Hero or Scumbag?

[Starcry]

How is he brave?



What are you trying to say? This doesn't make any sense.

How doesn't it make sense?

[Ryokuken]

Your idea has a complete disconnect from the topic, is a complete and arbitrary assumption, and has no real explanation. That's how it doesn't make any sense. Are you trying to claim that God sees people who commit genocide as heroes? Where is that even coming from? What sort of logic are you even trying to use here?

[Retox]

If the dude was unaware that he took drugs and honestly believed that he was saving the world then I'd consider him a hero because in the dude's mind, what he's doing is real. He really thinks that he's really going to save us by comitting suicide. Taking your life to save someone else's, in my books, is a heroic thing to do.

But if the dude consciously took drugs to reach that kind of high then he's lying to himself and can't be called anything other than a loser.

Also, at the end of the day, once the dude's dead, his motives will remain a mystery forever and modern society will just see him as another junkie who went crazy on the shit he took. People could be offing themselves everyday because they had some crazy vision where they thought it would help save the world and we wouldn't know because it all happened in their head, not in real life.

Also also bizarre topic is bizarre.

[Crowley]

oh come on... Ive been high as a kite and gotten better quests than that


he is an ass obviously, whatever you do under the influence doesnt make you anything but an ass; you could just as well murder someone because the voices told you to than save kitten from destruction. The brain doesnt compute so its a world inside your head and its got nothing to do with the exterior or whatever people think about you, you do drugs your fucked up.

its like doing stuff while dreaming, you can dream that you are the next Dalai Lama or being a genocide like Atila, it doesnt change a thing in the real world.

[MidRamble]

hmm I know I came from nowhere, but this is my two cents. His intentions are heroic. He had the willingness to selflessly sacrifice. He has the potential to heroism. However, he did no heroic act. Act as in action that produced that factual selfless outcome. The loose definition of a "hero" is one who commits selfless acts of sacrifice. Again he has the will a potential to be this; however, he is not (and since he offed himself needlessly) and no longer has the potential to be. If he didn't die, yes, his heroic willingness could one day blossom into actual heroism, but this isn't the case. By this same system evil people have the potential to be unintentional heroes due to an act that may have been unintentionally selfless. What affects this is the person’s condition over time as the potential hero would eventually (over a long enough timeline) fulfill the role of a hero while the person with bad intentions that acted heroically (over a long enough timeline) would eventually devolve into the selfish "villain" that their condition produces. Even more so, this is all ceteris paribus to the human ability to change conditions. My overall point to this response is that a person isn’t named a hero due to mere intentions. If they were, there would be a lot more “heroes” out there and the title would be meaningless as it would have no anchor in reality. Scumbag, maybe not, but tragedy, yes.

[Starcry]

Your idea has a complete disconnect from the topic, is a complete and arbitrary assumption, and has no real explanation. That's how it doesn't make any sense. Are you trying to claim that God sees people who commit genocide as heroes? Where is that even coming from? What sort of logic are you even trying to use here?

Since you didn't get my point... lets split my post a little.

A man takes drugs, trips the hell out and believes he holds the fate of a million random people. In his trip, he is offered a choice. Either he kills himself, or those million people (who he doesn't even know) will be killed. Without hesitation, and despite the fact there are many people he will miss, he sacrifices himself for all those strangers.

Heres the question. Is he a hero? He believed at the time that he was offering himself up to save so many lives, but does that fact that it was only a drug trip make him any less brave? Discuss, expand etc.

My answer to this was:

I don't think he is either. Just a poor delusional person.

So sacrificing yourself for the greater good, irellevant of the outcome, doesn't deserve any praise?

True, but the rapist would be hurting someone else, which is wrong. This guy only killed himself, didn't harm a single other person.

My answer to this was the rest of my post

Plus when you think about it he did actually hurt a lot of people. Not physically but mentally. Think about it;

His parents (if they cared) have just lost a son. What will add to this pain is the fact their son died in a taboo manner.
His friends have just lost a mate, and will most likely feel responsible for his death.
His girlfriend/boyfriend has just lost a man they loved with their soul, and will feel like their heart has been ripped out.
His child (if he has one) has just lost a farther, and will most likely never know how he died until they are older... which will cause all sorts of problems.

Just because someone has good intentions doesn't make it any more heroic. All you have to do is look at humanities past to see wars and mass genocide can be started with good intentions. Yet would you see these as heroic? In a lot of cases... apparently god did.

