Bad things ALWAYS happen to good people

[fraroc]

http://digitallife.today.com/_news/2011/09/21/7879728-teen-contributor-to-it-gets-better-project-takes-his-own-life?GT1=43001

This about sums it up. And Its not just in that area, but many good people had their lives ended too soon, like Lincoln,Ghandi, Princess Diana, Michael Jackson the list goes on and on.

[SimsLover50]

Unfortunately, bad things happen to everyone, although chances of you dying young if you are 'bad' are higher, especially if you are involved in illegal activity.

Who is good and bad depends on where you stand.. Ghandi in that list would be considered good, the others have their faults and I wouldn't consider especially good.

I am of course sorry that this young boy suffered bullying and teasing about his sexuality. That is sad.

[purexevil666]

Unfortunately, bad things happen to everyone.
Agreed IF you're bad person then you're getting paied for what you do :) Even if you're a good person though. Patient needed. :D

[simbalena]

Even if you were able to define "good" and "bad" there are very few events that are exclusively good or bad. And even the best person will have some negative traits.

Lincoln,

I have it on good authority that Lincoln sold poison milk to school children. :giggler:

[SimsLover50]

Lincoln's decisions caused a lot of deaths, both justified and not.Is he good? He was human, and a leader, and is credited with doing a lot of good for people- however that doesn't make him good.

[Robodl95]

I'd like to meet someone who's never experienced anything good/bad. Bad things happening to good people is just what we react to, we never hear about bad things happening to bad people.

[Mistermook]

I'd like to meet someone who won't eventually die. That would kick ass compared to whinging about who's doing the dying, because frankly that's all of us at one time or another.

[Mistermook]

Yes, we all eventually die. The cause of death is what matters. ;)
Well, not if you're just considering the end result.


...Until the zombie apocalypse at least. Go for the heads kids, it's the only sure way to keep mom and pop down.

[kiwi_tea]

Gandhi was a horrible person in lots of important ways, he was psychologically abusive and very negligent towards some members of his family, in part because he held religious beliefs so deeply hostile to sex - which some members of his family wanted to have... ...you know, with wives and stuff. His passive political philosophies also have only extremely limited application (http://www.george-orwell.org/Reflections_of_Ghandi/0.html), but that doesn't make him "all bad", of course. Nobody is altogether "good", few are altogether bad. Lincoln was fairly crazy in lots of ways too, especially contrasted against the likes of Adams or Jefferson, but then Jefferson owned slaves, didn't he? The whole premise of this seems beyond debate.

How do we quantify the number of "good" from the number of "bad" who suffer? People are good and bad in so many different ways.

[SimsLover50]

Excelllent post Kiwi_tea. I didn't know that. I appreciate the information.

[vhanster]

http://digitallife.today.com/_news/2011/09/21/7879728-teen-contributor-to-it-gets-better-project-takes-his-own-life?GT1=43001

This about sums it up. And Its not just in that area, but many good people had their lives ended too soon, like Lincoln,Ghandi, Princess Diana, Michael Jackson the list goes on and on.

All people, without exception, have both good and bad in them. Also, the standard of what is "good" and what is "bad" varies with different people; thus the claim that "Bad things ALWAYS happen to good people" could not be fully supported by any examples/cases you might provide

[qpldmff]

Princess Diana

What good did she ever do, besides being pretty and rich? Sorry, but I can't see how royalty or socialites should be included on that list.

[Robodl95]

What good did she ever do, besides being pretty and rich? Sorry, but I can't see how royalty or socialites should be included on that list.
Just because someone's pretty, rich, royalty or a socialite makes them a bad person? Diana did a lot of charity work with AIDS and stuff.

[SimsLover50]

I think for me- and this is not Diana speciifc, but in general for celebs the bar is higher. You have more money as a celeb to give to charities, you also get publicity too, and often it is expected of royalty and politicians, so its its sort of part of the job, like being first lady you do charity work. Also, they often have more time to do it, too.

That doesn't invalidate charity that they do. But for me a person who isn't royalty and has a 9-5 job and does charity work in his spare time, is more laudible than the first lady who does it because it is expected and part of the job.

[Robodl95]

I think for me- and this is not Diana speciifc, but in general for celebs the bar is higher. You have more money as a celeb to give to charities, you also get publicity too, and often it is expected of royalty and politicians, so its its sort of part of the job, like being first lady you do charity work. Also, they often have more time to do it, too.

That doesn't invalidate charity that they do. But for me a person who isn't royalty and has a 9-5 job and does charity work in his spare time, is more laudible than the first lady who does it because it is expected and part of the job.
Totally agree, but the "what good did she ever do" he said seems a little harsh. Even if it was expected she did help a lot of people. I can name a lot of celebrities who don't really help charities and when they do it's just for personal gain and several others who really seem to care for the cause.

