Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[JFrankA]

Probably the same reason that hire cars tend to get disrespected and abused by people (and not just Fiats!). You don't honestly think porn actresses take up the vocation to gain respect, do you?!

Yes. I respect quite a few of them. Why wouldn't they expect respect?

Have you met porn stars in person? When someone like Tera Patrick and others appear to meet fans, the fans are completely respectful to them. People ask for autographs, they are polite, they treat them with respect. They are treated like non-porn actresses.

Not by this rationale you don't:

So 5 out of 10 is neutral is it? I thought it was innocent until proven guilty. I make that 10 out of 10 and then downhill from there, according to the prosecution's evidence!

Then forgive me, I misunderstood your scale. I thought 5 was the neutral point. 10 representing "holding someone in the highest regard" and 1 representing "utter disregard as a human being." I chose 5 because it's in the middle and until they earn more respect, they deserve at least a basic amount.

So you "hold someone in the highest regard" until they earn your disapproval? Isn't that setting up someone to fail?

 

[JFrankA]

You're spot on. In other words, his thoughts. He was judged on his thoughts, which played out in his actions. What he thought sent him to the chair. Do you respect him, though?

No, but you are also mixing in items from my criteria I've listed before: harm to others, etc.

But then, your example is a smoke screen in my opinion. It has nothing to do with what I am asking.

Again,

I don't see the harm a female porn actress does, especially since male porn actors are causing the female to perform.

It seems strange to me that you can readily respect the actor playing the rapist, "lucky bastard", but cannot respect the actress playing the victim.

 

[Belz...]

Yes. I respect quite a few of them. Why wouldn't they expect respect?

Have you met porn stars in person? When someone like Tera Patrick and others appear to meet fans, the fans are completely respectful to them. People ask for autographs, they are polite, they treat them with respect. They are treated like non-porn actresses.

More to the point: porn actresses shouldn't be treated differently than non-porn ones. So in fact they treat them like porn actresses

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins
You can't judge people by their acts.

Of course you can. What else would you judge them about ? Certainly not their thoughts or their genes. So what's left ?

You can, but you shouldn't.

Suppose one day you make a horrible mistake. One that, while it was your fault, was unintended and circumstantial. Someone who never met you before sees you and draws the conclusion that you are a horrible person.

Would you find it fair that you're being judged only because of your acts?.

A person is more than their acts. A person is the sum of a whole. The acts are just one of many many aspects. To judge a whole person because of an act, or a series of acts is what's known as exercising amateur psychology. It's also known as stereotyping.
Additionally, some acts (like drinking urine in porn) are essentially harmless, and the only controversy they can arise is one of personal taste. So, once again, you can decide to judge someone because they drink urine and draw a whole series of conclusions about it. But you shouldn't. And you will most likely be wrong about many of your assumptions.


Also, you made one obvious mistake. You certainly can judge someone by their genes. In fact, this discussion has been had before when dealing with the issue of Homosexuality. Homosexuality has been proven to be genetical (in addition to being cultural). Here the word "judge" can be misunderstood as "criticizing", but you get the point. Sometimes a person's act is not enough. Take another example, such as Tourettes. Imagine you see someone going around cussing and cursing everyone. You immediately judge him/her by their acts and conclude "He's a jerk". But it turns out that if you had looked deep into his genes, you would have seen that he suffers from an impairment. You would have saved the step of unfairly judging someone by their acts by looking deeper into the core. So, yes. The genes can be a much better source of judgement than the acts themselves.

 

[applecorped]

Sum of a whole?

 

[Belz...]

You can, but you shouldn't.

Suppose one day you make a horrible mistake. One that, while it was your fault, was unintended and circumstantial. Someone who never met you before sees you and draws the conclusion that you are a horrible person.

Would you find it fair that you're being judged only because of your acts?.

Yes. However since "I" represents more than one action, I expect to be judged on the sum total.

A person is more than their acts.

Yes but I don't like judging people on something else so long as they don't act on it.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You can, but you shouldn't.

Suppose one day you make a horrible mistake. One that, while it was your fault, was unintended and circumstantial. Someone who never met you before sees you and draws the conclusion that you are a horrible person.

Would you find it fair that you're being judged only because of your acts?.

What acts are we talking about? There are clearly acts that will make me lose respect for a person, regardless of if they should or not. Say a person sees someone fall an injure themselves and then walk away from them, that would effect how I judged them.

