I tend to see justice and compassion as operating like yin and yang. They are different, but related and dependent on the other to operate correctly. Personally, I see justice as a function of compassion. Compassion is more important, but justice needs to be in there too or else compassion becomes enabling of bad behavior.
I personally don't say anything on an internet forum that I wouldn't say in person- it's just the manners I was taught by my parents. I don't intentionally mock or deride anyone, but I am definitely a direct and blunt-spoken person. When I disagree with someone, it's not with an intent to insult, but to hopefully spur thought.
However, I do generally regard those who want to look at things in black and white terms as missing a fundamental piece of intelligence.
Are they, or is it the compassion that's missing? Or something else along those lines.
I see people being willfully ignorant. Brilliant people! But they are stuck on what they know, and they can't see anything else. That's frustrating.
I know there is no room in the law for it, but what about humanity? Why do so many people see things in black and white, when every shade in between exists. Do you say things to people online that you would never say face-to-face?
It doesn't matter what the issue is. Abortion, gay marriage, politics, philosophy, religion, and the list goes on. As Andrea Gibson said in Blue Blanket:
listening for the broken record of the defense
answer the question
answer the question
answer the question miss
why am i on trial for this
would you talk to your daughter
your sister your mother like this
It shouldn't be so easy to judge. - not like this. If you are going to judge, you should have all the facts. Hear them. Judges don't get to throw out anything they don't want to hear, they have to consider all the facts. They have to remain dispassionate.
If you choose to talk to somebody as though we are not all part of the family of man, why do you do so? Why do you refuse to treat them with honor and respect? Just because they think differently than you? They have different opinions, so you can mock and deride them, and you are fine with that?
Why.
I should have elaborated. They tend to missing such important attributes as imagination and contextualization. I think its ultimately a right vs left brain issue. Those people tend to be logical, but logic only is as good as its fundamental axioms and its ability to handle exceptions to whatever the logic produces. The inability with those two things inhibits learning. Learning is essential for intelligence.
Compassion can be hard to disseminate sometimes.
I think justice should be absolute, it should be written to be as black and white as possible, otherwise injustice can occur.
I leave my compassion for the personal realm.
I do care about people, even though it may not come off as such.
Compassion can be hard to disseminate sometimes.
I think justice should be absolute, it should be written to be as black and white as possible, otherwise injustice can occur.
I leave my compassion for the personal realm.
I do care about people, even though it may not come off as such.
The bold portion interests me because the definition of injustice is wholly dependant on whatever a person perceives justice as. Do you mean law instead of justice?
The law should be just.
My definition of justice is, equity and harmony of the law.
I think there should be clearly defined limits, if there are to be limits, and it should be based on facts and reason.
And here's my bad. I sort of expect less from men than women on the 'compassion, understanding, empathy" front.
I think that is mostly true. But situations should be taken into account. I have a feeling we would be rooting for opposite sides if we ever watched Les Misérables.
Not familiar with Les Misérables.
Explain please.
he story starts in 1815 in Digne. The peasant Jean Valjean has just been released from imprisonment in the Bagne of Toulon after nineteen years: five for stealing bread for his starving sister and her family, and fourteen more for numerous escape attempts. Upon being released, he is required to carry a yellow passport that marks him as a convict, despite having already paid his debt to society by serving his time in jail. Rejected by innkeepers, who do not want to take in a convict, Valjean sleeps on the street. This makes him even angrier and more bitter. However, the benevolent Bishop Myriel, the Bishop of Digne, takes him in and gives him shelter. In the middle of the night, he steals the bishop’s silverware and runs. He is caught, but the bishop rescues him by claiming that the silverware was a gift and at that point gives him his two silver candlesticks as well, chastising him to the police for leaving in such a rush that he forgot these most valuable pieces. The bishop then "reminds" him of the promise, which Valjean has no recollection of making, to use the silver to make an honest man of himself. As Valjean broods over these words, he steals a child's silver coin purely out of habit. He chases the boy away (Petit Gervais), but, soon after, he repents and decides to follow the bishop's advice. He searches the city for the child whose money he accidentally stole. At the same time, his theft is reported to the authorities, who now look for him as a repeat offender. If Valjean is caught, he will be forced to spend the rest of his life in prison, so he hides from the police.
OOOO you should watch it, its a great piece of art. I didn't like the book much though.
But it highlights a basic moral dilemma. Pretty much highlights the same issues as the scarlet letter, but in a much more entertaining way.
Ok, 5 years for stealing bread.
That's a bit much, if you ask me.
Also requiring him to be identified as a convict after his time is served.
Wouldn't do that either.
Stealing isn't ok though.
Legally, he should be pursued and temporarily imprisoned, not for 5 years.
Personally, I'd get it and wouldn't judge him to much.
The greater in the plot is that of hope though. In a dogmatic world where the law is automatic and is unable to take circumstances into account and one where you can be branded (look at a job application, all of them ask about prior legal issues) is a world where someone cannot reinvent themselves if they wish to be better. This causes the individual to be without hope and have no real opportunity to improve and can lead him down a path where he repeats a crime because it becomes his best option. Mercy is needed.
Ok, 5 years for stealing bread.
That's a bit much, if you ask me.
Also requiring him to be identified as a convict after his time is served.
Wouldn't do that either.
Stealing isn't ok though.
Legally, he should be pursued and temporarily imprisoned, not for 5 years.
Personally, I'd get it and wouldn't judge him to much.
I see that, the way the guy is branded and the length of punishment is unreasonable, in my opinion.
It makes it difficult to offer him hope.
I've never been a fan of continued punishment after release from jail/prison.
It's counter productive and cruel.
And/but see? Even in your response - it's based on the black-and-white of the synopsis, not all the grays that occur in a well-written novel.
Ever watch Oz? The one line I've never forgotten is (sadly paraphrased, because I can't find it) "How would you like it if the worst thing you ever did determined the course of the rest of your life?"
I think it's completely wrong.
I had a friend who is/was a felon, by accident.
Some people tried to run him off the road and he flashed his gun to get them to stop.
They called the cops and he was imprisoned for assault with a deadly weapon.
Haven't talked to him in years but that kind of thing is completely wrong.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?