Welcome to Gaia! ::

Again, thanks oHNo3 smile

Demiore and bluecherry, Thanks you both opinions and for me I think Demiore is putting out something that opened a new level of either mistakes exists or not IF we look at :


Those people think murdering is enjoyment, fun and right thing to do is doing anything wrong? (of course in this our sad society we will treated those people as mental patients) sad and those that think murderers should pay back to victims by being excuted, isn't that is known as wrong? sad

"The two men hang one person" example seems " neutral " (for me) How does Man A is right? Is justice means taking 2 people lives better? because one person died so we need murderer to pay back by killing him? sad What will that gives back to the victim?

If we are looking at that definition you said, I think we can't neither call Man A nor Man B done mistakes. Because they seems both have done something which they think it's right. Some might think they did wrong.

Man B made mistakes? He has done something that our society would called it evil. That example is even harder to judge don't you think? Is what he done a mistake? He has killed somebody but I don't see it is mistake but it's wrong thing to do. (some even might think it's right thing to do....)

I'd agree as long as you think what you're doing is right, then it's intentional and not a "mistake", but I don't think somebody who thinks as long as something is fun for them it's right to do coming up and shooting me for kicks and nothing more when I did nothing to harm them or anyone/anything of theirs has actually done right. They think it was the right thing to do, sure, but I'd say they are either the victim of some bad education telling them that they have the right to go and do absolutely anything they want, or else in some way they are mentally challenged or insane that is keeping them from seeing otherwise. Had they been fully in their right mind and exposed to an average upbringing (not saying something is necessarily right because it's the most common, just that in this case what is pretty much correct is a widely held view) I think they would have long ago figured out "I'm another human being like everybody else, if I, one human being, have the right to do absolutely anything I want just because I want to, even to the point of killing another person, then that would mean anybody else would have just as much a right to kill me for fun. Either I must admit certain limits on what I'm aloud to do or admit they have these rights too and I may spend the rest of my quite possibly very short life in constant fear and danger, MUCH more so then if this was not the case." It's for increasing each individual's own safety that they give up certain things like killing other people for any reason other then defense of one's self and/or those people and things they value or to perform what is necessary to set people back to equal (For example: Amy killed Lisa because she was jealous of Lisa. Amy has in doing so now basically proclaimed she is aloud to do this things that not everybody as human beings is aloud to do just for existing. This is something that you can't even do anything in life to earn the right to do so though. So then why does Amy have the right to do this thing other people do not? She doesn't. So to even things back out, for violating another person or people's rights she has now opened herself to have her rights violated back.)

Sorry... I don't understand what you mean.... that's why I asked you. I did read 3 times (of my own words that you quoted) but I totally can't understand what you mean. Can I know the answers if I imagine I am omniscient? stare

You see, (sorry for saying these) you are giving me impression which you don't want others to understand or question you. You didn't clearly told me what to read, and then rofl ?? rofl because you didn't tell me clearly what I should read?

oh well...

In my example C feel guilty about it because others said it's wrong. That was why I asked did he make a mistake. But not because the thing he has done is wrong....

Guidance goes along with helping someone to understand or as you put it... "spoon feeding." smile if necessary.

Kecitich, what he means by his example is that one person would be wrong because he'd murder someone for no reason other than he wanted to see him die and the other would be right because he had a "real" reason to do so.

Demiore, he's just trying to understand what that has to do with "mistakes" and whether or not you think mistakes are accidental or not. Before you ask how do I know.. it's because he wrote me to ask me if he was just missing the mark or not.

I, like bluecherry, honestly think this is a whole different topic entirely, but everyone has their own opinion of topic relativity and if you think it's related, then I apologize for being forward.

Maybe if you would be so kind enough to explain in the simplest of terms to Kecitich.. how your response relates to something being a mistake, he'd clearly see your stance on the topic at hand.. not everyone is suited for riddles.. some prefer to take things upfront.

whee

Well, I'm glad you feel you've gotten sufficient responses to your question. smile

and like oHNo3 was saying, getting people to answer their own questions in a manner similar to the Socratic method is one thing and can really be quite good, but some times it's just unnecessarily confusing and beating around the bush, just obfuscating the matter. You can take a simple little statement and make it into a huge messy thing by using an indirect teaching method like that. Really, imagine if every class you ever took was all taught in this way. Socratic method -- good for some things, just a pain in the neck for most things. xd Actually, some of the worst use I've seen of such methods is using people using it just to avoid having to actually defend and justify any sense or validity to what they're asserting when what they are asserting is actually a load of crap. >_O