British history channel vs Japanese history channel
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (21)
sorted by:
Well that was the original point I was responding to. If your child starts doing drugs, then you forfeit any "poor me" or claim to being a "good person" as a parent because you have failed horribly. While Susan's son was 19 and an adult, you also don't immediately go for the cocktail he had without a failed upbringing just recently before.
I didn't cut the tie, I was there with her until she died with only a pretty normal distance growing due to regular adulthood independence.
Except it is. That's the core of it no matter what. You can dress it up with dozens of factors and mitigations and be absolutely correct that they influenced and pushed one towards it, and should be worked on removing those as a society and on a personal level.
But at the end of the day, all of that culminates to a single moment where they lacked enough control to not do something. And in doing so, all those factors no longer matter going forward. Sin is sin, even if the whole world was pushing you to it and by indulging yourself in it you no longer have anyone to blame but yourself.
It was never about "ignore all factors to put all blame on the person." You can in fact do both. See how and why they fell into the pit, while also reminding them that they jumped into it on their own and are owed nothing but the derision that brings. Doing both is how we grow as a society. We see the multiplicative factors and work to minimize them, and not tempt people further into sin, while also condemning those who do as a staunch fear lesson that they will not be granted mercy in doing so.
Its not an "or" situation. Its like researching serial killers. You can equally discuss the environments and genetics that created them to prevent further creation, while also treating them as the boot scum they are.
Those factors are what leads to the lack of self control. They're the underlying issues that need to be fixed in order for the individual not to indulge in that destructive behavior. It's not always the case, some have just a stupid lapse in judgement, yes but in general it's a culmination of these factors.
We humans are a product of our genetics, upbringing, surroundings and life experience. Self control is a learned skill not something innate.
That's how I see it anyway.
And what is that going to achieve?
You don't tempt people into sin by helping people who've lost their way. You don't stop people from getting addicted by condemning the already condemned. Nobody looks up to a homeless junkies whose flesh is rotting away. Their very existence condemns them.
They do, but at the end of it all, the self-control is the final decision. Its where all those tragedies cease to evoke sympathy and you make the choice to be the harm-er instead of the harmed.
Getting molested or abused is a major factor in being a pedo, abuser, child hurter of some form. The same applies to them, whatever background they have is tragic but they still made the choice themselves at the end of the day.
By teaching someone that their actions are forgivable, you take away from the evil of said action by giving them hope that they can come back on the other end clean and absolved.
Every developing junkie thinks they will still be loved, or able to control it, or this or that. That's why they can be tempted to "try it." The consequences have been brushed aside with a lackadaisical attitude of unconditional positive regard and forgiveness that tempts people into that sin.
There are millions of people who've lost their way through no fault of their own more deserving of our time, sympathy, and help. Junkies of any form are not that and hardly deserve not to just be put down like the rabid dogs they are.
Equating drug addicts with child molesters or serial killers is a tad extreme, don't you think?
Yes, you have drug addicts who aren't just addicts but also are horrible people who commit heinous or even unforgivable acts. But to lump every addict together with those people is definitely uncalled for.
Being addicted is not evil. Being addicted is an affliction. Committing evil acts to fuel the addiction is evil but far from every addict is guilty of that. The addiction can be an explanation or at least help to explain these acts but they're never an excuse for it.
I will never absolve anyone of their sins because of 'mitigating' factors. Doesn't matter if its an addiction or anything else. No normal human being will come back from an addiction feeling 'clean' and 'absolved'. Your past actions will always haunt you for the rest of your life even if you manage to 'forgive' yourself for it. Only if you're a psychopath can you just go on living your life and not giving a shit about what you've done in the past.
What's your definition of junkie?
No, all of them are negatives upon society with no balancing positive side to them being so*. They may not be on the same level guaranteed, but they are still a danger to all by their existence.
That's without getting into how much cross over group A and B have. I'd wager a large percent of those molesters and killers and every other violent crime (and even many non-violent ones) are on some form of drug.
*A serial killer might be arguably having a positive effect if the killing is of the right people, but that's a very murky and dangerous position so let's ignore that rare possibility.
A self-inflicted one, that's what you keep missing. They've chosen to do this to themselves. They damaged their own life and usually the life of everyone around them by their own choices, and its in the pursuit of mostly hedonistic self-pleasure. That is evil in all ways.
That's without even getting into the societal problem, wherein someone has wasted all the time and resources put into raising them to be a productive and upstanding member of society, and is instead choosing to be a complete burden on it.
Anyone who does unneeded drugs. Personally, I'd even throw alcohol in with them but people aren't ready to hear that.