northpolarbear
Active Member
- Oct 3, 2015
- 260
- 14
Hypocrisy Isn’t an Excuse for Doing Something Wrong & “Would Have Been” Is Not a Should
1. There is a difference between relaxed morality (as in being mentally centered in morality while being relaxed about it) & immorality (being mentally centered outside of morality, right & wrong). 2. There is also a difference in degrees, amounts, types in wrongful things (like some things are too heavy while some things are light) such as internet piracy (costing the owners their future profits, which doesn’t change being wrongful; I am just covering all corners of information) vs real object stealing (like shoplifting). Aside from setting all these straight, 3. there is also the concept of “do as I say, not as I do”. Simply put, there is a difference between “doing a wrongful thing anyway (which doesn’t change being wrongful)” vs “should”, not to mention “would” for whatever it is itself or something else or some other case of the same action (or same type action). The “should” rightfulness stays firm. The would part isn’t up to your want.
The should part (legitimacy & rightfulness) is clear. The would part is also clear. Whether the victim also does something wrongful or not, he is not obligated to letting you do it; you are not entitled to doing such; the victim still doesn’t let you do it whether the victim does it or not. Also, when talking about stealing, we are talking about “both” the stealing part & the “lying” part (lying as if didn’t steal; not seeing a wrongful thing as it is when it is being done but covering it up). Most importantly, the victim “would not” & “don’t want” to let you do it. It doesn’t matter whether the victim also does it or not; he doesn’t want to let you do it when the victim becomes the victim. When the victim also does something like that (whether the stealing part or the lying as-if-didn’t part), that doesn’t make it rightful; he is just doing it anyway. Also, it is irrelevant to how the victim does not want to be victimized & does not want you to be allowed to those wrongful things to the victim. This is a simple matter of logic & reality. Even if the victim also does those wrongful acts to someone else, that someone else has a rightful hatred against such things. Also, when the victim is victimized by such wrongful acts, the victim has a rightful hatred against such regardless of whether he also does it or not; the victim doesn’t want to let you do such things anyway. This is a matter of logic & reality, a matter of obligation & entitlement. So, you are not allowed to do such wrongful things “neither” by should (rightfulness & legitimacy, what something has to be done) nor by would (what someone would let you do). On top of that, in terms of the trashes stealing, you are “both” stealing & covering up instead of seeing the things as they are & looking wrongful while being wrongful.
1. There is a difference between relaxed morality (as in being mentally centered in morality while being relaxed about it) & immorality (being mentally centered outside of morality, right & wrong). 2. There is also a difference in degrees, amounts, types in wrongful things (like some things are too heavy while some things are light) such as internet piracy (costing the owners their future profits, which doesn’t change being wrongful; I am just covering all corners of information) vs real object stealing (like shoplifting). Aside from setting all these straight, 3. there is also the concept of “do as I say, not as I do”. Simply put, there is a difference between “doing a wrongful thing anyway (which doesn’t change being wrongful)” vs “should”, not to mention “would” for whatever it is itself or something else or some other case of the same action (or same type action). The “should” rightfulness stays firm. The would part isn’t up to your want.
The should part (legitimacy & rightfulness) is clear. The would part is also clear. Whether the victim also does something wrongful or not, he is not obligated to letting you do it; you are not entitled to doing such; the victim still doesn’t let you do it whether the victim does it or not. Also, when talking about stealing, we are talking about “both” the stealing part & the “lying” part (lying as if didn’t steal; not seeing a wrongful thing as it is when it is being done but covering it up). Most importantly, the victim “would not” & “don’t want” to let you do it. It doesn’t matter whether the victim also does it or not; he doesn’t want to let you do it when the victim becomes the victim. When the victim also does something like that (whether the stealing part or the lying as-if-didn’t part), that doesn’t make it rightful; he is just doing it anyway. Also, it is irrelevant to how the victim does not want to be victimized & does not want you to be allowed to those wrongful things to the victim. This is a simple matter of logic & reality. Even if the victim also does those wrongful acts to someone else, that someone else has a rightful hatred against such things. Also, when the victim is victimized by such wrongful acts, the victim has a rightful hatred against such regardless of whether he also does it or not; the victim doesn’t want to let you do such things anyway. This is a matter of logic & reality, a matter of obligation & entitlement. So, you are not allowed to do such wrongful things “neither” by should (rightfulness & legitimacy, what something has to be done) nor by would (what someone would let you do). On top of that, in terms of the trashes stealing, you are “both” stealing & covering up instead of seeing the things as they are & looking wrongful while being wrongful.
