Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Instructor
Original Poster
#1 Old 22nd Sep 2011 at 12:29 AM
Default Bad things ALWAYS happen to good people
http://digitallife.today.com/_news/...-life?GT1=43001

This about sums it up. And Its not just in that area, but many good people had their lives ended too soon, like Lincoln,Ghandi, Princess Diana, Michael Jackson the list goes on and on.
Advertisement
Instructor
#2 Old 22nd Sep 2011 at 12:48 AM Last edited by SimsLover50 : 22nd Sep 2011 at 6:20 AM.
Unfortunately, bad things happen to everyone, although chances of you dying young if you are 'bad' are higher, especially if you are involved in illegal activity.

Who is good and bad depends on where you stand.. Ghandi in that list would be considered good, the others have their faults and I wouldn't consider especially good.

I am of course sorry that this young boy suffered bullying and teasing about his sexuality. That is sad.
Instructor
#3 Old 22nd Sep 2011 at 12:52 AM
Quote: Originally posted by SimsLover50
Unfortunately, bad things happen to everyone.

Agreed IF you're bad person then you're getting paied for what you do Even if you're a good person though. Patient needed. :D
Top Secret Researcher
#4 Old 22nd Sep 2011 at 1:40 AM
Even if you were able to define "good" and "bad" there are very few events that are exclusively good or bad. And even the best person will have some negative traits.

Quote: Originally posted by fraroc
Lincoln,


I have it on good authority that Lincoln sold poison milk to school children.
Instructor
#5 Old 22nd Sep 2011 at 2:14 AM Last edited by SimsLover50 : 22nd Sep 2011 at 4:07 AM.
Lincoln's decisions caused a lot of deaths, both justified and not.Is he good? He was human, and a leader, and is credited with doing a lot of good for people- however that doesn't make him good.
Theorist
#6 Old 22nd Sep 2011 at 3:03 AM
I'd like to meet someone who's never experienced anything good/bad. Bad things happening to good people is just what we react to, we never hear about bad things happening to bad people.

Hi I'm Paul!
Theorist
#7 Old 22nd Sep 2011 at 3:22 AM
I'd like to meet someone who won't eventually die. That would kick ass compared to whinging about who's doing the dying, because frankly that's all of us at one time or another.
Theorist
#8 Old 22nd Sep 2011 at 6:21 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Extensa5420
Yes, we all eventually die. The cause of death is what matters.

Well, not if you're just considering the end result.


...Until the zombie apocalypse at least. Go for the heads kids, it's the only sure way to keep mom and pop down.
Retired
retired moderator
#9 Old 24th Sep 2011 at 10:55 PM
Gandhi was a horrible person in lots of important ways, he was psychologically abusive and very negligent towards some members of his family, in part because he held religious beliefs so deeply hostile to sex - which some members of his family wanted to have... ...you know, with wives and stuff. His passive political philosophies also have only extremely limited application, but that doesn't make him "all bad", of course. Nobody is altogether "good", few are altogether bad. Lincoln was fairly crazy in lots of ways too, especially contrasted against the likes of Adams or Jefferson, but then Jefferson owned slaves, didn't he? The whole premise of this seems beyond debate.

How do we quantify the number of "good" from the number of "bad" who suffer? People are good and bad in so many different ways.

CAW Wiki - A wiki for CAW users. Feel free to edit.

GON OUT, BACKSON, BISY BACKSON
Instructor
#10 Old 25th Sep 2011 at 12:29 AM
Excelllent post Kiwi_tea. I didn't know that. I appreciate the information.
Theorist
#11 Old 25th Sep 2011 at 10:20 AM
Quote: Originally posted by fraroc
http://digitallife.today.com/_news/...-life?GT1=43001

This about sums it up. And Its not just in that area, but many good people had their lives ended too soon, like Lincoln,Ghandi, Princess Diana, Michael Jackson the list goes on and on.


All people, without exception, have both good and bad in them. Also, the standard of what is "good" and what is "bad" varies with different people; thus the claim that "Bad things ALWAYS happen to good people" could not be fully supported by any examples/cases you might provide
Field Researcher
#12 Old 25th Sep 2011 at 3:02 PM
Quote: Originally posted by fraroc
Princess Diana


What good did she ever do, besides being pretty and rich? Sorry, but I can't see how royalty or socialites should be included on that list.
Theorist
#13 Old 25th Sep 2011 at 5:23 PM
Quote: Originally posted by qpldmff
What good did she ever do, besides being pretty and rich? Sorry, but I can't see how royalty or socialites should be included on that list.

