CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Because he doesnt know how to swim, is missing an arm, is in a wheelchair
Why would someone who can't swim or is missing an arm go into the water? How could someone in a wheelchair get into the water? You're bringing up arbitrary instances that would most likely never happened.
even if a person with all normal possibilities refuse to help i dont feel any weird thing in it because all the time situations wont be same even a good swimmer will be hit by a bad lucks.
I don't believe either of whether someone would/wouldn't help a drowning man, that's a decision for the person to make. To "help" or not as mentioned in the title, is a question of morality and hence if someone refuses to help with the intention of seeing the person die provided that the person watching could've helped, that person would be responsible.
It's a question of morality as well as responsibility. Linking it back to the motion, he/she had control over his/her life at that instance and hence is proved to be responsible...
It's a question of morality as well as responsibility. Linking it back to the motion, he/she had control over his/her life at that instance and hence is proved to be responsible...
the thing is, we all deserve the worst punishment that can be given to us because we all are equally depraved humans since all sin is an affront to the power of God. However, God is incredibly merciful and saves us from our sin anyways, despite what we deserve. The question is, will we extend that mercy towards our fellow man as well? Is it our choice or God's that someone die? I think it's God's.
What if you can't swim and there's nothing around immediately that could help you save them otherwise? Have a broken arm or leg, or in some other way unable to get into the water without putting yourself in immediate harm. Are you obligated to risk your life to save another in peril?
"Feeling obligated" is far different from being obligated in reality. In this case, I meant legal obligation.
Also, being an atheist wouldn't change anything if the law said you have to; if you broke said law, you'd be prosecuted despite your religious beliefs; just like any law.
I totally agree with you, you are not responsible for an immediately help, if your circumstances don't allow you to do so, how can you risk your life to help others and putting yourself in danger.
what do you mean by refusing to help? I mean, if you mean not jumping into the water to save the drowning person, then maybe they themselves don't even know to swim. However, if you mean not even calling the police then I think that's horrible but doesn't make you entirely responsible for their death since they were drowning not because of you, but you are partly to be blamed too because they might have a chance to be saved if you tried to help...can my stance be "partly responsible"?
they might have a chance to be saved if you tried to help...can my stance be "partly responsible"?
If they didn't know how to swim in the first place, why did they jump in the water? The way I see it, it's their fault and they are the only person to blame if they die. It's not your responsibility to coddle the idiots.
It does depend on how you refused to help them . There could be many reasons behind this claim an if you refused to help because you were in danger of your safety it’s not your fault . It wouldn’t even be her/his fault if they did . My questions are how did this person get to the state of drowning ?
Thanks for elaborating my point, and how the person has landed in that state is a question for the person himself, while I don't say that pushing the person is not a reason to hold the person responsible, but The debate title makes it clear that the person is already in the state of drowning and "help" is what is questioned, which a killer wouldn't. So It is obvious that this "killer" put the person in a water body to kill the person and that's obvious for everyone. What isn't obvious is the fact that if you are a person who just randomly happened to see this person drowning, and you refuse to help, will you be responsible for the death? I prefer answering the unobvious, as it is the unobvious that make debates, not what's obvious and agreed by everyone upon.
yes you are responsible for his death.. you may have many excuse to refuse to help.. but if you see someone drowning it is your prime duty to same him.. and if you not helped it means you failed hence you are responsible for his death.
Where were you told that if you see someone drowning then you have to help them? Yes, it's morally wrong, but it's not legally wrong despite your motives.
I would say that it is not morally wrong. Take the case of having a lot of people around the person. Is it only not morally wrong that everyone jumps down to save him? It's their choice.
Is this debate about legality or morals? If it's morals, then you're right and the refusal to help is morally wrong. But if it's about legality... according to Wikipedia, there's no law against not helping. But Wikipedia is Wikipedia, so...
friend as a human.its our nature to help each other. so the question is you refuse to help...if you tried and he died that is different thing.but not helping to other will distinct you from human.
I agree. For instance, if you do it because you don't like them, then arguably you could be responsible. However, if it's one of the reasons you pointed out then I think someone else should have helped. (Unless you were alone with them in which case nothing could be done.)
not really. because refusing to save them and being physically unable to save them are completely different. If you have the ability to save a man's life and decide not to then you have allowed them to die. I still believe you are not fully responsible for his death although you are part of the reason why he isn't alive.
agreed that those are two different things altogether. If you “intend” to not help him, taking morality into consideration, you are responsible. The debate doesn’t talk about what happens, it talks about the position of making the decision to help that person.
yea,if u cant swim, physically disabled,mentally unstable and so many others you might not be able to actually help the person even when you feel like it
I believe that the death of that particular person should no mean to risk your own life in danger. If we have the ability to save then why not! But consequence should be calculated
Whatever caused him to start drowning in the first place is responsible for his death, you wouldn't have caused the death yourself and therefore aren't technically responsible. The fact that you could have prevented his death might make you morally responsible for something, but not his death. If one believes that it's a moral obligation to help the drowning person then they will have to accept some responsibility for being 'immoral' by not taking the opportunity to do what is right.
You claim that you are not responsible for his death because the cause of him starting to drown is responsible for his death, however it is completely possible for both you and the drowning cause to be mutually responsible. As an example, imagine someone was bungee jumping with two ropes. You cut one rope, and a separate person cut another. In each case, a person could argue that the other person was responsible for his death. However, your actions equally determined that he died instead of surviving. For this reason, I would claim that technically you are responsible for his death by choosing an action which resulted in his death from a set of actions in which he could not have died.
however it is completely possible for both you and the drowning cause to be mutually responsible. As an example, imagine someone was bungee jumping with two ropes. You cut one rope, and a separate person cut another.
In this instance whoever cut the last rope would be responsible. Only if the two ropes were cut simultaneously would both parties be equally responsible.
I believe that the answer to the OP's question boils down to semantics. Since the terminology used was "responsible" then a good argument can be put forward to support the affirmative. However, that same argument can then be put forward ad absurdum. For example, if you refuse to rush into a burning building or refuse to lay down in front of a tank. If the wording is altered from "responsibility" to "causation" then the answer becomes a simple no.
