Opinions on "Heroes"?

[padillah]

Originally posted by Tacc

No one is trying to defend people like Ted Bundy. Or Richard Ramirez

You have an impressive insight into the minds of the world's 6.5+ billion people

I'm sure there are those out there who find no problem with the actions of such people. I'm sure there are a lot of people who do not value life or whatnot.

Are you asserting there are sane, cogent, lucid people that have valid defenses for killing people and having sex with them?

Please, let me know who they are so I can continue this conversation with them.

You've essentially defined "right thinking" in such a way that it will always support your conclusion: If someone were to defend an "evil" person like Ted Bundy, then they wouldn't be right thinking, and thus "evil" magically remains an absolute concept.

This is exceedingly silly.

I haven't defined right-thinking. I wasn't even trying to define "evil". I am making assertions to the definition of "evil" as opposed to "bad". If there is anything other than name-calling you'd like to contribute, please feel free.

You can ask others here, I have no problem with debate, but to cause conflict simply for conflicts sake is worthless.

Again, if you have somnething to contribute please do so.

Tom P.

[Nubclear]

Are you asserting there are sane, cogent, lucid people that have valid defenses for killing people and having sex with them?

"Valid" in the sense that they are logically consistent.
Obviously I wouldn't agree with such a person, and I do define someone who radically strays from my moral system as being "insane" or whatnot, but for me to define them all as "insane" and then say that, because of their insanity, their position doesn't really exist (and therefore uphold the absolute truth of my position) is somewhat dishonest.

It'd be like me saying that, since all right-thinking people everywhere agree with me, you must not be a right-thinking person, and thus your position is not one of merit, and therefore I continue to hold onto the absolute truth in this subject.

I haven't defined right-thinking.

Okay. Could any "right thinking" person defend Ted Bundy? Are there any circumstances where what you have said could be false?
Or have you defined "right person" in part because they don't defend Ted Bundy (and thus, by definition, a right thinking person could not defend him- there is no circumstance, theoretical or otherwise, where a right thinking person defends him)?

I am making assertions to the definition of "evil" as opposed to "bad".

You are trying to demonstrate the existence of moral absolutism as encompassed by the term "evil" by saying that no "right thinking rational cogent lucid person" would ever defend X action, thus X action must be absolutely morally negative (whereas some people would defend Hitler, and thus Hitler is only *relatively* bad)

It really is not a stretch of the imagination to see someone adopt a moral philosophy where they consider themselves the only moral agent (since they can only be certain about their own moral existence) and thus their actions upon the "world" then become defined in how those actions affect the person themselves.
It really is not a stretch ot the imagination to see someone adopt a similar system where they consider others to "exist" but they simply consider their own pleasure to be valued above everything else.

Denouncing your opponents as contributing nothing is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. For someone apparently concerned about ad hominem attacks....

[GePap]

Back to the show:

I like Heroes. It is not a thought provoking show, nor is it great drama, but the show is entertaining, and most of the acting is decent, and that is more than enough to make it a good TV show.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by GePap
Back to the show:

I will not allow you to threadjack this discussion

[GePap]

Stop being so EVIL!

[padillah]

Originally posted by GePap
Back to the show:

In defferance to this I have moved the discussion of bad vs evil.

On with the Heros discussion.

Tom P.

[Jaguar]

I'm all caught up, and ready to watch tonight.

[Imran Siddiqui]

WOW...

Tonight's show was incredible!

This show kicks so much ass it hurts.

[OzzyKP]

damn straight.

[padillah]

Then I'm not waiting for my wife - I'll watch tonight.

Tom P.

[Jaguar]

Mr. Bennet's grip on things is loosening. I think he becomes less and less important as the series goes on.

Basically, his only advantage is information asymmetry. He used to know more than most of the other characters. That's rapidly changing. And a slight advantage in information probably doesn't do you all that much good when you're trying to deal with people who can fly and turn invisible and phase through solid objects.

[padillah]

But we still don't know who he works for or why they are tracking the people with powers.

From what the invisible guy said Mr. Bennet has been doing this for years. He may very well remain a key player for some time to come. I don't think he has just a little information.

He and his supiriors don't seem too responsible though. Who would do something like this to their own wife without several years of tests to prove nothing will go wrong?

Of course, who's to say it's the Hatian that's causing this?

Tom P.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

So, what's Daddy's evil quotient now?

[GePap]

Less than before.

I think this weeks' episode was much better than last weeks. And we got a lot more answers, and a lot more questions.

[Guynemer]

Could anyone enlighten me as to how it would have been scientifically possible for tonight's episode to have kicked more ass?