Just because someone's pretty, rich, royalty or a socialite makes them a bad person? Diana did a lot of charity work with AIDS and stuff.

Hi I'm Paul!
Instructor
#14 Old 25th Sep 2011 at 6:29 PM
I think for me- and this is not Diana speciifc, but in general for celebs the bar is higher. You have more money as a celeb to give to charities, you also get publicity too, and often it is expected of royalty and politicians, so its its sort of part of the job, like being first lady you do charity work. Also, they often have more time to do it, too.

That doesn't invalidate charity that they do. But for me a person who isn't royalty and has a 9-5 job and does charity work in his spare time, is more laudible than the first lady who does it because it is expected and part of the job.
Theorist
#15 Old 25th Sep 2011 at 6:41 PM
Quote: Originally posted by SimsLover50
I think for me- and this is not Diana speciifc, but in general for celebs the bar is higher. You have more money as a celeb to give to charities, you also get publicity too, and often it is expected of royalty and politicians, so its its sort of part of the job, like being first lady you do charity work. Also, they often have more time to do it, too.

That doesn't invalidate charity that they do. But for me a person who isn't royalty and has a 9-5 job and does charity work in his spare time, is more laudible than the first lady who does it because it is expected and part of the job.

Totally agree, but the "what good did she ever do" he said seems a little harsh. Even if it was expected she did help a lot of people. I can name a lot of celebrities who don't really help charities and when they do it's just for personal gain and several others who really seem to care for the cause.

Hi I'm Paul!
Lab Assistant
#16 Old 26th Sep 2011 at 3:59 PM
Quote: Originally posted by fraroc
Ghandi


Sorry, but Gandhi was a horrible racist and a complete hypocrite. He was so keen on getting freedom for India and he was so angry at how Indians were being treated in South Africa, but he was quite vocal about how Africans were supposedly inferior. He even discussed and wrote about his agreement on this position with the very same people he was fighting while in SA. That's in addition to the other issues someone mentioned about him earlier.

And I just never understood the notion of 'bad things always happen to good people'. Everyone has periods in their lives where things couldn't be more perfect, and then there are those moments where people feel like they've hit rock-bottom. It's just a natural part of life. It has nothing to do with how 'good' or 'bad' someone is.
Alchemist
#17 Old 27th Sep 2011 at 5:45 PM
how do you even know who is "good" or "bad"? basing these judgments off of skewed media portrayals doesn't seem like such a grand idea. unless you knew the person, and knew them well, you simply do not know enough to make the call.
(some might say that even then, unless you know their thoughts, you still can't make that judgment accurately.)


well, that is, unless you're perfectly fine with inaccuracy and possibly spreading lies through innocence/ignorance. then, by all means.

"The more you know, the sadder you get."~ Stephen Colbert
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." ~ Jon Stewart
Versigtig, ek's nog steeds fokken giftig
Theorist
#18 Old 27th Sep 2011 at 8:50 PM
Quote: Originally posted by SuicidiaParasidia
well, that is, unless you're perfectly fine with inaccuracy and possibly spreading lies through innocence/ignorance. then, by all means.

Except, of course, that everyone does that all the time. How could you do anything BUT that when no one knows anyone or anything completely? You can't wait for perfect information, because perfect information doesn't exist. Most people don't even really know themselves.
Alchemist
#19 Old 28th Sep 2011 at 4:30 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Mistermook
Except, of course, that everyone does that all the time. How could you do anything BUT that when no one knows anyone or anything completely? You can't wait for perfect information, because perfect information doesn't exist. Most people don't even really know themselves.


you can, it might just take a while.

whether the information exists (actuality) and whether we know about it (reality) are two separate things, too, you know. im absolutely certain that perfect information exists, but perception and whether or not the people involved aim to record it as it actually is (and not as they want it to be) tend to be the decisive factors.

