What type of person is harmful?

[justsaygnosis]

Let's skip the religious arguments and cut to the chase.
What makes a person harmful?
Is it OK for someone to hold other people as inferior or more contemptuous than themself so long as they don't act on it?
Do they have to keep their opinions silent?

Originally posted by justsaygnosis
Let's skip the religious arguments and cut to the chase.
What makes a person harmful?
Is it OK for someone to hold other people as inferior or more contemptuous than themself so long as they don't act on it?
Do they have to keep their opinions silent?


Fear is definitely one of the things that makes a person harmful, but only when that fear is acted upon.

I think individually a person can hold those beliefs and not be harmful, but when said person gets in groups with others thinking the same way (anti-atheist or anti-theist or anti-insert group here), that is when harm can occur on a more grand scale.

[justsaygnosis]

Originally posted by Whodini



Fear is definitely one of the things that makes a person harmful, but only when that fear is acted upon.

I completely agree with this.
Fear is a study in and of itself in that it manifests with so many faces, agarophobia, xenophobia, etc.!
If we're not properly trained in the difference between caution and fear the line of distinction that should seperate the two is either blurred or non-existent. The behavior that follows is logically going to be fear-based and lacking rationale.

[ScottDYelich]

a person who forces others to believe as they do.

I watched a great video with Bill Moyers talking to a guy (I forget his name, sorry :( ) who was a holocaust survivor, and the topic of the video was 'why do people hate'.

It was very eye opening.

[neutrino_cannon]

People are harmful when they are causing harm. Whatever makes them harmful is only what drives them, and gives them motivation to do "bad things". What makes them dangerous is the potential to do harm. Angry toothless people are not dangerous.

When you combine a sufficient amount of drive with a sufficient amount of capacity, then they're harmful.

[fishbob]

Arrogance

Greed

Fear

Anger

When these factors drive a person to act, that person becomes harmful. The 'act' does not have to be overt to lead to harmful results.

[Yahzi]

Stupidty + Power.

Remove either one of these, and people are generally not harmful.

Or hypocrisy + power.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Stupidty + Power.

Remove either one of these, and people are generally not harmful.

Or hypocrisy + power.

Mostly what I said. It's the power you have to look out for.

[Julia]

Similar to what Yahzi posted, I believe it takes a combination of
elements to make a person harmful.
Anger+ignorance, etc.

[demetra_ai]

I'd agree with all of the above stuff, mind if I add "lack of self-control" to the list? Seems to me that having negative thoughts, opinions, etc. isn't bad as long as you can keep them under wraps. It's when you can no longer hold yourself back that you become potentially harmful to yourself and others.

Why is having a negative thought harmful to others?


A person is not harmful until they hurt another in some form or another.
examples Bullies verbal and physical.

Also depends on the person you are talking to, one comment you class as nothing may cause harm to the other, you don't know how another person will react therefore could harm them unintentionally.

Human nature is volatile at the bet of times, the wrong word said in the heat of anger can cause more harm than a punch.


It all comes down to emotions, all of us can and do at some point inflict harm on others whether or not we mean to and that is not just the physical kind.

Every-time you agree with a loved one(example) you can cause them pain. It's when those who enjoy hurting others cross the moral line that are more of a problem.
Those whom on the outside appear respectable and are classed as a valid member of the community but hide their true nature are the ones to watch and catch.

[Tricky]

I respect Gary Larson's wishes to keep his cartoons off the internet, but ohh, they would be perfect here.

this cartoon (http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~insrisg/nature/nw95/farside01)

I love all of Gary Larson's cartoons, but if I were to have to choose which one I liked the most, it would have to be the one which has a rattlesnake waving its tail in the top left hand corner, a puffed-up puffer fish in the top right hand corner, a mad cat in the bottom left hand corner, and a man wearing a trench coat, with a boot on his head, a child's pool floaty around his middle and carrying a bazooka.