A person is more than their acts. A person is the sum of a whole. The acts are just one of many many aspects. To judge a whole person because of an act, or a series of acts is what's known as exercising amateur psychology. It's also known as stereotyping.
Additionally, some acts (like drinking urine in porn) are really harmless, and the only controversy they can arise is one of personal taste. So, once again, you can decide to judge someone because they drink urine and draw a whole series of conclusions about it. But you shouldn't. And you will most likely be wrong about many of your assumptions.

Ah but now you are being more specific as to what acts you are judging people based on.

You seem to be arguing against judgeing people ever for anything, so that I should be willing to loan a stranger on the street money as readily as my girlfriend. After all why should I judge her as being more trustworthy than some random person on the street?

I just strikes me that SW has some kink that he thinks proper women should hate that really turns him on. So he denigrates those who do it even as he enjoys that they do it.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

What acts are we talking about? There are clearly acts that will make me lose respect for a person, regardless of if they should or not. Say a person sees someone fall an injure themselves and then walk away from them, that would effect how I judged them.

Yes, I addressed this before but forgot to include it again: When the issue involves hurting other people (or then again, ignoring other people's pain such as your example), things change drastically.

Ah but now you are being more specific as to what acts you are judging people based on.

You seem to be arguing against judgeing people ever for anything,

Nope. See above response and also read below

so that I should be willing to loan a stranger on the street money as readily as my girlfriend. After all why should I judge her as being more trustworthy than some random person on the street?

You are free to make that judgement, because there's something at stake and in this case it's your money. You could be wrong, but it's not like you're actually insulting the person (By yelling at him "thief!" in the middle of the street) or damaging his reputation (You're not pasting pictures of him with an accusation). Anyone who's smart will not risk losing their money.

Like I said, you can judge but you shouldn't. However, there are cases where, for the sake of common sense, you don't wanna risk being ripped off by a scam artist, so you judge in your favor and then if you were to find out you were wrong, it's not like you were disrespecting the person. You just didn't know if you could trust them. Big difference.

But this gets outside of the context of what I'm talking about, because we all judge. We do it all the time. We stereotype. What I'm arguing for is being able to admit that and not allowing that to make us form an erroneous, typecasted, prejudicial view of a person out of the blue. It's once we know and admit that we have this basic mechanism, that we can go beyond it.

I think losing respect is understandable once the person has disrespected you. Then, you are entitled to lose respect for them, because they lost yours (You could, however, choose to still respect them and that is up to the person).

To summarize: Respect is something that you earn. But on the other hand, people should be given an opportunity also not to lose your respect automatically just because you have a very rigid and biased preconception of how people should be.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Yes. However since "I" represents more than one action, I expect to be judged on the sum total.



Yes but I don't like judging people on something else so long as they don't act on it.

Well, you clearly have a very specific view of things and I do not share it. I think actions by themselves, no matter how many, aren't enough to form a fair judgement of people. I may one day find out that the honest, loving doctor who was loved by all his neighbors and who donated to charity every year, killed my cat because he has a hatred against cats. And then, once he hurt me, it doesn't matter how many good deeds he did in the past. He has completely lost my respect.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, I addressed this before but forgot to include it again: When the issue involves hurting other people (or then again, ignoring other people's pain such as your example), things change drastically.

What about with things like people who believe in antivax lies and the like should that effect how you respect others.

 

[JFrankA]

Yes, I addressed this before but forgot to include it again: When the issue involves hurting other people (or then again, ignoring other people's pain such as your example), things change drastically.




Nope. See above response and also read below




You are free to make that judgement, because there's something at stake and in this case it's your money. You could be wrong, but it's not like you're actually insulting the person (By yelling at him "thief!" in the middle of the street) or damaging his reputation (You're not pasting pictures of him with an accusation). Anyone who's smart will not risk losing their money.

Like I said, you can judge but you shouldn't. However, there are cases where, for the sake of common sense, you don't wanna risk being ripped off by a scam artist, so you judge in your favor and then if you were to find out you were wrong, it's not like you were disrespecting the person. You just didn't know if you could trust them. Big difference.

But this gets outside of the context of what I'm talking about, because we all judge. We do it all the time. We stereotype. What I'm arguing for is being able to admit that and not allowing that to make us form an erroneous, typecasted, prejudicial view of a person out of the blue. It's once we know and admit that we have this basic mechanism, that we can go beyond it.

I think losing respect is understandable once the person has disrespected you. Then, you are entitled to lose respect for them, because they lost yours (You could, however, choose to still respect them and that is up to the person).

To summarize: Respect is something that you earn. But on the other hand, people should be given an opportunity also not to lose your respect automatically just because you have a very rigid and biased preconception of how people should be.