In this instance whoever cut the last rope would be responsible.
Using this logic, you would be responsible for the death of the drowning person. Since the option for you to save him occurred after the event which made him begin drown, your inactivity would be the last event before the person drowned, and in fact imply that the event which initiated his drowning was not responsible.
Also, causation might not be a simple no either. The opposite of refusing to help is helping someone which could have saved them, in which the drowning person may have survived. So the act of not saving the person could be said to be a cause (not the unique cause but one of them) of his drowning.
well if you known that person was going to drown and you saw him start to drown you would be fully responsible for his death and anyone else that saw that person struggle.
how would you like it if someone watched you drown and not help at all.
he could have slipped in from we dock or plank broke, maybe blacked out and woke up in the water and didn't know how to swim
what if that drowning person is a infant? would you go out to save the baby?
In my opinion, to be responsible for someone's death you must have caused it, and in this case the person refusing to help did not cause the death. I'm not saying that makes it okay not to help, it's just that the person not helping would be guilty of something else, that is, being an asshole.
I never said or implied that I wouldn't help a drowning person.
Never give a sucker a break, so if there was a life belt around you could offer to sell it to the drowning person for a knockdown price of say, $5000 plus an additional labour charge of $1000.
Most people would consider their lives to be worth $6000.
If there were a water hose nearby, you could just stick it down his throat, turn the water on and get it over with more quickly, thus saving him a prolonged and agonizing death. It could be considered and act of benevolence and humane thing to do.
There are parts of the world where people die daily for want of small cost. We can all afford this but don't take the time to give it. Does this mean we are responsible for their deaths?
I think if we're painfully honest with ourselves the answer is yes. Our willful lack of action is a choice - a choice to let the problem remain the way it is.
We may be responsible for inaction, but that doesn't make us responsible for a death. That would be like saying a doctor who legally couldn't help someone in situation is responsible for letting them die, even though it would be extremely risky and possibly turn out worse for both if they did.
The argument is about refusing to help. Your analogy about a doctor who legally couldn't help is invalid. A fitting analogy would be a doctor who knew he could help and refused to help.
Depends on the risks and your reasons for inaction. If, for example, somebody is drowning, far away, and you can't swim, then your inaction was justified, because you might drown too. But if you can swim, and you could have saved the person without taking any risks, then I would say that you are at least partly responsible.
PS> (edited) Look.. As a bleeding heart, I think we owe something to ourselves. I suspect a conservative would say we owe our fellowman NOTHING..
Actually, the conservative position is quite the opposite.
The conservative position is that individual action is the best way to help others ,and to make society safe and prosperous. I think conservatives and liberals tend to agree on the ends: lasting peace, universal prosperity and safety (or as close as is possible,) justice, and maximum freedom and opportunity to pursue self-actualization.
Where conservatives disagree with liberals is means. We conservatives think the role of government should be as small as possible, and the main responsibility for achieving these ends falls upon all individuals.
Applied to the scenario of the drowning man, conservative realism recognizes that the best way for the person to avoid drowning is for that individual to have taken personal responsibility for his/her own safety and to have learned how to swim or to have stayed in shallow water. Failing that, it is up to the individual bystander to save the drowning person.
Certainly conservatives recognizes that the least effective response is likely to be to call upon the government to save the drowning victim:
- - Obviously the barriers and posted warning signs were ineffective at keeping the drowning person safe.
- - The "first" responders would likely arrive too late and be hampered by excessive regulations or cumbersome protocols.
This is why conservatives favor smaller government, and why conservatives, as a group, donate more to charity than liberals.
Um, remind me again what politics even has to do with this? Oh, i'm oh-so-sorry the liberal media poisoned your brain, now get back to your overly-privileged feminist rallies, which are doing SHIT to help women that are actually oppressed, like in, hmmm... countries under Sharia Law?
Requiring someone to jump in the water themselves would be wrong for many reasons. They may be unable to swim, have a phobia, have medical reasons not to, worry it's not clean or safe, may have other responsibilities on land (like their kids), and they may be uncertain of the situation (maybe it isn't clear it's really a case of drowning).
However, expecting someone to call for help either verbally or on their phone if they have one is a reasonable expectation. Whether or not failing to call is a crime depends on the local laws, though.
Hopefully if they can't jump in the water to save them they can at least user the phone to call for help. Alot of times they stand there and film it instead.
That was the case in Florida where those teens recorded and laughed at a man drowning. I'm of two minds on this, honestly the blood thirsty part of me wants to hold their heads under water for a bit, the other part of me......well ok....wants to kick them repeatedly.
What makes me furious is they did NOTHING. They didn't call the police, they didn't try to get help. I can understand not going out into the water yourself, honestly a drowning person will panic and try to pull you under but to stand there and laugh and record it.....that's a kind of scum that shouldn't be in society but unfortunately isn't illegal. While I think by their actions they are responsible in some part, I don't think legally they are.
Imprisoning and rehabilitating such people that laugh while someone that they could help dies would serve a moral good. These people are clearly evil people and will darken the lives of those around them. As such it makes sense to make an effort to change these people for the better, or failing that, keeping them imprisoned. Now, I wouldn't say that they have broken a law, however they have demonstrated sadism and a disregard for human life. Such people are dangerous and need to be "fixed".
This is different from simply failing to help because of the sadism and lack of value for human life. They aren't breaking a law (and there shouldn't be a law to force their action) but they are showing themselves to be in need of serious psychological help.
I agree. To laugh at the suffering and death of a human or to encourage a person to jump to their deaths (different instances) shows a certain sadistic, sociopathic tendency that should never be normal and should be addressed.