The caption reads:
"How Nature Says, 'Don't Touch' "

[justsaygnosis]

I'm not going to edit the thread from the start.
I really should have qualified it more.
I wasn't referring to the garden variety psychopath primarily. They're dangerous to be sure but they don't gather too many followers.
I'd add to the description of the 'fear driven' individual some extra characteristics, some borrowed from 'Hitler's Willing Executioners."
One would be the 'magical thinker' who embraces a crusade of genocide as a panacea accompanied by a high level of charisma capable of inspiring followers to tag along for the ride.

Originally posted by justsaygnosis
Let's skip the religious arguments and cut to the chase.
What makes a person harmful?
Is it OK for someone to hold other people as inferior or more contemptuous than themself so long as they don't act on it?
Do they have to keep their opinions silent?

You mean, people who believe Jews are inferior keeping silent while people who do act on their beliefs round up the Jews and incinerate them? Harmless like that?

You mean, people who believe blacks are inferior keeping silent while the Klan freely roams about lynching blacks? Harmless like that?

That kind of not acting on one's beliefs?

Originally posted by Yahzi
Stupidty + Power.

Remove either one of these, and people are generally not harmful.

Or hypocrisy + power.

Stupidity + Inaction.

Precisely because so many people do nothing to stop abuse, the abusers are emboldened to act without fear.

Having any kind of prejudice is harmful.

Originally posted by LukeT


Stupidity + Inaction.


Hmm? You'd rather the stupid people were active? :D

[justsaygnosis]

Originally posted by LukeT


You mean, people who believe Jews are inferior keeping silent while people who do act on their beliefs round up the Jews and incinerate them? Harmless like that?

You mean, people who believe blacks are inferior keeping silent while the Klan freely roams about lynching blacks? Harmless like that?

That kind of not acting on one's beliefs?


As i said in my last post I didn't start the thread well but I'm not going to edit it. I agree that silence and inaction while people are slaughtered is harmful.
There are devout and ardent pacifists who won't take up forceful resistance to these atrocities however rarely will such people unwillingly render assent via silence.

[Shroud of Akron]

Originally posted by LukeT


Stupidity + Inaction.

Precisely because so many people do nothing to stop abuse, the abusers are emboldened to act without fear.

Having any kind of prejudice is harmful. i would say the inaction makes one benign. if someone walks into oncoming traffic, and i let them do it, i caused no harm, i just didn't stop it. i can either stop you from continuing your action, or ignore it. if i ignore you, does that mean that i am causing it? by ignoring you, it does not make me a good person, but it certainly does not make me an accessory either.

i do not condone inaction, i just don't think it makes you guilty or harmful.

while prejudices are not a good thing to have, we all have them. acting out of fear of your prejudice is where you get into trouble.

Originally posted by Shroud of Akron
i would say the inaction makes one benign. if someone walks into oncoming traffic, and i let them do it, i caused no harm, i just didn't stop it. i can either stop you from continuing your action, or ignore it. if i ignore you, does that mean that i am causing it? by ignoring you, it does not make me a good person, but it certainly does not make me an accessory either.

i do not condone inaction, i just don't think it makes you guilty or harmful.



I think you would feel much differently if you were the person on the receiving end. There is no way that inaction makes one benign.

If you stood by while someone was being murdered in front of your eyes, you are an accessory. You would know it in your heart for the rest of your days.

[justsaygnosis]

Originally posted by LukeT




If you stood by while someone was being murdered in front of your eyes, you are an accessory. You would know it in your heart for the rest of your days.


Doesn't the capabilty of the onlooker have to be factored in as far as a conviction of accessory is concerned?
Perhaps the best one can do is stay alive rather than jump in and get killed also.
Better a live witness at a murder trial than a dead hero who can't testify.
I do understand your point though.
When one is capable of preventing an egregious injustice and refuses to do so it's going to require a prettty great explanation to justify the inaction.