Agreed.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

What about with things like people who believe in antivax lies and the like should that effect how you respect others.

It still depends on the individual. A person may say they don't believe in vaccines, but not be the kind of person that would go to the extents of not letting their children have vaccines. It could be a person who says "Go on, put yer damn vaccines. See if that does anything".

Try to understand the difference between the two kinds of judging: You judge everyone automatically.

The problem is when you start making assumptions.

So in the example just mentioned, this antivax person may actually even be lying! He may not be antivax at all. And here I am, already making mental pictures of him not letting people get vaccines and starting campaigns about them when no one of that is actually true.
Or he may be antivax, but what we may call a "weak antivax", who just talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk. Who, for the practical purposes, is no different from a non-antivax person, except that he claims he is.

So until you actually get to know a person, you can't make too many conjectures based on the prior information you have.

And again, we are derailing the thread because we're talking specifically about pornography, and you're dealing with an issue that tends to involve the health of other people.

You cannot infer much out of a person, unless you really get to know them. And this is really the point I'm trying to stress.

 

[Southwind17]

Yes. I respect quite a few of them. Why wouldn't they expect respect?

"Quite a few of them". And the rest - why don't you respect them?

Have you met porn stars in person?

Irrelevant - and this highlights your shallowness. If you'd digested what I've been writing you'd realize that a porn actress could be as sweet as molasses but that wouldn't alter my disrespect for her. Clearly, you're easily won over by superficiality. You never had the opportunity to meet Idi Amin in person by any chance, did you? By all accounts he was charming!

Then forgive me, I misunderstood your scale. I thought 5 was the neutral point. 10 representing "holding someone in the highest regard" and 1 representing "utter disregard as a human being." I chose 5 because it's in the middle and until they earn more respect, they deserve at least a basic amount.

No need - you've understood my scale perfectly - and you've confirmed that you hold a stranger only in moderate respect until you get to know them. Why is that JFrankA? Why is your default position not to hold them in high respect (I'm not suggesting 10, as that will only be ascribed to a minority of the people you know in any event), but why do you default to holding a significant degree of (dis)respect for people you simply don't know? Now who's unwittingly showing himself to be the dogmatist?

So you "hold someone in the highest regard" until they earn your disapproval? Isn't that setting up someone to fail?

To "fail"! "Earn disapproval"! For goodness sake JFrankA get down off your high horse will you and quit pretending you're St Paul.

I don't see the harm a female porn actress does, especially since male porn actors are causing the female to perform.

It seems strange to me that you can readily respect the actor playing the rapist, "lucky bastard", but cannot respect the actress playing the victim.

When did I specifically state that I "respect" porn actors? And when did "playing the rapist" come into this?

Suppose one day you make a horrible mistake. One that, while it was your fault, was unintended and circumstantial [emphasis added]. Someone who never met you before sees you and draws the conclusion that you are a horrible person.

Oh come on Ron - please try to think just outside the box will you. This was in response to one of your posts earlier:

But regardless, why do you draw a line under people's decisions/actions at the essentially "harmful" level, above which you have total disregard? I'm all for live and let live, but I honestly fail to see how respect for a person cannot be derived from their decisions and actions at all levels (as dictated by circumstances, of course) [emphasis added].

Would you find it fair that you're being judged only because of your acts?

"Behaviour" would be a much better word than "acts", in which case active behaviour - yes, pretty much; passive behaviour - no.

A person is more than their acts. A person is the sum of a whole. The acts are just one of many many aspects. To judge a whole person because of an act, or a series of acts is what's known as exercising amateur psychology. It's also known as stereotyping.

Ah ... now I can validly re-introduce Adolph Hitler and OBL. Please ... do carry on.

Additionally, some acts (like drinking urine in porn) are essentially harmless, and the only controversy they can arise is one of personal taste.

How do you like yours?!

So, once again, you can decide to judge someone because they drink urine and draw a whole series of conclusions about it. But you shouldn't. And you will most likely be wrong about many of your assumptions.

I couldn't be bothered to check, but I'd be interested to learn how many people you've judged on this very forum simply because they're Truthers, CTists, pro-homeopathists and the like. Please get down off your high horse too Ron.

