"Some people aren't worth sympathizing / caring for."

[JGirl]

"Some people aren't worth sympathizing / caring for."

for some reason...

Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not?

no i don't agree with the statement.
everyone is worth it whether you or i think so or not. it comes down to are you willing to spend the time?
inside job.

 

[Sloe Djinn]

'
There's a difference between the people who don't think that unwed mothers should get welfare (that's just cold/ignorant/selfish) and the people who think that serial child molesting murderers should be given the death penalty (that's a little more reasonable).

[strike]Are you sure about that apparent distinction between those two groups? I'm pretty confident that you'll find people who ascribe to both views in a number of places throughout the world. Um, also, star trek was a movie.

edit: Ok, to elaborate on my criticism, I just think that's a pretty ham-handed solution to a complicated question. For instance, an assumption that I see in your criteria is that those who are not worth showing compassion to are completely one-dimensional in character. For example, the best thing that a serial child-molester is capable of is being a bagging person at a grocery store. To throw a monkey-wrench into that, what if that person happened to be a famous politician who ended a war, or if they happened to be instrumental in developing a successful cure for cancer. It's not unheard of for those who are regarded highly in public to be hiding something that would show them to be equally monstrous.[/strike]

another edit: nvm. I'll just second what tinybubbles said below...

 

[Trifoilum]

I found it interesting that almost everyone here brought different details on replying.

 

[TinyBubbles]

Some people I don't care about. Does that mean they're not worth caring about? Nah..

 

[Apone]

Are you sure about that apparent distinction between those two groups? I'm pretty confident that you'll find people who ascribe to both views in a number of places throughout the world. Um, also, star trek was a movie.

I'm not sure what your point is here. Yes, people can subscribe to both views. They can also subscribe to only one of them, or neither. My point is that there's a difference between showing compassion for someone who is weak but good/apathetic/well-intentioned, and showing compassion for someone who wants only to destroy things. And yes, it was a movie-- movies can't make valid points?

edit: Ok, to elaborate on my criticism, I just think that's a pretty ham-handed solution to a complicated question. For instance, an assumption that I see in your criteria is that those who are not worth showing compassion to are completely one-dimensional in character. For example, the best thing that a serial child-molester is capable of is being a bagging person at a grocery store. To throw a monkey-wrench into that, what if that person happened to be a famous politician who ended a war, or if they happened to be instrumental in developing a successful cure for cancer. It's not unheard of for those who are regarded highly in public to be hiding something that would show them to be equally monstrous.

Like Hannibal Lecter?

I think that's something that you need to take into account before deciding whether or not it's worth the time and effort to show compassion to them. If someone is exceptional and keeping them alive will maximize the number of people who are helped (despite their evil), then their successes/talents could merit them a pass-- but it depends on how much 'bad' they have done and whether or not that outweighs the amount of 'good' they can do.

But supporting people who do a lot of bad/hurt a lot of people and only ever stand to become mediocre if you do care means that you have less time to care about people who actually deserve it, and you're basically just wasting your time. Even if this person improves A LOT, they're still only average-- except for the fact that they caused a lot of destruction before they became that way. I guess there's the personal satisfaction you get from saying you accomplished something, but you can also get that by supporting someone average to help them become exceptional. So what exactly have you gained by focusing on this problem person?

 

[Neuro]

"worth" as in the value of what personal gains you can get from it? If so, then yes, sometimes your personal egoistic gains from caring for a person aren't enough to make the caring "valuable" for you.

Maybe your emotional load outweighs your personal gain for caring for a certain person, then so be it. You can't love everyone and have your reasons for not doing so.

You're missing out on half of what I'm saying.

I'm not preaching for you to go out and tellytubbiehug the world, I'm just saying that from some point of view everyone has something of value to offer. It all depends on from which point of view you use, you have your reasons for caring for a certain number of people while someone else have their reason for caring for theirs.

 

[Apone]

You're missing out on half of what I'm saying.

I'm not preaching for you to go out and tellytubbiehug the world, I'm just saying that from some point of view everyone has something of value to offer. It all depends on from which point of view you use, you have your reasons for caring for a certain number of people while someone else have their reason for caring for theirs.