Your idea has a complete disconnect from the topic, is a complete and arbitrary assumption, and has no real explanation. That's how it doesn't make any sense. Are you trying to claim that God sees people who commit genocide as heroes? Where is that even coming from? What sort of logic are you even trying to use here?

My post doesn't have a complete disconnect from the topic. As I have just run down for you.

I am not trying to say that god justify's genocide. But preachers have used god's name to justify it in the past. If you read my post and saw my use of "apparently" then this would make sense. Instead you jumped the proverbial gun, and some how turn this into me claiming god justified genocide and pretty much insulted my way of thinking.

[Helter Skelter]

I don't believe this guy would be considered anywhere near a hero, one of my friends got high before and had a voice tell them to go kill themselves, does that make them suicidal or emo?

[Ryokuken]

Since you didn't get my point... lets split my post a little.


My answer to this was:


My answer to this was the rest of my post

My post doesn't have a complete disconnect from the topic. As I have just run down for you.

I was talking about your bizarre inclusion of God seeing genocide as heroic at the end. That was what I specifically quoted. I wasn't referring to anything else in your post, so I'm not sure why you just decided to explain the whole thing to me. How you got this confused and thought I meant the entirety of your post I can't fathom. Seriously, how did you not see that? On that note, I'm not even sure what you're trying to get at by quoting those specific replies.

I am not trying to say that god justify's genocide.

But you did say that.

But preachers have used god's name to justify it in the past.

This is different than stating that "apparently God sometimes sees it as heroic." If you want I can explain to you why this is a different statement from "Preachers/others have used religion as a means to justify/manipulate others into committing genocide."

If you read my post and saw my use of "apparently" then this would make sense.

What does the word "apparently" have to do with this? Do you know what the definition of "apparently" is? I get the impression that you don't, because your use of "apparently" doesn't imply "religious figures and others in power have used religion before as a means to justify and encourage genocide." It means (as in actual dictionary definition) "capable of being easily perceived or understood; plain or clear; obvious."

Instead you jumped the proverbial gun, and some how turn this into me claiming god justified genocide and pretty much insulted my way of thinking.

But that's what you said. You pulled "In a lot of cases... apparently god did" out of nowhere with no explanation or lead up. Humanity committing genocide is one thing, but it doesn't automatically mean there's a religious slant to it.

[Starcry]

apparently [əˈpærəntlɪ əˈpɛər-]
adv
(sentence modifier) it appears that; as far as one knows; seemingly

Source:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/apparently

I'm not going to bother going on with this discussion because as proof from your posts you'll just twist every word I say.

[Ryokuken]

How was I twisting every word you say? You're not making any sense here. Also, how does your definition of "apparently" change anything that I've stated in my post?

Seriously, I don't get where you're coming from here. It's not clear at all.

EDIT: And if you care, my definition came from the following website:

www.dictionary.com

ap·par·ent
   [uh-par-uhnt, uh-pair-] Show IPA
adjective
1. readily seen; exposed to sight; open to view; visible: The crack in the wall was readily apparent.
2. capable of being easily perceived or understood; plain or clear; obvious: The solution to the problem was apparent to all.
3. according to appearances, initial evidence, incomplete results, etc.; ostensible rather than actual: He was the apparent winner of the election.

Honestly, what the fuck

[JJXB]

Intent and Belief is only part of it to me. Because if your actions end up being bad, then yes you are a bad person.

This example does end up potentially harming someone due to potential relatives and friends who will have lost someone they care about. Him believing that it would save millions if he sacrifices his life would by no means counterbalance the fact that it wouldn't do so and infact just cause potential anguish.

One pure example of good intention and bad result in action is Hitler. What was his ultimate objective before the atrocities? Economic Stability in Germany and Peace. Plus, All the way through, he believed he was doing the right thing. Why? he saw his actions (Gassing Jews, Idolizing the Blonde Hair Blue Eye traits as "The Perfect" example of the human form, Indoctrination) as a form of unification. He saw this unification as a road to peace as if everyone were the same, there would be no conflict.

