Temple Renovation (Yesterday)

The forum will be undergoing renovations. You may temporarily lose access to a portion of the forum, but not to worry, those will be restored. More information to come

The Value of An Individual

09 Aug 2019 21:57 #341126 by rugadd
Replied by rugadd on topic The Value of An Individual
I suppose my question is, by what criteria is it acceptable to condemn the person?

The following user(s) said Thank You: Phoenix Vidensia

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

09 Aug 2019 22:05 #341127 by JamesSand

I’ve noticed a disturbing trend. I’ve noticed that no matter the value of a person’s contributions or previous virtue in society, all this is erased the moment a person is suspected or confirmed as one of today’s taboo things to be. Ie: homophobic, misogynist, transphobic, racist.

Nine things you didn't know about coffee cups! (Number Seven will surprise you!)

Oh, what I'm saying is that your intro sounds like the heading to every huffpost article ever, and correct me if I'm way off, but this feels like continuation-bleating along with two or three other current-threads here at TotJO, which as a "trend" is part of the TotJOs inane cycle of grinding a conversation into pieces over a week (maybe two) and then they all sink to the bottom of the internet never to be seen again, and no one is really any better off for it.

My more or less needless vitriolic commentary aside, this is (I think?) an issue I agree with you on, or possibly, you agree with me, depending on how you look at "ownership" of ideas.

ANYWAY, curing cancer is a bit airy-fairy as a concept of the "best thing a person could do", and "having -ist ideas" is also a bit lame as "the worst thing a person can have"

Maybe we can consider lesser-goods, and more clear "bads", possibly even refer to life for an example - possibly even some of the data points in your trend..(but we'll make it hypothetical, so we don't get mired in the fog of facts and beliefs that may exist in the real world)

Let's say an entertainer, lets call him Spevin Kasey, has entertained millions for years, and been granted all sorts of awards (entertainment specific awards, with criteria like "Is entertaining", "contributes to entertainment" and suchlike)
And then, after a period of time, it is discovered or determined, one way or another, that he sexually assaulted an underage person.

Now, in the fictional case of Spevin Kasey, let's say the facts as given above are true and correct.

It would seem, under whatever jurisdiction, that Spevin would have to face penalties for the crime that did occur - but does that also mean he should be stripped of awards and accolades for other achievements, none of which included criteria of "Don't touch kids" ?

(I am aware that organisations may put caveats in their titles, like "in good standing" or "of good repute" and stuff, so that it is embedded in the award that the receiver is also a pillar of the community in other ways, but again, for the purposes of clarifying your position, lets say those are not criteria)

Just leaving a space, because I walked away for a bit, and this is a further watered down idea, more in the realms of our day-to-day decision making of how we deal with people in our spheres - how do you feel about competence vs being personable?

Lets say, hypothetically, the general manager of X Brand is...incredibly competent. They keep the place running, they ensure good business relationships with all suppliers, they make sure there is good insurance/healthcare for the staff, that rosters and hours are fair and lawful, that rest periods are adhered to by line managers, that everyone receives their allowance of sick days or compassionate leave days, they build the business so that everyone has secure employment and opportunity for advancement, everything you could want in a general manager - they are good at.

but they are also have no people skills. They don't talk to anyone who works under them, they never visit the staff, they're standoffish, possibly even rude, maybe you'd even be offended by them - perhaps they refer to the staff as "plebs" or "worker ants" who knows, for whatever reason, they are incredibly unlikable, to whatever extent it is allowable to be unlikable without it being a crime, maybe they smell bad, whatever - but they are efficient and effective.

Do you say "he's a bad person" ? or do you say "the manager is a bit eccentric, but i wouldn't have anyone else in the job" ?

Water it down more - Do you really care what the politics of your local barista is, as long as they make good coffee?

Now the least good vs a big bad - Would you drink coffee made by a child molester? or is the nature of their crime such that nothing else they ever do as a human is acceptable at any level?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: KobosBrick