You said:

all persons deserves to be valued and respected.

As if it were an objective judgment, but it seems like you've changed your mind.

Obviously, if you're talking about subjectivity, then people are free to care about whoever they want in whatever way they want. If that's your argument, then yes, I missed the point-- I was hoping it was something else because I don't think that 'it's all subjective' is ever interesting.

 

[Billy]

A world we truly wish to live in' is a pretty vague goal-- do you really think that humanity has a single universal vision of their ideal world? Don't you think that if this were the case, and everyone agreed that caring for each other made everything better, then we would have already solved all of our 'problems'? You don't think it's possible that we'll never be truly happy with anything? Or that the only happiness/peace that people could ever achieve involves contenting ourselves with the world around us on an personal level?

You're over-thinking a very simple practical observation. If you want to live in a world that is like A, then you must begin to lead by example. I want to personally live in a world that's compassionate towards the needs of the people around them. I know that I cannot enforce that because not everyone is like me, but that does not absolve me of my responsibility to remain true to my intentions. I've come to grips decades ago with the prospect of fighting a losing battle and going out fighting than on my knees. So while it is unlikely that my decisions will change much of anything, at least I am doing something injecting my little bit of comfort into the world and hoping to do more, and hoping to inspire.

In the grand cosmic scheme of the universe, it's likely that we're all insignificant and so it really doesn't matter what we do or how we feel about anything... but on a human level, we DO have an interest in being cold/not showing compassion/caring to certain others... namely, the destructive influences. And by that I mean the people who intentionally, unapologetically commit hugely destructive acts only for their own pleasure.

I understand the reptilian need for violence, I understand that it is encoded directly into us. But that's something I feel that we can and will rise above. There is a cost to those ideals, its uncertainty and possibility of harm. But can we be real for a moment? We cannot ever stop all possibilities of harm or harmful behavior. There is no true deterrent to someone who wants to hurt people. They will find the means to do it. Adam Lanza had a spreadsheet 10 feet long with Data about killers he admired, Do you think he could have been stopped? DO you think a death penalty would have stopped him? He fully intended to die, how do you deal with that? We need to stop looking at band-aids and start looking at causes and how we can work around them. Again, I don't believe we should eek out a society based on vengeance and punishment. It doesn't do anything.Its logical to seek compassion because when compassion is given, compassion is MORE OFTEN received. We should design a system on that. Because as we all know, a certain % of people will be put into prison or the punishment system who are innocent. When its your turn you may just be glad we live where we live instead of living in a place where they torture inmates for pleasure and its legally justified.

If it were my head on the chopping block, then how deserving of sympathy I would be would probably depend on the reason I'm there. There's a difference between the people who don't think that unwed mothers should get welfare (that's just cold/ignorant/selfish) and the people who think that serial child molesting murderers should be given the death penalty (that's a little more reasonable).

I dont think its reasonable to compare the 2.. what about the guy in jail who is innocent but is on death row for anothers crimes? We cannot always guarantee that that wont happen, well... until we do, we shouldn't be putting people to death.

If we were living in a society where people were actually in demand, then I would probably advocate greater compassion but we don't actually NEED hugely destructive forces in our society and accommodating them/showing sympathy for them seems counterproductive.

I guess there's always the potential that they might 'see the light' one day, but at best they're going to be unexceptional... another waste of space in a world where space is disappearing rapidly.Why would we waste time and effort trying to get them to the point where maybe they can edge out a good person to become the bagboy at your local supermarket?

I like bag boys... I like coke heads, scumbags, losers, misfits, drug dealers, hookers, pimps, construction workers with alcoholism... these were the people who raised me. Their lives were hard and no one was helping. I understand why they are where they are, I understand that not everyone was gifted with the same dashing looks and deep memory or early headstart in life... and they are still worth more to me than all the Steve Jobs, Julius Caesars and Napoleons Because they cant help but to be what they are. I like people who come from the shit heap in life, because they understand that life is hard and hurtful, they don't hide in some false sense of superiority based on things that ultimately are utterly irrelevant. As a species all we have, literally is each other... that's it. All your achievements, strengths, passions, are all inherited to you. In the end of all things I guess it depends on who you love. Yourself, or the people who made you. I tend to care most about the people who made me, the hands that sculpted me from the clay of my youth. My successes, my triumphs in life, I do for them. I am nothing without the roots that fed me, a flower only blooms because of its roots endless efforts to supply it. Because of that, I feel all fellow travelers deserve my respect and dignity.

