
Cregath said:
Yes, most of the problems can be solved with intelliegence. You may most definitely call aggression injustice. Those to words are enough to question your justice's certainty. Staying on the example, if the no one has solid proof of the crime, but for those who are connected to it can be 100% sure about the criminal, then aggression would still be the only way to settle it. However you would still call it injustice for the simple fact that it's as you said 'aggression'.
Sure, those who murder just for fun are called unjust by most of humanity. Don't get it wrong, I'm not protecting them, though and not judging them either. What I'm trying to say is, if they did it for entertainment, then they most likely won't call themselves unjust. They will have a "reason" for it, which you will most likely just shove aside, simply because you don't want to understand. I don't want to understand it either, but they have their "reason", which justifies their act for themselves. This means that not all of humanity will call it injustice. Justice and injustice are two sides of the same coin and since everything we do or see is one of these "coins" and we want to see only one side of them, they are nothing more than pretty words.
Of course you will see a coin as just while someone else will see it as unjust however, since the answer is both, the whole argument about it is meaningless. So instead of saying which side of it I see, I'll deny both and stay silent about how I see it. Justice isn’t something that you can just proclaim. It’s a feeling you should keep near your heart.
For some reason I feel like whatever I say is incoherent.


Well, I know the idea behind anarchy too, it's something like that. But I think, that a human being cannot live without setting down her/his own stones. And yeah, as you say, it's true that everyone has her/his own stones. Nevertheless, as you see, the majority of humanity don't like to kill for fun an other human. I also can't really describe it, I just feel this way. It's like I have to proclaim this, as this is the spring of hope too.

Animfreak said:
I'll answer simply, I see no reason to see how life treats me If I choose to be happy


It's true. But sometimes you take blows, which even can be fatal to you in worst case. If you experience something very bad, then it will shake you. But, it cannot shake you that much a second time, that's true. There is a saying that if you want to be happy, you have to go through hardships. There is no happiness without sadness, as you couldn't perceive each without the other.
4 years ago
NEET Detective
Offline
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 139
I didn't really mean to talk about anarchy, but I guess that works too. I think what I really wanted to say though is that, judging someone based on "justice" is wrong. Of course, objectivity is important however, the person making the judgement should do it by considering only those who are connected to it and not everyone else. Every case should be dealt with individually, but that obviously won't work, since it requires a lot more work. Justice shouldn't be proclaimed in a way like "You are a criminal, because you killed this person, so you punishment is just". Rather it should be like "You killed this person, but your act was justified, because there was no other way to make him pay for what he has done". However, I do realise that this won't work, since this kind of case wouldn't exist if it did. If people did the neccessary research to be able to reach such a verdict, then the person wouldn't even have had to do what he did, since the case would've been handled earlier. I think that would be the only thing that we could call justice, or at least something close to it, since no one is able to completely think outside of themselves.
In short, I think that what you and me call justice or injustice is different on more than just a subjective level.
4 years ago
The Watchcat
Offline
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 32
Cregath said:
I didn't really mean to talk about anarchy, but I guess that works too. I think what I really wanted to say though is that, judging someone based on "justice" is wrong. Of course, objectivity is important however, the person making the judgement should do it by considering only those who are connected to it and not everyone else. Every case should be dealt with individually, but that obviously won't work, since it requires a lot more work. Justice shouldn't be proclaimed in a way like "You are a criminal, because you killed this person, so you punishment is just". Rather it should be like "You killed this person, but your act was justified, because there was no other way to make him pay for what he has done". However, I do realise that this won't work, since this kind of case wouldn't exist if it did. If people did the neccessary research to be able to reach such a verdict, then the person wouldn't even have had to do what he did, since the case would've been handled earlier. I think that would be the only thing that we could call justice, or at least something close to it, since no one is able to completely think outside of themselves.
In short, I think that what you and me call justice or injustice is different on more than just a subjective level.


This is why lawyers, or judges are a profession. They are the ones whose pass on judgment, based on the "majority opinion" of humanity. I mean, just think about killing someone. Unlike some special case, like self-defense, killing is considered a sin. And why? Because if it would not, then humanity would soon fall into chaos. Because, as you said, everyone only thinks about her, or himself. This is just human nature, and we still have a long way to go to reach that Asimov-like utopia. For example, here is a good read about the humanity I think it should be:
http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html
It's a short novel, won't take more than 15 minutes to read, and it's also has a lot to say about science and religion. If you find it intriguing, open a topic for it, and we can talk about this too there (if you do open, send me a private message too.).

On the other side, just imagine what would happen if anyone could go after her/his own justice. People would kill each other, make polar opposite things to each other, and in the end, nothing would remain. Because we are so many, we have to cope with some rules.
4 years ago
NEET Detective
Offline
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 139
I didn't say that everyone should be free to do whatever they want. Rules and laws are necessary, this is a fact. I think you might've missed my point (or maybe I wasn't clear enough). What I wanted to say is that, I will probably not call it justice the thing that people currently refer to as such.

(As for what you linked: I haven't read it yet as I'm a bit tired. I'll read it tomorrow however and see if I'll open a topic for it then. If I do, I'll be sure to send a PM. ^^ )
4 years ago
Aspiring Vigilante
Offline
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 19
Life is a turn over, no common thing in this world has a interested place were a world has a few error,


34567



You have to be signed in to post on the forums.