|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 10:09 am
What's with people blaming their actions on others? Like the kid who shot up his school: "Oh, it's all the other kids picking on me" or "It's all those violent video games that are so readily available". Or the child molester: "My daddy raped me!" or "I had a lousy upbringing". Or the rapist: "She had a miniskirt on! She was practically asking for it!"
What the hell is with these people? if you did something, it's your fault. Why bother even trying to pin the blame elsewhere?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 2:21 pm
Because people don't want to take responsibility for their own actions. And there's always that ever-present subconscious need to protect one's ego to think about.
Naturally, we don't want to be associated with negative actions. So whenever we do commit such a deed, we tend to try and reconcile natural impulses with identity; we don't want to be seen as "bad" or "evil" people, so to protect our integrity, we create a rationalization to escape the responsibility of accepting the blame ourselves. Thus, the blame is shifted from the culprit to the quite possibly unrelated circumstances surrounding the action in question.
And somehow, despite all the scapegoating and pushing the blame elsewhere, parents are still taking all the responsibility for the academic achievements of their children.
Yeah... we're all going to hell in a hand grenade.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 9:20 pm
Well, in part, it's true. It's one viewpoint on the truth, anyway.
External factors do cause actions. If someone does something that they know is wrong, they believe that extenuating circumstances made it necessary, and that there action thus wasn't really "wrong" in the given scenario. They do what they feel is right at the time. Even if five minutes later they're like HOLY s**t WHAT DID I JUST DO, at the time, it seems like the right thing to do, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.
People that do what they actually believe to be wrong don't exist, people just often have wierd, self-contradictary notions of what is right and what is wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 9:27 pm
AllieLeota Well, in part, it's true. It's one viewpoint on the truth, anyway. External factors do cause actions. If someone does something that they know is wrong, they believe that extenuating circumstances made it necessary, and that there action thus wasn't really "wrong" in the given scenario. They do what they feel is right at the time. Even if five minutes later they're like HOLY s**t WHAT DID I JUST DO, at the time, it seems like the right thing to do, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. People that do what they actually believe to be wrong don't exist, people just often have wierd, self-contradictary notions of what is right and what is wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 10:19 pm
writercxvii AllieLeota Well, in part, it's true. It's one viewpoint on the truth, anyway. External factors do cause actions. If someone does something that they know is wrong, they believe that extenuating circumstances made it necessary, and that there action thus wasn't really "wrong" in the given scenario. They do what they feel is right at the time. Even if five minutes later they're like HOLY s**t WHAT DID I JUST DO, at the time, it seems like the right thing to do, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. People that do what they actually believe to be wrong don't exist, people just often have wierd, self-contradictary notions of what is right and what is wrong. There's a difference between something being just against the rules and it being wrong. I mean morally wrong, as in unjustifiable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 10:24 pm
AllieLeota writercxvii AllieLeota Well, in part, it's true. It's one viewpoint on the truth, anyway. External factors do cause actions. If someone does something that they know is wrong, they believe that extenuating circumstances made it necessary, and that there action thus wasn't really "wrong" in the given scenario. They do what they feel is right at the time. Even if five minutes later they're like HOLY s**t WHAT DID I JUST DO, at the time, it seems like the right thing to do, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. People that do what they actually believe to be wrong don't exist, people just often have wierd, self-contradictary notions of what is right and what is wrong. There's a difference between something being just against the rules and it being wrong. I mean morally wrong, as in unjustifiable. Is that even possible, though? Morals are, out of sheer necessity, subjective and nontransferable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cougar Trollhammer Draven Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 9:23 am
Nidrith Kolkea AllieLeota writercxvii AllieLeota Well, in part, it's true. It's one viewpoint on the truth, anyway. External factors do cause actions. If someone does something that they know is wrong, they believe that extenuating circumstances made it necessary, and that there action thus wasn't really "wrong" in the given scenario. They do what they feel is right at the time. Even if five minutes later they're like HOLY s**t WHAT DID I JUST DO, at the time, it seems like the right thing to do, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. People that do what they actually believe to be wrong don't exist, people just often have wierd, self-contradictary notions of what is right and what is wrong. There's a difference between something being just against the rules and it being wrong. I mean morally wrong, as in unjustifiable. Is that even possible, though? Morals are, out of sheer necessity, subjective and nontransferable. Which is what I'm saying. From their own subjective view of morality, what they're doing is justifiable. If you're doing it from the thrill of breaking the rules, that's still a justification for your actions. I have trouble thinking of any situation where someone does something that they believe to be morally wrong without justifying it somehow to themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 2:04 pm
AllieLeota Nidrith Kolkea AllieLeota writercxvii AllieLeota Well, in part, it's true. It's one viewpoint on the truth, anyway. External factors do cause actions. If someone does something that they know is wrong, they believe that extenuating circumstances made it necessary, and that there action thus wasn't really "wrong" in the given scenario. They do what they feel is right at the time. Even if five minutes later they're like HOLY s**t WHAT DID I JUST DO, at the time, it seems like the right thing to do, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. People that do what they actually believe to be wrong don't exist, people just often have wierd, self-contradictary notions of what is right and what is wrong. There's a difference between something being just against the rules and it being wrong. I mean morally wrong, as in unjustifiable. Is that even possible, though? Morals are, out of sheer necessity, subjective and nontransferable. Which is what I'm saying. From their own subjective view of morality, what they're doing is justifiable. If you're doing it from the thrill of breaking the rules, that's still a justification for your actions. I have trouble thinking of any situation where someone does something that they believe to be morally wrong without justifying it somehow to themselves. I agree. I doubt such a situation can exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cougar Trollhammer Draven Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