They'll be forgiven when they're forgotten. Death is extremely compassionate-- it treats everyone equally.

How very Conan of you.

 

[Nixie]

I still think there is a certain amount of inward thinking denial. While it is pretty to paint some fine distinctions about pitty pattying around the issue and get hung up on the whole "worth" argument and how "yes everybody is worth caring about but people can choose not to" stance, it still doesn't alter the fact in actual practice this doesn't really happen.

I still say we make the choice about who we care about and when we choose to do it. I do think the whole sympathy idea is a monkey wrench in the argument since they are related but different ideas. For instance, you see someone who is visibly upset, maybe walking through a store, they are a stranger to you. Now, you might have sympathy for the fact they are upset but more likely than not (cut the crap of, oh I would have spoken to her cause how often have you really done that) you will go on about your business, leaving the woman to her misery. In my opinion, you have chosen NOT to care. To care implys that you are actively involved in the situation, that you have made a choice to concern yourself in the life of someone else. It is an active process. Now, sympathy on the other hand, is a passive process, you feel for someone because you understand, on some level, the emotions they are experiencing.

 

[Sloe Djinn]

I'm not sure what your point is here. Yes, people can subscribe to both views. They can also subscribe to only one of them, or neither. My point is that there's a difference between showing compassion for someone who is weak but good/apathetic/well-intentioned, and showing compassion for someone who wants only to destroy things. And yes, it was a movie-- movies can't make valid points?



Like Hannibal Lecter?

I think that's something that you need to take into account before deciding whether or not it's worth the time and effort to show compassion to them. If someone is exceptional and keeping them alive will maximize the number of people who are helped (despite their evil), then their successes/talents could merit them a pass-- but it depends on how much 'bad' they have done and whether or not that outweighs the amount of 'good' they can do.

But supporting people who do a lot of bad/hurt a lot of people and only ever stand to become mediocre if you do care means that you have less time to care about people who actually deserve it, and you're basically just wasting your time. Even if this person improves A LOT, they're still only average-- except for the fact that they caused a lot of destruction before they became that way. I guess there's the personal satisfaction you get from saying you accomplished something, but you can also get that by supporting someone average to help them become exceptional. So what exactly have you gained by focusing on this problem person?

All I can say is that I don't subscribe to the idea that whatever "helps" the maximum number of people is "best". Nor do I subscribe to the idea that a person's worth can be gauged on a linear scale. Also, for me, showing compassion isn't about what I have to gain from doing it, and I'd agree with others who would try to set a living example of the world they would like to live in. You're judging a person's potential based upon a rap sheet? Who are you to decide that somebody will never amount to anything in the future because of what they've done in the past?

 

[Neuro]

it seems like you've changed your mind.

You just quoted my first, very destilled reply to the OP. It would've made more sense for you to quote the slightly more elaborated reply I gave to you in response of you questioning my statement.
You speak as if I'm being contradictive, which I'm not... maybe I'm not expressing myself clear enough, if so, I apologize for the confusion.

Obviously, if you're talking about subjectivity, then people are free to care about whoever they want in whatever way they want. If that's your argument, then yes, I missed the point-- I was hoping it was something else because I don't think that 'it's all subjective' is ever interesting.

I was not trying to give an exeptionally interesting reply because my interpretation of the OP's quote is it not being exceptionally interesting.
My objective view is that the answer itself is subjective, because the quote is talking about value, and what is valuable is someone's eyes might not be in somebody else's. Simple.
Though what WOULD have been interesing regarding this quote would be to hear people's different subjective views of the subject, which I am not able to express, only guess.