[BurgundyStars]

Ghandi

Sorry, but Gandhi was a horrible racist and a complete hypocrite. He was so keen on getting freedom for India and he was so angry at how Indians were being treated in South Africa, but he was quite vocal about how Africans were supposedly inferior. He even discussed and wrote about his agreement on this position with the very same people he was fighting while in SA. That's in addition to the other issues someone mentioned about him earlier.

And I just never understood the notion of 'bad things always happen to good people'. Everyone has periods in their lives where things couldn't be more perfect, and then there are those moments where people feel like they've hit rock-bottom. It's just a natural part of life. It has nothing to do with how 'good' or 'bad' someone is.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

how do you even know who is "good" or "bad"? basing these judgments off of skewed media portrayals doesn't seem like such a grand idea. unless you knew the person, and knew them well, you simply do not know enough to make the call.
(some might say that even then, unless you know their thoughts, you still can't make that judgment accurately.)


well, that is, unless you're perfectly fine with inaccuracy and possibly spreading lies through innocence/ignorance. then, by all means.

[Mistermook]

well, that is, unless you're perfectly fine with inaccuracy and possibly spreading lies through innocence/ignorance. then, by all means.
Except, of course, that everyone does that all the time. How could you do anything BUT that when no one knows anyone or anything completely? You can't wait for perfect information, because perfect information doesn't exist. Most people don't even really know themselves.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

Except, of course, that everyone does that all the time. How could you do anything BUT that when no one knows anyone or anything completely? You can't wait for perfect information, because perfect information doesn't exist. Most people don't even really know themselves.

you can, it might just take a while. ;)

whether the information exists (actuality) and whether we know about it (reality) are two separate things, too, you know. im absolutely certain that perfect information exists, but perception and whether or not the people involved aim to record it as it actually is (and not as they want it to be) tend to be the decisive factors.

[Mistermook]

Nah. Perfect information requires perfect receivers of information and perfect analysis of information. Humans are awesome, but on the perfection scale we suck. Until we can discard the meat and revise our software to remove the Rube Goldberg emotional responses, or at least clear the clutter in that subroutine to allow for enough complexity that we always understand the minutia and nuances of the emotional perceptions we're burdened with, we're pretty much sucking at perfect information no matter how much information we accumulate.

Now, I truly think we'll figure it out if we don't implode into a bright star descending beforehand, but it took us thousands of years to do things like invent the wheel, fire, and language. We might rock this one yet, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

Nah. Perfect information requires perfect receivers of information and perfect analysis of information.

i disagree. was oxygen not oxygen until we discovered/named/perceived it? or did it still exist as it is, despite our obliviousness?
i dont think the people need to be perfect for the information to be perfect. if the information is perfect, it cannot be less, only interpreted as less, and im not talking about perfect people at all. or people in general, at all.

[Tempscire]

whether the information exists (actuality) and whether we know about it (reality) are two separate things, too, you know. im absolutely certain that perfect information exists, but perception and whether or not the people involved aim to record it as it actually is (and not as they want it to be) tend to be the decisive factors.
And then there's the school of thought that for something be actual information, it has to be interpreted and applied already. Information is processed data given context and proper application. There isn't perfect information out there, only data that can become information. Is something we are unaware exists still information?

Then there's the whole debate about what is information anyway.

/muddying (http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~buckland/thing.html) the waters :)

[Mistermook]

And then there's the school of thought that for something be actual information, it has to be interpreted and applied already. Information is processed data given context and proper application. There isn't perfect information out there, only data that can become information. Is something we are unaware exists still information?

Then there's the whole debate about what is information anyway.

/muddying (http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~buckland/thing.html) the waters :)
Right, it's not that what's out there doesn't exist before we know about it, it's that to know about it we have to know about it, and we're pretty bright but we're quite flawed too. We're the product of our meat and biases - it's not quite "there are things impossible to know" but it's quite thoroughly "what we know is fundamentally colored by who know knows it and how we know it."

What is the color red? We can define it, of course, but even our definitions are the products of our senses. If we met anything with different fundamental presumptions, perhaps Kiwi's pigs who have been counseling him on morals and empathy, then whatever language we'd find in common would still have to grapple and apply the issue of how other presupposed groups of biases process information.

The problem exists even within humans. Kiwi hears his pigs telling him stuff, I see an animal squealing and won't ever. So his perception demands I've committed a bacon Holocaust, my perception sees breakfast. There's a fundamental divide of assumptions, a break in perceptions. This is why social contracts are important, because they, along with language, force us to accept definitions across a wide range of perceptions. I don't know if you see red the same way I do, but I'm fairly certain we likely agree what IS red.

Morality is in a similar situation for the same reasons, and yeah it screws with people who want there to be objective truths and facts. There are objective facts, but no objective observers. There might be objective truths as well, but as far as I can tell there's no evidence for such and certainly no objective enforcement of truth or morality, making either fairly irrelevant.