Imprisoning and rehabilitating such people that laugh while someone that they could help dies would serve a moral good. These people are clearly evil people
If people do moral wrongs because they are somehow innately "evil" then how can you hope to rehabilitate them? The fact is that every culture has a different framework of acceptable morality and this framework is not chosen by the "evil" doer. They are simply expected to conform to cultural expectations of morality and ignore their own interpretations. When you talk about rehabilitation what you are actually talking about is brainwashing them. Perhaps that might even have some effect if you catch them as children. But as adult offenders who have been around the prison system they are more likely to despise their own culture than be positively influenced by it.
"If people do moral wrongs because they are somehow innately "evil" then how can you hope to rehabilitate them?"
I never said they were innately evil. My reading of the literature suggests evilness is largely an acquired characteristic, though of course there is a biological component.
"The fact is that every culture has a different framework of acceptable morality and this framework is not chosen by the "evil" doer. They are simply expected to conform to cultural expectations of morality and ignore their own interpretations."
This is your opinion, however even if moral nihilism held true (and I believe my debate on it shows otherwise), it is still necessary to maintain order in a society. If people were permitted to do as they pleased then society wouldn't function. You wouldn't even be able to type on your computer because somebody stronger or better armed than you would have stolen it. This assumes, of course, that you weren't killed or enslaved by them instead.
"When you talk about rehabilitation what you are actually talking about is brainwashing them."
In this context psychological intervention would generally involve talking people's underlying issues through so that they may overcome them. After all, the evilest people usually have horrific pasts. There also can be rewards for prolonged good behavior, interpersonal skills training, provision of role models and other methods. Let's say it's brainwashing though, if I play by your rules that morals don't exist why does it matter?
"Perhaps that might even have some effect if you catch them as children. But as adult offenders who have been around the prison system they are more likely to despise their own culture than be positively influenced by it."
A meta-analysis on the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions in the context of reducing aggression and violence suggests psychosocial intervention leads to a reduction in aggression and violence compared to controls (Source 1).
You said: "These people are clearly evil people" and I paraphrased what you said. The important word here is "evil", so I have no interest in your tired deflections to semantics. You have no evidence such a thing as evil even exists in the objective sense, because there is no evidence that it pre-dates humanity.
My reading of the literature suggests evilness is largely an acquired characteristic, though of course there is a biological component.
You don't appear to have "read the literature" very thoroughly, because you are drastically misunderstanding the context in which the word "innate" was used. Please see:-
No, it is a demonstrable fact. For example, in 14th century Europe, it was morally acceptable to burn women at the stake. Up until the very last century it was morally acceptable to hang criminals in England. The fact that neither of these actions are any longer considered to be morally acceptable proves that morality is not just relative to culture, but also relative to time.
In this context psychological intervention would generally involve talking people's underlying issues through so that they may overcome them
This is stupid because they are not "people's" issues. They are the culture's issues. Clearly, the "people" have no moral problem with their actions or they would not have committed them in the first place. Deliberately imprinting the values of a culture onto the values of an individual is the dictionary definition of brainwashing.
There also can be rewards for prolonged good behavior
The same is true of dogs. Positive reinforcement is a known brainwashing technique and I personally do not believe we should treat humans like pets. That is supremely arrogant.
A meta-analysis on the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions in the context of reducing aggression and violence suggests psychosocial intervention leads to a reduction in aggression and violence compared to controls
Please spare me your false appeals to authority. From your own source:-
First, if the quality of the original research is poor, regrettably a not infrequent occurrence, it will be neither feasible nor permissible to draw any firm conclusions even from the most carefully conducted review of it. Second, and as noted above, given the circumstances in which most research of this kind takes place, the design of some evaluation studies is very weak. It can be difficult to use random allocation to experimental and comparison samples, and the members of these groups are often not well matched, as researchers may have no control over who is placed under what conditions. As this activity often takes place in the daily routines of the criminal justice system, neatly designed experimental trials are difficult to carry out, and most evaluations are of a less robust nature (Lipsey 1999). Third, follow-up periods have often been very short: six to nine months is not uncommon. However, there are also studies with 12- and 24-month follow-up, and a proportion where data have been collected for five years or more (e.g. a mean of 46 months in the review by Hanson et al. 2002). Fourth, sample sizes in some studies are small and if there is a further loss due to attrition, or attempts are made to subdivide samples for particular analyses, it may be difficult to draw clear conclusions.
Furthermore, the paper concludes:-
Findings are weaker with respect to domestic violence and less consistent with reference to prison-based programmes.
Which contradicts your own assertion that "evil" people (i.e. those who consistently reoffend and end up in prison) can be effectively rehabilitated, and in fact supports my own assertion that "adult offenders who have been around the prison system" cannot be effectively rehabilitated.
I frankly find it offensive that you are linking information without properly reading it first.
"You said: "These people are clearly evil people" and I paraphrased what you said. The important word here is "evil", so I have no interest in your tired deflections to semantics."
It was very important to the point you were making that they are innately evil. You were stating that their innate evil couldn't be changed because it was innate.
"You don't appear to have "read the literature" very thoroughly, because you are drastically misunderstanding the context in which the word "innate" was used. Please see:- inherent in the essential character of something"
Yes, innate as in biological rather than environmental in origin. As such, what I've stated about relative weighting is entirely relevant.
"No, it is a demonstrable fact. For example, in 14th century Europe, it was morally acceptable to burn women at the stake. Up until the very last century it was morally acceptable to hang criminals in England. The fact that neither of these actions are any longer considered to be morally acceptable proves that morality is not just relative to culture, but also relative to time."
In other words, because people have had different ideas of what morality entails it doesn't objectively exist. People have also had different ideas of the shape of the earth, so is that subjective too? In fact people have had different ideas on everything under the sun. As such, if using your reasoning, everything is subjective. If you wish to discuss the objectivity of morality itself I would ask that you address what I've written on the objective conceptualization of morality, the debate is cited below (Source 1).
"This is stupid because they are not "people's" issues. They are the culture's issues. Clearly, the "people" have no moral problem with their actions or they would not have committed them in the first place. Deliberately imprinting the values of a culture onto the values of an individual is the dictionary definition of brainwashing."
