I had an interesting discussion today. It started here:
It was an interesting debate. Unfortunately it did not end satisfactorily for either of us.
I may not have being clear. 140 characters is a horrible format for discussing something serious. I do not blame victims. I have taken Surrey police to task several times for their 'lock it or lose it' type campaigns. I do believe that is blaming the victim.
I don't think suggesting that the world can be a dangerous place too outrageous. Every day the facts bear this out.
Knowing the dangers exist, I don't think suggesting you take measures to improve your safety is too outrageous.
I don't think arguing one sex, age group, or any other demographic should not do whatever they can to keep themselves safe is too outrageous.
Anyway, that aside, and I can agree to differ without ill feelings, it got me thinking about right and wrong, good and bad, strong and weak.
Good and bad, like all extremes on a continuum are tricky things to argue with. It's the land of differential calculus which words are hopeless at dealing with. Good people can do bad things and bad people can do good things. For the sake of convenience let's take a concrete example and that doing violence to someone weaker than you is inherently bad. Can we all agree on that? It avoids any judgement and noble cause stuff that is subjective.
So we have a definition of bad. Let's say that good is not doing violence to those weaker than you.
No diktat or law will stop the strong preying on the weak. 'Twas ever thus. If threats of retribution worked we would all live in some kind of utopia where no one was nasty to anyone else. And perhaps religious belief of a vengeful god would have a use. Now here's the thing: How do good people stop bad people being bad?
Become stronger than the bad are and fight back? But now you have become bad by the definition I set out. Which you agreed with, didn't you?
Funny old world ain't it?