many people say dont blame him dont blame her, he/she is just a victim of their environment, and i agree with that, but i still think that a person can choose to be who he wants, with or without external circumstances, after all every human has a brain and has a mind.\nwhat do you think ?
124812
I agree with you.  I also find exceptions to every rule.  Some people truly become some emotionally tied down by their environment that they do not see the options available to them to change and even when they do, the damage has left so many scars that to remove the scar tissue would leave such an embicle that it would be like taking an adult and putting an infants brain into it and beginning from scratch.  It sounds good on paper, but in reality, there are those cases where environment gets the upper hand.  Very fortunately, there are a lot more cases where environment loses out to a stronger will to do something about the way it has been and make choices that alter the way a person has been living.  I know.  I did it.  I do it every day.  So here's to making the choices that change lives!
296426
Excuse?  No.  Everyone is responsible for their own behavior.\n\nIs that a motivation for behavior?  Yes.  While we are all responsible for our own behavior, we are also taught that in order to be good little  boys and girls we must do what those in authority tell us to do.  Milgram conducted a famous experiment back in the 60's, which found that most folks will go against their conscious when faced with an order from a "higher authority."  This is frightening.  \n\nWhat we need to do is to teach people to question authority.  However, when they do, they are labelled as "troublemakers" and "rebellious."
253550
From the day we are old enough to recognize patterns is the day we begin to be prejudice.  Through no fault of our own we consciously and unconsciously keep track of what to expect next based on our previous experiences...\n\nYou can't blame a person for being exposed to an environment or patterns that would cause them to be prejudice.  You can only hope to set an example strong enough to help sway their prejudice into enlightenment.\n\nPrejudice is natural, and happens 1000's of times per day.   The only time that the "Thought Police" have a problem with it, is when the prejudice hurts someones feelings... Thats when they throw up words like "ignorant" or "racist".\n\n- but thats just a way of trying to control you, instead of enlighten you.  The only true ignorance is to ignore your own instinct, logic, and experiences because someone else tells you to.
584875
I'm one of those certain people. While I may not agree with the act I will still offer love to the individual. They are growing and learning like everyone else. I was molested as a child. I do not hate the person that did it. I realized that what he did was about him. Not about me. I have grown as a person from the experience. You can't change people with anything but love. If you offer love to someone that feels so powerless that they have to commit such acts you offer them a freedom that hating them will never give. I would intervene if I saw someone doing something that would hurt another living being. Doesn't mean I can't do it in a loving way. I see all things as lessons for us to learn and grow from. I don't draw any lines. \nLove & Light\nSharon\nOne Planet = One People
666634
Hi,\n\nThis sentence - which, despite some answerer's comments, is very often said - is a very valuable sentence because it gives us a lot of insight into the believer's mind. It's my belief that somebody who grows up in a very insular 'fundamentalist' house often tends not to develop an independent sense of right-and-wrong. There must be exceptions, of course, but a lot of people refrain from killing, stealing, coveting and wearing mixed fabrics not because they've ever objectively considered the right-and-wrong of these actions but merely because 'God told them not to'. 'Hell' is the equivalent of 'wait till your father gets home' - but the difference is that the latter is only applicable for children who don't have a fully-formed concept of actions and repercussions.\n\nFor somebody whose definition of 'good behaviour' is based solely on what they read in a book, it's quite logical for them to presume that an atheist would not engage in good behaviour. The unfortunate implication is that, for these people, they would freely murder, rape, steal, pillage and wear mixed fabrics if it weren't for God's decree against those actions. Furthermore, they see murder as bad not because a person's life has been lost and his/her family torn asunder but merely because the perpetrator 'sinned' against God. Would you trust such a person with your child?\n\nLastly, what objective conclusion can you draw about the morality of a person who says 'A sin is a sin - lying and killing are equal in the eyes of God'? What conclusion can you draw about the morality of a deity who would believe that?
372526
I agree,\n\nA person's behaviour and actions are determined by:\n1- The way he has been brought up\n2- His genes which affects his/her personality\n3- The circumstances in which he has grown up\n4- His past experiences\n\nSo, where is free will?\nA theist may say that he should find the right way inspite of these factors. \nThen I say:\nWhy is he in such a disadvantageous situation than the ones who has been brought up decently, has good genes, has grown up in decent conditions etc... \nThe concepts "sin,heaven,hell,..." look irrational.\nThe self (personality) is just a pile of memories..