"The more you know, the sadder you get."~ Stephen Colbert
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." ~ Jon Stewart
Versigtig, ek's nog steeds fokken giftig
Theorist
#20 Old 28th Sep 2011 at 4:38 AM
Nah. Perfect information requires perfect receivers of information and perfect analysis of information. Humans are awesome, but on the perfection scale we suck. Until we can discard the meat and revise our software to remove the Rube Goldberg emotional responses, or at least clear the clutter in that subroutine to allow for enough complexity that we always understand the minutia and nuances of the emotional perceptions we're burdened with, we're pretty much sucking at perfect information no matter how much information we accumulate.

Now, I truly think we'll figure it out if we don't implode into a bright star descending beforehand, but it took us thousands of years to do things like invent the wheel, fire, and language. We might rock this one yet, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it.
Alchemist
#21 Old 28th Sep 2011 at 4:48 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Mistermook
Nah. Perfect information requires perfect receivers of information and perfect analysis of information.


i disagree. was oxygen not oxygen until we discovered/named/perceived it? or did it still exist as it is, despite our obliviousness?
i dont think the people need to be perfect for the information to be perfect. if the information is perfect, it cannot be less, only interpreted as less, and im not talking about perfect people at all. or people in general, at all.

"The more you know, the sadder you get."~ Stephen Colbert
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." ~ Jon Stewart
Versigtig, ek's nog steeds fokken giftig
Forum Resident
#22 Old 29th Sep 2011 at 10:37 PM
Quote: Originally posted by SuicidiaParasidia
whether the information exists (actuality) and whether we know about it (reality) are two separate things, too, you know. im absolutely certain that perfect information exists, but perception and whether or not the people involved aim to record it as it actually is (and not as they want it to be) tend to be the decisive factors.

And then there's the school of thought that for something be actual information, it has to be interpreted and applied already. Information is processed data given context and proper application. There isn't perfect information out there, only data that can become information. Is something we are unaware exists still information?

Then there's the whole debate about what is information anyway.

/muddying the waters
Theorist
#23 Old 30th Sep 2011 at 1:28 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Tempscire
And then there's the school of thought that for something be actual information, it has to be interpreted and applied already. Information is processed data given context and proper application. There isn't perfect information out there, only data that can become information. Is something we are unaware exists still information?

Then there's the whole debate about what is information anyway.

/muddying the waters

Right, it's not that what's out there doesn't exist before we know about it, it's that to know about it we have to know about it, and we're pretty bright but we're quite flawed too. We're the product of our meat and biases - it's not quite "there are things impossible to know" but it's quite thoroughly "what we know is fundamentally colored by who know knows it and how we know it."

What is the color red? We can define it, of course, but even our definitions are the products of our senses. If we met anything with different fundamental presumptions, perhaps Kiwi's pigs who have been counseling him on morals and empathy, then whatever language we'd find in common would still have to grapple and apply the issue of how other presupposed groups of biases process information.

The problem exists even within humans. Kiwi hears his pigs telling him stuff, I see an animal squealing and won't ever. So his perception demands I've committed a bacon Holocaust, my perception sees breakfast. There's a fundamental divide of assumptions, a break in perceptions. This is why social contracts are important, because they, along with language, force us to accept definitions across a wide range of perceptions. I don't know if you see red the same way I do, but I'm fairly certain we likely agree what IS red.

Morality is in a similar situation for the same reasons, and yeah it screws with people who want there to be objective truths and facts. There are objective facts, but no objective observers. There might be objective truths as well, but as far as I can tell there's no evidence for such and certainly no objective enforcement of truth or morality, making either fairly irrelevant.

So we circle around each other in universes of ourselves, never quite certain if we speak the same language and mean the same things. Maybe that's possible someday, but I'm not sure I'd prefer it, not sure it's advisable.

http://mediationchannel.com/2009/12...s-and-identity/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
and specific to this discussion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_phenomenon
Scholar
#24 Old 4th Oct 2011 at 1:06 AM
And, this started with a horrible suicide and ended with people uselessly rambling about what "information" is. My god do we get off topic.
Alchemist
#25 Old 5th Oct 2011 at 5:36 AM
Quote: Originally posted by BlakeS5678
And, this started with a horrible suicide and ended with people uselessly rambling about what "information" is. My god do we get off topic.


depends on your definition of "useless" is.

so, what have you to add to the actual topic?

"The more you know, the sadder you get."~ Stephen Colbert
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." ~ Jon Stewart
Versigtig, ek's nog steeds fokken giftig
 
Page 1 of 2
Back to top