When we find such high correlations, for example, between being a male childhood sexual abuse victim and being a child sexual abuser later in life (Source 2), do you believe this to merely be coincidence? It is clear that most people develop behavioral issues as a result of dreadful pasts. As such, helping people get over their past traumas (and current maladaptive behaviors) is a positive thing and aside from the vast psychological benefits conferred to these people, it can also help them to refrain from inflicting such suffering on others.
Brainwashing is a severe process and I expect by your casual use of the term that you are completely ignorant of the methods used. Encouraging people to change is completely different to forcing them to change. However if you define brainwashing as any attempt to change behavior then you will find that everybody is brainwashing everybody else all the time. As such, the word loses it's meaning. In any case, if morality doesn't exist why do you even care?
"The same is true of dogs. I personally do not believe we should treat humans like pets, because that is supremely arrogant and because positive reinforcement is a known brainwashing technique."
Well that's unfortunate for you because you are the person you are today because of your parents and schools molding your behavior through rewards (and/or punishments). Do you think parents and schools should let children do as they please and permit them to choose not to learn to read and write?
"Please spare me your false appeals to authority. From your own source:-"
The author made the limitations of the study known. This is typical of psychological research, as studying humans always comes with problems that studying non-humans or other phenomena does not.
"Furthermore, the paper concludes:-
"Findings are weaker with respect to domestic violence and less consistent with reference to prison-based programmes."
Which entirely disproves your own assertion that "evil" people (i.e. those who consistently reoffend and end up in prison) can be effectively rehabilitated, and in fact supports my own assertion that they cannot be effectively rehabilitated."
It doesn't "entirely disprove" anything. The fact that positive results from intervention aren't as consistent in prison-based programmes can't be held to mean anything. One can speculate all manner of reasons for such a result, though further study would be required to give evidence for such speculation. I would suggest that one look at the differences in implementation, for example, between the Canadian instance (significant positive result) and British instance (mixed results) for the R&R;program in prisons. Note also that the R&R;program is only one of many psychological intervention programmes. Bush's (1995) cognitive skills programme, for example, was able to significantly reduce recidivism relative to controls within a prison setting. I would however agree that prison itself has environmental influences which could run counter to attempts at rehabilitation and this may be the reason that rehabilitative results weren't as consistent in this setting.
I would also state that I didn't mean to imprison them within a prison, rather within a psychiatric hospital or perhaps a juvenile offender institute (if children, as in this case). I'm well aware that prison itself generally isn't a good environment for rehabilitation. Perhaps I could be sympathetic to not even imprisoning them at all, but intervention is definitely necessary when one is so sadistic and/or callous as to laugh at and film someone drowning when they could do something, anything to help.
Though let me address the initial point of how this study relates to your assertion that children and adults may not be changeable. When we consider work with young offenders, it has been overwhelmingly successful as suggested by the meta-analysis we're discussing. Further, many of the studies in the cited meta-analysis used adults as participants and there was a general positive trend when such adult studies were collated.
It was very important to the point you were making that they are innately evil.
But -- as I believe I thoroughly explained in the last post -- you misunderstood the point I was making. What makes you believe you are more qualified than I am to explicate the point I was making and/or what was "important" to it? We have again reached the stage where you are talking total fucking nonsense, Winston. When you said these people were "clearly evil" I interpreted that to mean there was no logical explanation for their behaviour outside of inherent characteristics. That is why I said, "innately evil".
You were stating that their innate evil couldn't be changed because it was innate
No, I wasn't. I was stating that "evil" itself is innate, since it has no universal and objective definition in the real world. For the second time, why do you feel qualified to disagree with me when I explain what I meant by my own words? You are being absurd and it is almost certainly because I effectively refuted your prior assertions, so your overinflated ego has taken over control of your brain again.
Yes, innate as in biological rather than environmental in origin
That is not what the word innate means in the context that I used it, and I just gave you a dictionary definition to prove it.
Since you have ignored the first three arguments I made, why should I even read the rest of your post? You are not acknowledging when you are being disproved.
In other words, because people have had different ideas of what morality entails it doesn't objectively exist
No, that is only part of the reason why it does not exist objectively. Morality is an abstract concept without a universal definition, which puts it in the same category as God. If you want to convince me that there is in fact an objective morality or a God, then the burden of proof is on you to show it. The logical approach is not to assume it exists until proven otherwise.
People have also had different ideas of the shape of the earth, so is that subjective too?
No, this is just a false -- clever, but false -- analogy. People could objectively prove that the Earth had a shape. People cannot objectively prove that morality exists.
In fact people have had different ideas on everything under the sun
Now you are extending the false analogy into speculative rhetoric.
As such, if using your reasoning, everything is subjective.
Read my lips very carefully. This is not my reasoning. This is your false reasoning which you are attempting to pass off as my own. So far, this is the third straw man I have identified in which you have attempted to misrepresent my argument.
I would ask that you address what I've written on the objective conceptualization of morality, the debate is cited below (Source 1).
Maybe later.
When we find such high correlations, for example, between being a male childhood sexual abuse victim and being a child sexual abuser later in life (Source 2), do you believe this to merely be coincidence?
No, but this is a complete ricochet from the point you quoted. In the point you quoted I explained how it is culture which superimposes its interpretations of morality onto the individual. What you have written in response has no logical correlation that I can determine, and hence (in the absence of a great deal of time) I am going to assume it is a non-sequitur.
It is clear that most people develop behavioral issues as a result of dreadful pasts. As such, helping people get over their past traumas (and current maladaptive behaviors) is a positive thing and aside from the vast psychological benefits conferred to these people, it can also help people to not inflict such suffering on others.
But you are now spectacularly contradicting your original argument in which you claimed these people are "clearly evil". Now you appear to be saying their behaviour is the result of childhood trauma which has altered their interpretation of morality from that of the dominant ideology.
I believe I should be commended for getting this far down your narcissistic blatherings before finally switching off, but I'm afraid I'm done brother.