And hey, as a response to extreme examples... even serial killers receive love letters.

 

[Trifoilum]

I do agree with [MENTION=3096]HeartLess[/MENTION] that sympathy and care is two different things;
while I think they are closely related even though in practice one have done one without the other.


This is a very interesting talk happening; I hope it can stay civil


and to [MENTION=7325]Neuro[/MENTION]; true, this question is one about value. But that's all I will say. Is this objective? Subjective? Idealistic? imaginary? Who knows.
But it tells something.

 

[Apone]

You're over-thinking a very simple practical observation. If you want to live in a world that is like A, then you must begin to lead by example. I want to personally live in a world that's compassionate towards the needs of the people around them. I know that I cannot enforce that because not everyone is like me, but that does not absolve me of my responsibility to remain true to my intentions. I've come to grips decades ago with the prospect of fighting a losing battle and going out fighting than on my knees. So while it is unlikely that my decisions will change much of anything, at least I am doing something injecting my little bit of comfort into the world and hoping to do more, and hoping to inspire.

I don't think that anyone can say that people shouldn't respect that… but you might find some people don't find it as inspiring as you hope it to be, or that they don't see themselves as being like you… or maybe it's just not in them.

Adam Lanza had a spreadsheet 10 feet long with Data about killers he admired, Do you think he could have been stopped? DO you think a death penalty would have stopped him? He fully intended to die, how do you deal with that? We need to stop looking at band-aids and start looking at causes and how we can work around them.

I don't think it would have stopped him-- but dying has definitely prevented him from doing it again. And what if the cause is that he just felt like killing children? Plenty of people are socially isolated. Plenty of people have guns around. Plenty of people are autistic. Plenty of people spend all of their time online. Plenty of people watch violent movies, etc. Sometimes people do things simply because they think that it will give them pleasure.

I dont think its reasonable to compare the 2.. what about the guy in jail who is innocent but is on death row for anothers crimes? We cannot always guarantee that that wont happen, well... until we do, we shouldn't be putting people to death.

This is a problem with the legal system, not with how much society cares about or hates people who have been convicted of crimes. It depends on the nature of the crime as well as whether or not it's a complete certainty that they did it… I don't think they should be killing people where there isn't enough evidence/testimony to say that they definitely did it. But Anders Breivik or The Dark Knight shooter? Yes, definitely… there's not even any real need for a trial, to be honest. Death is often cruelest on the survivors, because they no longer have their loved ones around with them. But no one would be particularly upset if Anders Breivik dies.

I like bag boys... I like coke heads, scumbags, losers, misfits, drug dealers, hookers, pimps, construction workers with alcoholism... these were the people who raised me. Their lives were hard and no one was helping. I understand why they are where they are, I understand that not everyone was gifted with the same dashing looks and deep memory or early headstart in life... and they are still worth more to me than all the Steve Jobs, Julius Caesars and Napoleons Because they cant help but to be what they are. I like people who come from the shit heap in life, because they understand that life is hard and hurtful, they don't hide in some false sense of superiority based on things that ultimately are utterly irrelevant. As a species all we have, literally is each other... that's it. All your achievements, strengths, passions, are all inherited to you. In the end of all things I guess it depends on who you love. Yourself, or the people who made you. I tend to care most about the people who made me, the hands that sculpted me from the clay of my youth. My successes, my triumphs in life, I do for them. I am nothing without the roots that fed me, a flower only blooms because of its roots endless efforts to supply it. Because of that, I feel all fellow travelers deserve my respect and dignity.

I've never believed that poverty causes evil, and I don't really understand why you're mentioning poor people here at all, because of course plenty of poor people/drug users/alcoholics/blue collar people are definitely worth caring about. I do think that the poor are more vulnerable to the temptations of criminal life, but as you seem to already know, they tend to have a bigger support network in place as well because there's a sense of shared experience/hardship that binds them all together.

There's a difference between a criminal and a truly evil human being… just because two killings are both called murders, it doesn't mean that one isn't easier to identify with or understand than the other.

How very Conan of you.

And if you do not listen, then to HELL with you!