allburningup

Close relationships are a basic human need. Like food. But, also, different from food!

For instance, if I was stranded on a desert island with a toddler, and I knew we would be rescued in 10 years but not before...

I would not enter into a close relationship with that toddler. Even though the toddler needs closeness to thrive and will be psychologically harmed or even die without it.

Some people can force themselves to be close with someone they feel no affinity for, but I can't, and I don't want to become capable of it. Despite the terrible consequences this would have in this contrived scenario, I don't feel this is a moral failing on my part. (I suppose I lean closer to virtue ethics than consequentialism in my morality? But not the traditional kinds of virtues.)

On the other hand, I would gladly exert great effort to find food for the toddler, and care for any of its other needs besides the need for closeness. And if I wouldn't do that, I feel that it *would* be a moral failing on my part.

I guess what I'm saying is that, morally speaking, there are certain things which we can never be obligated (completely or even partially obligated) to give, no matter how much anyone needs them; if we give them, it is by personal desire alone. Never obligation. Closeness is one of those.

-I think it's extremely likely that Bill Cosby raped multiple people.

-Of course, it's good that the justice system in my country doesn't officially consider people guilty until they are proven guilty (proof by a certain procedure, according to certain standards of evidence). However, judicial standards are for the courts, not for me and my personal opinion. I can have any opinion I want. For me, the evidence so far is enough to say it's extremely likely to be true, and to distrust him accordingly. As with anything else, my opinion can be changed. But for now my attitude is that, if I moved in the same circles as he does, I would avoid him and recommend that others do the same, because I believe he is a serial rapist.

-This has spurred a lot of people to have discussions about how rapists can be nice people, or that people are not just "heroes or villains", or doing evil things doesn't mean you're an evil monster, and such. I'm not sure what exactly the point is.
1. Are they emphasizing that you can't always tell that someone is dangerous, because they may also be capable of being charming and compassionate and generous and beneficial?
2. Are they saying that no one is 100% bad or 100% good?
3. Are they saying it's reasonable to continue to be friends with people who you believe have deliberately drugged and raped multiple women in the past and have shown inadequate evidence of having changed their attitudes toward such behavior?

If it's 1 or 2, then obviously yes. But 3? Hell no.

-I don't think that anyone is purely "bad" or "good". But I do think people can be "adequately good", meaning adequate for including in your social circle, and rapists do not qualify! Even if they saved a billion people's lives through heroic actions spanning over 50 years, and only raped 1 person 1 time. Those things don't "balance" each other out.

-But can't a person change? Even if they have done horrible things in the past, does that mean they would still do that if they once more had the opportunity?

Sure, people can change. Characters can improve, with lots of time and work. But most people don't put in that time and work, and even if they do, they aren't guaranteed success. To achieve that is a rare occurrence. It would take VERY strong evidence to convince me that someone had made adequate improvements once they had committed rape. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Sometimes, over the years, people no longer have the energy to still want to do the kinds of horrible things they once did. Or their circumstances change in some other way that makes them less motivated to do those things. But that doesn't mean their character has improved. It means they aren't dangerous in the same way, to the same people. But they can still be dangerous in other ways, although they may have to target even more vulnerable people in order to get power over them.

-The Cosby show was very good, sometimes great, sometimes brilliant. I will still watch it and enjoy it, though not right away.

-I do not actively want rapists or murderers to die. If I had the resources to help everyone who is in poverty and starving, I would not exclude rapists or murderers from the list, not even the most unrepentant ones.

Drug-induced fever following on the heels of a virus-induced fever. FML.

I had this dream that since House is going to be over, the writers decided to just go for it and have House sleep with Wilson FINALLY. In my dream I fully believed that this episode had aired and I had watched it. It was awesome.

Yeah, I'm not reading that.

Actually, I did try twice to read the first book, and it just didn't grab me at all. And this isn't the first time I've heard people describe the series as non-stop horribleness. Which really isn't my thing. I might watch the tv series, perhaps there'll be something there for me. I did sort of enjoy bits of Daenerys's story.

Gakked from goss:


An anime version of me!
Created with this Anime Face Generator. I had to tweak the colors a little bit myself.

I wish there was some way I could cast a young Tom Goodman-Hill as Bertie Wooster. Hugh Laurie did a lovely job in the role but he doesn't quite have the vibe I imagine for Bertie.

I don't hold with the notion of loving someone's flaws as much as their virtues. If I ever love someone's flaws it is due to cowardice on my part. It is my wanting them not to be too much better than me. No, I'd rather accept them as they are but still recognize they would be better off without those flaws. (Of course the whole issue is strongly dependent on what you consider a flaw.)

What... is this