"But -- as I believe I thoroughly explained in the last post -- you misunderstood the point I was making. What makes you believe you are more qualified than I am to explicate the point I was making and/or what was "important" to it? We have again reached the stage where you are talking total fucking nonsense, Winston. When you said these people were "clearly evil" I interpreted that to mean there was no logical explanation for their behaviour outside of inherent characteristics. That is why I said, "innately evil"."
"No, I wasn't. I was stating that "evil" itself is innate, since it has no universal and objective definition in the real world. For the second time, why do you feel qualified to disagree with me when I explain what I meant by my own words? You are being absurd and it is almost certainly because I effectively refuted your prior assertions, so your overinflated ego has taken over control of your brain again."
"That is not what the word innate means in the context that I used it, and I just gave you a dictionary definition to prove it.
Since you have ignored the first three arguments I made, why should I even read the rest of your post? You are not acknowledging when you are being disproved."
Innate characteristics are biological characteristics. Even in taking the position that it is in human nature to be evil, this is a biological characteristic. Human nature, after all, is a result of human biology. What innate characteristics exist, relative to life, which are not biological in nature? You're the one who assumed I was stating their evilness was innate so It's interesting that you're trying to blame me for this detour.
"No, that is only part of the reason why it does not exist objectively. Morality is an abstract concept without a universal definition, which puts it in the same category as God. If you want to convince me that there is in fact an objective morality or a God, then the burden of proof is on you to show it. The logical approach is not to assume it exists until proven otherwise."
To give the fact people have interpreted morality differently as a reason it doesn't objectively exist doesn't make sense and I've demonstrated this. As aforementioned, I've objectively conceptualized morality in the debate I linked previously.
"No, this is just a false -- clever, but false -- analogy. People could objectively prove that the Earth had a shape. People cannot objectively prove that morality exists."
It actually is pertinent since you gave the reason that different people have had different opinions on morality as your argument for it's objective nonexistence. This analogy demonstrates that your argument doesn't logically follow at all. To be pedantic one can never conclusively prove anything, but as I've said many times before I've already objectively conceptualized morality in the linked debate.
"No, but this is a complete ricochet from the point you quoted. In the point you quoted I explained how it is culture which superimposes its interpretations of morality onto the individual. What you have written in response has no logical correlation that I can determine, and hence (in the absence of a great deal of time) I am going to assume it is a non-sequitur."
This shows how the behavioral issues that people have are usually caused by underlying traumas. Why would abuse victims be more likely to abuse if child-abuse was solely caused by their nature? When you stated:
"Clearly, the "people" have no moral problem with their actions or they would not have committed them in the first place"
This was something you simply assumed and so I felt no real need to address that part of the quote. People do things that they feel are immoral all the time, therefore the fact that someone commits an act doesn't mean they don't feel it's immoral. I like your style of trolling whereby you accuse others of fallacious reasoning (without elaboration) while appearing to solely implement fallacious reasoning yourself.
"But you are now spectacularly contradicting your original argument in which you claimed these people are "clearly evil". Now you appear to be saying their behaviour is the result of childhood trauma which has altered their interpretation of morality from that of the dominant ideology."
So even though in the previous post I explained that I wasn't talking about their evilness as innate but rather mostly acquired you still misrepresent me as holding the point of view I clearly stated I didn't hold? Well played good sir, well played.
"I believe I should be commended for getting this far down your narcissistic blatherings before finally switching off, but I'm afraid I'm done brother."
Obviously, because you cannot address the points raised.
If you're able to help then pretty much, yes. They would have survived if you acted in a certain manner but died because you acted in another manner. Therefore your actions caused their death.
I don't like the idea of punishing people because they didn't help though.
Negligence laws require a legal duty, a breach of this duty and causation of harm. I'd agree that there is a moral duty to act but there isn't a legal duty to act.
Except the debate is not about how someone should be punished: rather it is just about whether or not someone is directly responsible. If someone dropped a plate by accident, then there would be no reason to punish them since it was not malicious. However, they are still technically responsible for breaking the plate. Likewise, there may be a valid reason for inactivity, such as a fear of the drowning person sinking you, however you are still responsible even though you should'nt be punished.
Having a break for about 2 weeks (first time this past year or so I've had free time) so I'll be around for a little bit. Just finished reading your reply on our discussion about consciousness and significance and you made some good points that I agree with. There are also some Socratic questions I wanted to ask and things I disagree with but perhaps a year gap in a discussion is a bit much.
I remember only the gist of that conversation. Maybe a new thread with your questions and a link to the last thread.
Things haven’t changed much unfortunately. For your sake you are better off spending your free time elsewhere, but for my sake it’s good to see ya back.
I would slap my child hard and take away their phone and tv etc for three months if I noticed they didn't try to save a nearby drowning person. Damn fucking right I will punish, I don't raise no villain or pussy I'm a hero who breeds heroism.
Well why not test it for yourself by diving into your nearest pool at the deep end or for that matter the shallow end and see if you drown / or smash your head in ?
On a factual serious note you are with respect to morals and in some places and countries it is a criminal offense. If the person drowning is your enemy or someone you hate enjoy the show and stop others from helping heheh.
If you see the Democrat Party supporting No restriction abortions of viable babies, and say and do nothing to help save their lives, are you responsible? If you vote for these inhuman politicians, are you responsible?
Well... if you're not the reason that they're drowning then why would you be responsible for their death? I would not go help them because I am not a strong enough swimmer to go out, save someone who is struggling, and then return us both to safety. That does not make their death my fault
This is the correct answer! Your duty was only to stand and watch while the water killed him, no need to jump in and risk him taking you down with him!!!!!!!
No, but there should be a sufficient punishment for not performing the minimal effort of calling for help. An individual is usually not trained to render proper assistance for emergency situations.
Well if they're drowning in a very dangerous situation where if I jump in to help I will mostly likely endanger my life too, then I'd say it's less of my responsibility, but obviously I would still try to get a pole or something to help them
Technically, that is considered manslaughter. If You are fully capable and understand the seriousness of the problem, the drowning, then you are fully responsible for their death.