So we circle around each other in universes of ourselves, never quite certain if we speak the same language and mean the same things. Maybe that's possible someday, but I'm not sure I'd prefer it, not sure it's advisable.

http://mediationchannel.com/2009/12/14/what-colors-a-banana-perception-bias-and-identity/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
and specific to this discussion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_phenomenon

[BlakeS5678]

And, this started with a horrible suicide and ended with people uselessly rambling about what "information" is. My god do we get off topic.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

And, this started with a horrible suicide and ended with people uselessly rambling about what "information" is. My god do we get off topic.

depends on your definition of "useless" is.

so, what have you to add to the actual topic?

[Elyasis]

Over exaggerating much?

Define "bad things" "good people" and "always". Topic seems kind of vague. No wonder it went off tangent a bit.

As for the suicide it didn't just happen to him. He took his own life. I'd say the primary responsibility for that falls on the person who committed the act. Himself.

It's a moot point now. He certainly can't do life in prison for it.

[Lavaster]

People like Castro, I count as bad. He's still alive, right? Meanwhile good people get bad things. Or at school, the people who break the rules get away with it and yet the good kids who do one slip-up get in trouble for it.

[SimsLover50]

its really a crap shoot, and yeah bad people do evil things and sometimes succeed. Kim Jong Il anyone? but there are a lot more really normal people that lead mostly good lives to balance out the kim jong ill types,

It really is no surprise that good kids who aren't rulebreakers don't get caught. They aren't experienced at avoiding detection. I don't think it really means they are targed.

[Oaktree]

I think that people are less likely to notice when good things happen to good people and bad things to bad people. Those are the situations that we expect, so it isn't as memorable when it happens. Our brains are much better at storing information about unexpected events.

[BlakeS5678]

depends on your definition of "useless" is.

so, what have you to add to the actual topic?

My idea of useless, (Since you did ask.) Is something that really doesn't make an effect or difference. So, go ahead and call me useless as you will. I don't care.

To your second question, (again you asked.) What I think I contributed, was my thought on how conversation shifted. And, making an opinion at the art of how chain reactions work. And, merely stating my opinion on how the first posing question was completely different then what the ending thought was. So, maybe I shouldn't have said useless but, irrelevant.

Happy? I could have said nothing to keep this thread "on topic." But, you did ask.

[simsample]

Please keep this on topic; any personal insults will be deleted.

[Yammas91]

Well leading back to the point you dont really know if he was actually a good person, just because he did one good thing, for all you know he couldve started off being a bully, then when he found out he was gay the other bullies plus his victims turned on him and he couldnt handle it ....

Just sayin.

[Shelbey]

Yes, we all eventually die. The cause of death is what matters. ;)

Some people die by lightning.
Some people die by starvation.
Some people die by a broken heart.
Some people die by heart disease.
Some people die by malignant cancer.
Some people die by homicide.
Some people die by suicide caused by homophobic taunts and insults on the Internet, as shown in the OP's example. :)

Is homophobia right or wrong? You make the decision.




It isn't a question of it being right or wrong. That's like asking if arachnophobia is right or wrong. Yes, it's bad to HATE someone and be cruel to them for their sexuality. But fearing them? That's like fearing a spider for being a spider. It can't help that it's a spider. If you don't agree with homosexuality, then that's your opinion. If you don't agree with a spider being a spider, then that's still your opinion, which you have a right to. lol

[Oaktree]

It isn't a question of it being right or wrong. That's like asking if arachnophobia is right or wrong. Yes, it's bad to HATE someone and be cruel to them for their sexuality. But fearing them? That's like fearing a spider for being a spider. It can't help that it's a spider. If you don't agree with homosexuality, then that's your opinion. If you don't agree with a spider being a spider, then that's still your opinion, which you have a right to. lol

Homophobia is not a phobia recognized by the DSM (the book that lists recognized psychological disorders). This is because it is a very broadly used term that often refers to those who hate gay people, not just those who fear them. There may be some people out there who genuinely fear them, but the vast majority of cases where someone is referred to as 'homophobic', it is because that person hates them.

[Dordracio]

Miceal jackson's saying: "whos bad? Im bad!"

Put MJ and a little boy in the same room and lock the doors. And check on them in 30 mins

[malfunction]

My grandparent's once told me of a bloodthirsty leader, who took hundreds of lives with his bare hands (this means strangling, beating to death, etc) but did it for the independence of his country.

These were lives of men who shared the same beliefs, same heritage, same ideals but wore the opposing banner of another country. This same man would later save many lives moments after his final skirmish, telling those who trusted him, even those he imprisoned, to flee.

Not long after, the Red Army seized and condemned all involved with the Black Guard (or Army.) This man's name was Nestor Makhno, and my grandmother would not have lived past that day if not for his orders and assistance of his forces. Meaning I would not exist today to tell his story.

Human beings cannot be defined as simply "bad" or "good" nor can they be limited by such notions. Every story should be told, even if it isn't understood at first.

[SapphireSparx]

The belief in Karma is really off sometimes. I have friends who believe that good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people. Unfortunately, in my mind it's always the other way around.

[KKiryu007Joker]

Bad things happen to all people.