The same principle applies to communism too. If everyone was absolutely equal, there would be no want for more. So Hitler and other Historical figures who did do bad always believed they were doing good. And while they were vilified with good reason, do you think they intended to commit genocide or to do anything else that contributed to the horrors of history? no. This does not however absolve them of any responsibility however due to the fact that the atrocities in question basically amounted to crimes against humanity. And no, this does not leave me feeling sorry for any historical figure who did this, their actions were plain WRONG. But that cannot stop me from at least seeing that they started out with good intentions, regardless of their slant on how to act on them.

You can even take this back to the crusades, where catholics felt they were "cleansing" areas of the world in the name of "god". Does this mean they were right in their actions? nope. they were just as "barbaric" as some of the cultures and races they were trying to oppose, especially given that any soldier involved in the crusade was granted "Plenary Indulgence", which basically granted them a free ticket to do whatever the fuck they wanted and still get forgiven because they were doing so under the pretense of "acting under the will of god". Look at the amount of wars that have been fought under the flag of a "god" or other spiritual being or belief regardless of if it were over a piece of land or a race of people.

so no matter what intent you have, something can turn out to be harmful and qualify you as a "scumbag" as the opening post phrased it.

@Ryokuken : i see one flaw in your issue with Femaletengu: Your word and hers ARE NOT THE SAME. Because it is "apparent" that you "apparently" think you know what you are onabout.
Her view came across to me as "these people believed that god would absolve them and see them as heroes" - as far as i know it was meant to be taken. You taking it as if she were saying those things is defined as wrong when you actually use the word "apparently" as her link demonstrated the meaning to. Because to them it appeared as if they were given a "get out of jail free" card from all their sins essentially while in actual fact they were still not going to get out of their "eternal punishment". that is why the word "apparently" was used as it was.

So just to re-iterate,
it is "Clear" that you "Believe you Clearly know" what you are onabout with the words "apparent" and "apparently".

[Ryokuken]

Your word and hers ARE NOT THE SAME. Because it is "apparent" that you "apparently" think you know what you are onabout. Her view came across to me as "these people believed that god would absolve them and see them as heroes" - as far as i know it was meant to be taken.

She didn't post anything about her view until I asked her to explain it. Until then all she had said was "In a lot of cases... apparently god did." That doesn't tell anyone anything besides what's there. There's nothing in here about priests or other people in situations of power manipulating others to commit genocide. Any assumption prior to an expansion or explanation of these is entirely baseless.

You taking it as if she were saying those things is defined as wrong when you actually use the word "apparently" as her link demonstrated the meaning to.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Either the grammar is off or you're confused. I never said she was wrong though. I said she wasn't making any sense and that her line "In a lot of cases... apparently god did." was out of nowhere and didn't make sense. It needed an explanation.

To put it simply for you (because I think, for you, I have to): "In a lot of cases... apparently god did." =/= "People have used religion to manipulate others."

Especially when that's the only line in the post that actually has to deal with that specific issue.

EDIT: Wait, are you trying to say that "apparent" and "apparently" are two different words? You realize they mean the same thing, right? Please tell me you do.

that is why the word "apparently" was used as it was.

The word as it was used in that sentence doesn't even begin to imply what you seem to think it does, especially in that context.

So just to re-iterate,
it is "Clear" that you "Believe you Clearly know" what you are onabout with the words "apparent" and "apparently".

You sound like a moron. I can only assume you were trying to be clever here, but it didn't work.

Also reiterate doesn't have a hyphen. But go on, keep giving "advice" on the definition of words.

[Stiletto Kitty]

A man takes drugs, trips the hell out and believes he holds the fate of a million random people. In his trip, he is offered a choice. Either he kills himself, or those million people (who he doesn't even know) will be killed. Without hesitation, and despite the fact there are many people he will miss, he sacrifices himself for all those strangers.

Heres the question. Is he a hero? He believed at the time that he was offering himself up to save so many lives, but does that fact that it was only a drug trip make him any less brave? Discuss, expand etc.

He is a hero in his mind. And I don't think it's safe to call him a scumbag because there are times when people who are not taking drugs do hallucinate. I'm inclined to agree with FemaleTengu.
Heroes tend to be honored or awarded. Scumbags are treated as social degenerates in most cases. This man will probably end up in prison or a mental health ward of a hospital

[Ryokuken]

Well he's dead, at least in this hypothetical, so he's probably not going to prison or the hospital (unless it's like the morgue).

On that note why is it "hero" or "scumbag"? Can't he be something else? I certainly wouldn't call him a hero but I don't think he's a scumbag.

[Reno]

I'd call him Charlie Sheen.