Coward excuse is very common excuse! It is easy for defense lawyer to say 'my client is a pussy, don't put them in jail or they gonna let others there drown too!'
not all times. i mean every one has a sense of self preservation and they cannot be held liable for thinking of their own but yea, it does border on the moral thin line that you could have done something but you didn't.
It depends on the person if I didn't know the person or if I knew he/she was a good person of course I would try to help, however if said person was a murderer or other criminal I would just observe karma kill them.
If I am not an acting force that transferred kinetic energy through their body to force them into the pool or other body of water, I am not responsible. It's called physics.
You're only responsible for yourself in life, not for anyone else.
Though if you can help then you should but if you just can't help, if you fear drowning yourself, can't swim or something like that then it's okay, it depends on why you didn't help.
But no, I don't think someone is responsible for someone else's death in such a case.
I am extremely impressed with your work retro games; the material provided is thorough and simple to comprehend. I'll be checking in on your next post on a frequent basis.
It depends on the situation. If the drowning person is in a pool and you can reach them will a rescue tool and not in any way risk your own life but instead you do nothing to help them then of course you're responsible if they drown.
If you're standing on a beach and a person equal to you or larger in size than you are is drowning then you have to assess the risk. If you're not a good swimmer it makes no sense to swim out to a drowning person who could pull you down with them. In that situation it actually makes more sense to wait for them to become unconscious and then if possible grab them from behind or by the hair and pull them to shore.
If you're a trained lifeguard then you know how to save a drowning person. Approach them from underwater and turn them away from you and then reach over their shoulder and carry them to shore on your hip or pull them by their hair.
If you're a member of a pack of punks who see a man drowning and instead of trying to do something to save him they ridicule him and laugh at him while he dies, you should go to prison.
I mean, kinda not really. Yes, if you were friends with that person and swimming with that person and he starts drowning and you swim away. No, if you were walking on the beach and see a person drowning and walk away, not really. You are definitely responsible if you were the lifeguard.
You are not responsible for his death, but you are morally obligated to help him in any way possible that does not put your own life on the line. It is not up to the person capable of saving the man to determine the value of his life.
I think I don't have responsibility. You might didn't know he would die at that time. Also if he died even if you saved him, you would also have to have responsibility for his death. You might feel sorry, but I don't think it's your fault.
If it is possible for you to help him and you chose not to, i would argue yes you are responsible, but if there isn't a way for you to help without being put in peril yourself, then no
If I can help but I don't, then I am responsible for it. For example, if I can't swim and nothing around me can help that person to survive, I cannot simply dive as I too will probably die.
It depends on the reasoning behind your refusal. If you refused to help to protect yourself, then no - you're not responsible. If you refuse because you want to be lazy, then yes - you are responsible.
I personally believe that if someone was taught growing up that they should always help others, and that person feels like its their moral obligation, and you do try to save that person then they wouldn't be responsible. If that is not the case and you are just watching someone drown, well then yes you should be responsible for the person death because, you knew you could of called for help or jumped in and save them but you didn't therefore you are responsible for his death. Not to mention if you pull out your phone and instead of calling 911 you video tape it, you should be responsible. I don't expect everyone to carry a rope on them, but you should at least throw something that floats. At least make a effort.
At the very least you should be singled out and held responsible at a major concert by your identifier....If.....that is, they really want to admit being an accessory after the fact to a possible murder charge as you insinuate...And that's a pretty big If...
Responsibility, however, would be subject of the individual(morally speaking), so why the fuck didn't YOU do anything about it? YOU saw it, YOU saw me do nothing, what about your responsiblity?
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
So are you a good man permitting evil?
Or are you an evil man permitting evil?
But once again we are drawn into the perspective of the individual (good, evil).
And we can round and round the mythical moral tree....
Or you could just stop pulling child-like, forked questions, clearly dependant on circumstance and context, out of your ass and come up with something original....
(Try: Stop drinking tiny wines and listening to Phil Collins)
Like you said, I have no clue who this guy is, he could be America's most wanted, i'm just signing my own death warrant cause even if I do save him, he'll just end up killing me in return, now what would be the point of risking my life for that!!
In my opinion, it depends on the circumstances. If you risk your own life to help this person, you might be considered a coward or whatever else. It's more of an issue of your personal bravery and willingness to help someone.
Or it could be that this is a really terrible person. If, say, Hitler or H.H. Holmes was the one drowning, I sure as Hades wouldn't be wanting to help them.
But the only way I'd say to be actually responsible for the death is to do it yourself, or if you could actually help them without risking a life yet you still refused.
No, I am not responsible for his death, suppose he was surrounded by sharks, and he is begging for help, even if I did try, it would be no use, his fate is already sealed, and if I try to be a hero, we would both end up dying.
He could have deserved it, we have bad guys who rummage the streets, this guys death would have been a good cause to the human race, we won't have idiots like him playing around in the ocean.
His own negligence to his stupidity brought him to his doom, if he was drowning because he couldn't swim, WHY did he jump in the water in the first place!! And if he was drowning because of other causes, he should know that the ocean is not a playground!!.
I'd say yes. If you were capable of saving someone that later dies and didn't, you share responsibility for their death.
I can't think of any situation where not helping someone should be a punishable offense though. It might say something about your character, but we don't put people on trial for not holding a popular set of beliefs... right?
Completely depends on context. If you are unable to swim or have a medical condition which means it's more likely that you will both drown if you try and help, then you could look at it as saving a life by refusing to help.
Not directly. Assuming that you could have helped in any way then that includes running or calling help. Now because they could live or die even if willing help came you didn’t kill them but the intent could considered be malicious. So you put their life at risk with malicious intent. Not murder but jail time for sure
I would have to say No because if you say that you are responsible, that means that you are responsible for any deaths in third-world countries if you don't give money to charities.
It depends upon the cause of leaving him drowning .If you yourself don't know swimming than in that case u are not responsible but,u have to call other people for help him.
