I'm sure in the coming days we will hear some of the most heinous ideology. Similar to the recent natural disasters stirring up the worst kind of hate, I expect agenda toting extremists to hoist their ignorant and hateful views in response to the shooting in Las Vegas.

Their vitriolic opinions remind me of the oft repeated tactic given to young missionaries. Catch people when they are in transition (read bad things happen). I heard time and time again that when bad things happen people are more prone to accept my message.

I always felt that it was unethical but my gut has steered me wrong in the past. I'm left today with a highly subjective opinion. If something good can come out of something bad there is some solace. Why not use a horrible tragedy to accomplish something good? With the obvious question being how can I know if the accomplishment really is good.

I have no problem at all with an individual 'judging' himself by a standard that individual created, i.e., made up. Of course this is because I am a ghawdless heathen.

Having reached this point regarding others, I have to grant myself the same privilege, that is, making up my own standards and judging other by my standard. (96% of other drivers fail to meet my standards and are therefore sonsabitches and should get out of my way. But I never tell them this to their faces...)

There is a basis for stating that everything that happens is a "natural event", be it weather or, in a case like this, a current event wrought by a human being. The desire, or need, to assign a value (positive or negative) to the event is also a natural event, but it has nothing to do with the event itself. The event can't be controlled (unless it was controlled,which was just another natural event!), only interpreted, which involves the human prefrontal cortex, which then means you picks yer poison and ya takes yer chances.

It really gets to be fun when you start hanging out with people whose prefrontal cortii (it's probably cortexes, but cortii sounds cooler) make the same or similiar responses.

If there does turn out to be a ghawd, I'm going to be in that long line where you get to ask, "What the hell was that all about?!?"

So basically what it took me ever so long to get to is, define 'ethical' and define 'bad situation' and then I'll still try to avoid giving you MY answer and just hopefully help you feel good about YOUR answer, or what the hell good is tribalism?

...actually, it's cortices :)

I'm with you on several points -- especially the ones about personal interpretations/morals, and about 96% of the drivers on the roads being sunsabitches.

How can acting in legitimate ways to improve the world be unethical at any time?

Doesn't the missionary that is trying to console the grieving family member by saying that families can be together forever believe themself to be legitimate?

I think the real question is who determines the legitimacy of an action? And wouldn't it be unethical to act without legitimacy?

The Peruvian soccer players who survived the crash of their aircraft in the Andes struggled with these issues and then ate the dead. The dead raised no objections.

No, it's not ok.

There are some ethical constants in the world. Like murder. And benefiting personally from the suffering of others.

Why not be kind? In the long run, you still have to live with yourself and I just think there is already too much meanness in the world.

And yet something like this could be the catalyst to real reform when it comes to our strange hodgepodge of gun laws. Wouldn't that be of value?

There is a wonderful evening of joy and frivolity when inquiring minds get together to discuss the issue of 'ethical constants."

There is a movie waiting to be made, a legal thriller, based on the opening scene, in which a Good Guy is confronted by a Bad Guy, who tells the Good Guy, "If you don't _______, I'll kill you and your family and your dog and your ..." You get the idea.

So the discussion between the two continue, with the Good Guy trying to find some way to accommodate the Bad Guy, but as we watch the film, we, along with Mr. Good Guy, become convinced that the Bay Guy will carry out his threat. It reaches to point of certainty when the Bad Guy announces, "I'm going to get my bazooka and I'm coming back to kill you; it should take me 20 minutes..." So the Good Guy (the cops are way farther away than 20 minutes) pulls out his pet Glock and kills the Bad Guy, who at that point is not armed.

The 'legal thriller' part of the movie then kicks in, when the defense uses the theory of 'self defense', extending it to cover this situation, wherein at the moment he shoots, the Good Guy is not in imminent danger, but will be in 20 minutes, with no real means to defend against a bazooka.


As for 'benefiting from the suffering of others', that's so universal as to be a constant. Ever gone into a pawn shop with something of great value and be given an insulting bailment offer? I spoke Thursday night with a young Latino who was charged $29,000 for a 2016 Nissan Versa, on the basis of he had no credit. Quite a benefit to the seller.

"Never let a good crisis go to waste"

This quote is most recently attributed to Rahm Emanuel although I have also seen it attributed to Winston Churchill.

There is something that seems sleazy and underhanded about taking advantage of suffering and chaos to advance your own agenda. But on the other hand, let's be honest here, people don't change and political revolutions don't happen without some sort of crisis to drive it. Sometimes it takes a crisis to break a political stalemate.

Strength in the Loins Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Never let a good crisis go to waste"
>
> ....
>
> There is something that seems sleazy and
> underhanded about taking advantage of suffering
> and chaos to advance your own agenda. But on the
> other hand, ...
>


I absolutely agree with you on the 'sleazy and underhanded' depiction. And I also agree with "But on the other hand..."

Because if you don't buy up all the Houston cars declared total losses because of water damage, and sell them as 'clean, one owners', someone else will.

Yeah, I know you and I wouldn't do that but there is no shortage of those who will do it, and are doing it.

Deity, as a Final Judge, is doing a piss poor job of putting 'The Fear' into the believers.