166210
Just to play the devil's advocate...doesn't it depend on the circumstances?  What if the abuser was 15 years old and it was a one time thing?  Are we really going to say that this person will always be attacted to children and never change?  Are we really going to just throw our hands up in the air and tell that person there is no hope and - as one person put it - he should be shot on the spot?  I think the people that cannot be rehabilitated are the most serious offenders, those are the ones to be concerned about.  My experience in psychology tells me that people can change.  Not everyone, of course, but some can.  It's ignorant to think that all sex offenders are exactly the same.
568041
I don't think that we "blame" anyone. Eve ate the fruit first and Adam later. They both sinned and that sin has been passed on to all the human race.No sence blaming anyone lets just learn how to rectify the situation through Jesus Christ.
140969
Common sense tells me that he could have done something to keep her alive but didn't. Yes, negligence appears to be a factor. His mental condition at the time would be his defense.
253870
We are born mostly dependent.  We move then towards more independence.  However there are no absolutes.  Each individual is unique.  So we will always be dependant upon others to some extent, as others will be dependant upon us.  On the other hand, we think for ourselves and are responsible for our own decisions and the consequences.\n\nAnother way to look at the picture is to say that we move from less responsibility towards more responsibility for our own lives.
601382
Anyone can choose to kill a poor helpless baby. That's ur choice. You can shun the responsibility like most people and say it was a mistake and i deserve the right to get rid of my mistake. Which is nothing but saying I dont want to take responsibility - i was only in for the pleasure.\n\nIt takes guts to give life and to go through all that you go through to bring a new life into this earth. I admire and respect that person
227003
I believe we, as humans, judge without knowing all the facts.  It may appear one way to us, but if we knew all the facts, we may see it another way.  I've had people judge me in a certain situation, but they didn't know what I had been through and they only saw the choice I made, not that I didn't have a choice.
236503
How is it you were able to write that qusetion without it being censored? You definately get points for that.\n\nAs for your question, I agree.  Unfortunately we can't control other people or make them be nice.  The only thing we can do is forgive them.  Forgiving someone doesn't make them any less wrong, and it doesn't mean we have to start liking the person, but it does set us free so that we don't have to walk around pi$$ed off all of the time.  So basically we have a choice.  We could forgive and be happy, or not forgive and let the bastards get us down.
565148
Exactly, we have become a nation of people who think everything is someone else's fault, especially if it gets us some money. Obviously not everyone falls into this category but far too many do. I think it started with the court system blaming "a bad childhood" for some 18 year old killing some poor dude minding his own business. People know what's right and wrong and they need to have guts enough to admit when they screw up. Okay off the soap box.
113489
yes it partially your fault\nyou enable him\nyou do not set boundries\nthis means he can manipulate you\nyou have no or low self esteem to put up with that\ngo out and get another guy\nand never look back with regrets\nif you are good as you think youare\nthere will be a guy who want you and can commit\nnot some child of a man who plays mental games
141044
I dont know it seems as though some people no matter who they are think of other people as something different.  No one seems to take the time anymore to think about how others live and I think thats what you are getting at?
129137
it's supposed to be ask A question, not two dozen of them, lol. are you a philosophy major? ;) (if not, you might consider it....)\n\npersonally i like to believe that people innately have a sense of right and wrong, that we naturally are inclined to assume the best in others rather than go around killing and maiming. not sure that's the case, though. is it our first instinct to step on a spider? or only after we've been stung or bitten or harmed?\n\npart of me thinks that being mean is taught by other people, so maybe these two would be child-like in their curiosity and interest and willingness to assume the best in one another. or, maybe they'd be so used to fending for themselves that the self-interest gene would kick into high gear. certainly they'd be leery of another person.\n\nif morality requires empathy, and empathy is the ability to imagine yourself in the situation of others, then before they meet they aren't immoral, exactly, but rather amoral -- there's no need to know right and wrong, since there are no other people to be affected by their actions. in fact, it's hard to imagine even having a concept of yourself until there's another person to see yourself as being distinct from.\n\nin reality human contact in the earliest weeks after birth seems to be essential for moral development. children with reactive attachment disorder (from neglect or abuse or lack of nurturing) as an infant are the ones who grow up to be sociopaths, with absolutely zero regard for other people.\n\nfun stuff!