In some way you are responsible for their death since you did not help them.it just shows us your true colors,a person is dying and you are refusing to help that is like putting a gun to his head and pulling the trigger and you will live with that guilt for the rest of your life.help the person no matter how much you hate them
In some way you are responsible for their death since you did not help them.it just shows us your true colors,a person is dying and you are refusing to help
So are you directly helping starving children in Africa or victims in war torn lands ?
that's not what I mean.what I am trying to say is that in some way you're responsible for their death since you could have been able to help but you chose not to WHY? because you are selfish and you don't care about anyone else but yourself
in some way you're responsible for their death since you could have been able to help but you chose not to WHY? because you are selfish and you don't care about anyone else but yourself
So my point still stands at the moment children are dying of starvation in Africa and are you not also responsible for their death ?
Its not your business keep walking if you dont look at them and keep going you wont be held accountable for anything and no you are not responsible for his death because u didnt cause it what if you could not save them if you cant swim that not helping anything
if Someone is drowning and you refuse to help, WHEN YOU HAVE THE TOTAL ABILITY TO WITHOUT ENDANGERING YOURSELF OR ANYONE ELSE, are you responsible. YES!!!! you 100% are.
outside the added part if you don't attempt to help then you are less than scum, but not responsible.
In my opinion, you refuse to help someone in need, so you are deemed responsible for his death. Take the three rules of Asimov for example, suppose that instead of applying these rules to robots so they can act more human-like, lets apply them to humans instead. In that case, you ignore another human that is in need that you could've helped without causing harm to another human which is not respecting one of the rules. So I think that we should ask ourselves this: I someone that refuses to help a drowning person a person that has the right to be called human? ...and if they aren't human, what are they?
yes, you would be responsible for his death. It could be considered a homicide since you purposely refused to help when you noticed somebody was struggling for his life. I mean imagine walking down a street and seeing somebody soaked in blood, barely breathing and just going on with your day. You are now responsible for his death, because it could have been avoided if you simply helped him out. For all I know you could have avoided him on purpose because you wanted him to die, thus making you a killer. Some of you might argue saying that there is a difference between wanting somebody to die and actually killing him, but the fact that his death might have been avoided if you helped him means that you technically killed him. He did not die due to natural causes, thus his fate was obstructed, hereby making you the bad guy.
The term 'refuse' emphasizes absolute declination to help someone on the verge of losing their life. There are multiple possible ways in helping and not just having direct contact with the person. In one way or another, one will be responsible for the death especially that it is out of their freewill that they chose to do so.
No, you are not responsible. Your own individual life is the greater value above anyone else's life. There is only one you.
Here is the condition which must be true to warrant saving a drowning life: You believe you have the ability to save a life at no risk to your own life. It could be you may not be successful, but all that matters is that you believe you can save them. The factors that sum up your belief, may be skills, experience, or outright super confidence and any combination of the three.
Again, the short answer is No. Your own individual life is the greater value.
I don't think they should be held legally accountable unless it is a child. But morally, you should help them. By not helping, you just put an end to someone's life.
yes, because you had a chance to save them, but you actively chose not to. so they died because you didn't help them. no matter your motivation, and even though you didn't physically kill them, that blood is still on your hands.
It actually depends, you might not exactly REFUSE to help, but simply may not recognize the symptoms of drowning. Or you might not be able to swim yourself.
On the other hand, if they are shouting for help and you do know they're drowning, but still do not help, you are partly responsible along with anyone else present.
when someone is drowning i agree that we need to help !!!!but,at the same time we need to see our safety measures and yes obviously we are not responsible for their death because we can save the person who is drowning till a extent ut everything has a limit when the situation goes wrong we cant help and that does not mean we wre not selfish or we ar not coming forward to help!!!!!!!
You are not responsible for the death of that person if rescuing the person puts yourself in danger. Although, if there was something you can do about it and you did not take that action, you may need to watch your back.
I don't think you're responsible for their death - the person who caused them to be in the drowning in the first place is responsible. The most you are responsible for is not saving them. You can still be called a bad person for not saving the life, but you aren't responsible for their death.
Talking about probability, you may go as far to help the person and still not save him. But at the end of the day responsible is having control over or care for someone, as part of one's job or role. And for this instance, the person had control over the fact that the person might drown or not. Therefore, he/she is responsible.
I believe not. You may be responsible for the fact that you do not save them, but if you had not seen them in the first place, they would have drowned, and that would not be your fault. I don't see how simply noticing that they are drowning makes a difference.
NO. Everyone should leave everyone alone, utmost. People should learn, at least, to be independent, even orphans. They should be helped at a minimal cost.
First, what choices did the drowning person make? Are they choosing to drown? Did they ignore the warnings and advice of others? If so, they are ultimately responsible.
If this is not the case, then if you refuse to help, it is very difficult to justify your refusal. If you can't swim, grab something they can hold onto or call for someone else to help. If you can, dive in and help.
In my opinion, you are responsible for his death if you are able to help him but don't. I don't believe in "Murderers should die" ALL human beings should not be subjected to drowning without someone trying to help.
I do not believe you could be responsible for someone's death if you refuse to help them. Morally speaking, you would be responsible for not doing anything to prevent their death and this would indeed be considered as your fault. Legally, no person is obligated to save another person unless they have a duty of care. If it was the case of a doctor not managing to save a patient from inevitable death, then there could be evidence to say that the doctor was truly responsible as he had a duty of care for the patient. In this situation, you do not have any responsibility to save that man from drowning, especially if it put you in danger.
Well... I guess you are only responsible if you DIDN'T TRY to help...you may not know swimming or you may be busy but you should try to help him.......even if he is a gangster and you let him die for good still you will be responsible for his death......
First of all, the safety of the environment needs to be judged. If the water is chemically contaminated with carcinogens, infested with predators or its temperature is dangerous, then attempting to save someone will carry a high risk of fatality to both which is logically and evolutionary unfavourable. However, if you had the ability to swim and stay afloat while dragging someone's weight, then you are responsible for being an egoistic and sadistic bystander. Essentially, one has to assess all the associated risks before jumping into action. There is no need to consciously list and evaluate the dangers because the body will instantly communicate this by manipulating the intensity of fear and will try to stop you if the risks are overwhelming. For example, without a second thought you will save a pram rolling down a street but the body will bar you from saving a child seconds from being hit by a moving vehicle.
When you try to help or save someone who is drowning then you might also put your life at risk.
When you help someone in such a trouble, you must do it thinking about your safety as well, because for you your own life must be the priority, unless you decide to be a legendary dead hero and die in the attempt.
If you find out that an attempt to save the drowning individual might take you with you to the depth of the waters, then just let him go and you return back home in peace, there was nothing you can do and you are free of any charge, even morally.You can even use your phone and make a video, and no one is going to reprimand you unless you use it for your own gain publishing on YouTube.
Right by your logic, everybody can say the same as you and then nobody would be left to debate you and you would die too. How could you turn against your own fellow humans and say your life is worth more than others? Exactly. You are a fool. Human lives matter. End of story. Your arguments are invalid. It doesn't matter if there are risks. There are risks everyday you idiot. It's also required by law to help another person out if you are a witness there.
In all seriousness, no. You're not responsible for the death of somebody you didn't save. other people's problems aren't your responsibility just because you've become aware of them. On the other hand, if you try to save him and end up screwing it up so bad that he drowns anyway, it could be argued that you are responsible for his death because there's no way of knowing that he would've died had you not intervened.
I think that if you dont help them you are a slacker and should be given the capital punishment and should face the wrath of trump and his mighty supremeness. He will ground you into DUST. You are a menace if you don't help the person and should be shot in leg immediately. You girlfriend/boyfriend should break up with you immediately due to your decision making equivalent to a second grader.
In this case, you are witnessing someone drowning....it could haunt you forever if you let the person, male or female to die.....Therefore just do what is right and help him or her out. Ask yourself if you were in that scenario and you were drowning, wouldn't you want people to help you? Exactly. It is required by law to help someone btw. It is called the "Good Samaritan Law". Therefore yes, the responsibility will fall unto your hands because YOU WITNESSED HIM OR HER DROWNING. The cops will also hold you in questioning because you would've been the only witness there. It goes back to the question: How would you feel if you were left out there to drown right? Yes. So don't let that person die.
Human lives matter and that's an absolute objective fact. Anyone who thinks it's right to leave people to die, you are monsters, hypocrites, snowflakes and fools.
No, how can you be? Technically the only life you are obligated to protect is your own. I'd argue that the best defense for not doing something is in fact your own safety. I wouldn't throw myself into deep waters to maybe save a life at the expense of my own. Would I do it for my child? Are we talking a son or daughter? LOL GOT'EM.
But no. In every sense negligence should not be a crime. I do enough not actively being the one drowning people. I shouldn't have to babysit those I happen to see in need as well.
No. But morally, if you have the ability to help them, you should. You may have moral culpability by your inaction, but no legal obligation to help out.
it depends? for example i dont know how to swim so i refuse too save them because i too will die. if you can swim and refuse too help i think that you arent exactly responsible for the death you just left them too die
I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know I dont know
I think that you shouldn't be required by law, or any other standard to save his life. Let me give you an example: Let's say I have an extremely rare blood type, but one day, somebody is dying and desperately needs a blood transfusion, and I'm the only one that can give it, but the process of extracting the blood is potentially deadly. Should I have to risk my life by law just so somebody else can live?
if you didn't then it would be morally wrong . what about you conscience ? could you live with your self knowing you basically murdered then , however i do agree with your point of view it is still wrong to do so
Let me start by stating the obvious, it IS required by law that you help someone who's life is at risk if you are in a position to do so. Also, blood transfusions are very different from drowning. Your blood transfusion scenario is highly unrealistic. Hospitals have a special area called the blood bank where the donated blood is kept. It is highly unlikely that they would extract more than a fraction of the blood from your body. Likewise, saving a drowning person when you are an experienced swimmer or by contacting an experienced swimmer does not pose a severe threat.
Yes. First of all, why would you refuse to help a drowning person? Imagine the level of evil it takes to just stand there and watch a person drown to death. If you cannot swim you can still contact someone e.g. Lifeguard, passers by, emergency services, etc. Secondly, it is negligent behavior. If you are in a position where you can help to save someone's life and you neglect such an opportunity resulting in death, legally you are responsible.
Yes, any person who votes for Democrats who support killing viable babies up to birth for any reason. is responsible for those deaths.
There is no danger to their own lives to refuse to vote for those who are inhuman, but there could be personal danger to a person trying to save a drowning person.
I believe a person should try to save someone drowing if at all possible, but it should not be the law to make him do so.
If a person supported the right for others to purposely drown innocent viable babies, as Democrats do viable babies, then we are talking responsibility for the inhumanity.
Exactly FromWithin. Exactly. Human life matters. The responsibility falls unto the individual who was there witnessing another person drowning because of solely being the witness. It is required by law to help him or her out.
Yes you are responsible for his death! This is because if he doesn't die from it and survives the drowning, you didn't do your job to watch him all the way!
Uhm, you saying that means you deserve to drown. If you fall of your bike and you fall in to the river, how could you then possibly deserve it. That's cruel
The question to me is like this. If you see someone being raped and cheer the rape along are you responsible for the rape? Of course you are, you sociopathic shithead.
Don't be a fucking pussy, don't be one these determinist science nerd sociopaths, take fucking responsibility for your free will and save a bitch.
don't be one these determinist science nerd sociopaths
You are quite literally one of the most nauseatingly stupid people I have ever met. You are so stupid that you associate science with sociopathy, in a way you are literally saying "knowledge is insanity and ignorance is compassion." Also only worthless little kids who will never amount to anything and the adults they grow into think that science is "for nerds". And lastly, it is indicative of nothing but pure weakness if you think accepting determinism means that you don't take action. You need an ideological crutch, that's all it is, you can't handle reality because you're a bitch and by your own admission you don't know shit because you are dismissive of science itself and think it's "nerdy"
no you just did nothing you have no responsibility so stop being so offended for no reason if you cheer on the rape you are a creep but still that is a horrible analogy so shut up