Also, you made one obvious mistake. You certainly can judge someone by their genes. In fact, this discussion has been had before when dealing with the issue of Homosexuality. Homosexuality has been proven to be genetical (in addition to being cultural). Here the word "judge" can be misunderstood as "criticizing", but you get the point. Sometimes a person's act is not enough. Take another example, such as Tourettes. Imagine you see someone going around cussing and cursing everyone. You immediately judge him/her by their acts and conclude "He's a jerk". But it turns out that if you had looked deep into his genes, you would have seen that he suffers from an impairment. You would have saved the step of unfairly judging someone by their acts by looking deeper into the core. So, yes. The genes can be a much better source of judgement than the acts themselves.

Jeez - outside the box Ron - OUTSIDE THE BOX!

I think losing respect is understandable once the person has disrespected you. Then, you are entitled to lose respect for them, because they lost yours (You could, however, choose to still respect them and that is up to the person).

This sits way off the top of my "nonsense scale"!

To summarize: Respect is something that you earn.

Oh peleeaassse Ron. Who the hell do you think you are? Some stranger sits next to you at a ball game and they've got to "earn" your respect. If that's how you see things you can keep your precious respect to yourself thank you very much.

Well, you clearly have a very specific view of things and I do not share it. I think actions by themselves, no matter how many [emphasis added], aren't enough to form a fair judgement of people.

Adolph/OBL!

I may one day find out that the honest, loving doctor who was loved by all his neighbors and who donated to charity every year, killed my cat because he has a hatred against cats. And then, once he hurt me, it doesn't matter how many good deeds he did in the past. He has completely lost my respect. [emphasis added]

I think actions by themselves, no matter how many, aren't enough to form a fair judgement of people. [emphasis added]

Ron - I think you need some sleep!

 

[Belz...]

Well, you clearly have a very specific view of things and I do not share it. I think actions by themselves, no matter how many, aren't enough to form a fair judgement of people. I may one day find out that the honest, loving doctor who was loved by all his neighbors and who donated to charity every year, killed my cat because he has a hatred against cats. And then, once he hurt me, it doesn't matter how many good deeds he did in the past. He has completely lost my respect.

Killing a cat and hurting you in the process is an act.

Thoughtcrime doesn't exist in my books, for the same reason I don't judge people for their thoughts. If their actions hurt others, then they're bad. Otherwise they're ok.

 

[Belz...]

Irrelevant - and this highlights your shallowness. If you'd digested what I've been writing you'd realize that a porn actress could be as sweet as molasses but that wouldn't alter my disrespect for her. Clearly, you're easily won over by superficiality.

Wha ? HE is being superficial ? He's the one who argues from actually knowing people and you think you can judge the same people based on less complete knowledge ???

 

[ponderingturtle]

Killing a cat and hurting you in the process is an act.

Thoughtcrime doesn't exist in my books, for the same reason I don't judge people for their thoughts. If their actions hurt others, then they're bad. Otherwise they're ok.

The thing is that we are dealing with respect, and trust not law. If someone thought that Bill O'Reily presented well rationed logical arguments I would think less of them.

 

[Southwind17]

Wha ? HE is being superficial ? He's the one who argues from actually knowing people and you think you can judge the same people based on less complete knowledge ???

Absolutely, because our respective criteria for judging people are clearly different. JFranK's are based on the width of their smile; mine are based on their behaviour. Get it now?!

 

[sugarb]

What's different is what they do and what it represents. Let's just take a few steps back here to check whether it's worth continuing the debate.

Without getting all het up about evidence, data and what not, do you agree that most people, if asked, would say that they have more respect for, say, Eric Clapton or Jerry Seinfeld than [insert name of a famous porn star] (provided, of course, you explain who [famous porn star] is, where necessary)? Now, let's address this fundamental point first. If your answer's "no" (and I'm almost certain() that you know that my answer's "yes", then I honestly can't see us reconciling that, in which case I guess we'll be done and just go our separate ways.


That's understood and appreciated - thanks.

Good afternoon, Southwind17.

There was quite a bit to catch up on this afternoon! (Interesting conversation, folks). This particular post, though, got my attention, as I'm still trying to understand exactly why the focus seems to be on porn actresses doing particular things.

First let me say that I really don't have a problem with someone choosing to disrespect certain individuals, because we're all most certainly entitled to our own thoughts and such. But since it was brought up for discussion, I think that means that there is something you are wanting us to understand? Or asking us to make sense of? This post gives me a good opportunity to see how you are differentiating.

As of now this is entirely speculation, so I'd appreciate your input.

Jerry Seinfeld, Eric Clapton, and some porn actress.

MY answer as to who I'd respect most would be Eric Clapton, because I happen to love music and by golly we're a household of guitars and musicians, so of the three, Eric Clapton stirs a response in me.

Had you taken out Eric Clapton, and replaced him with an unfamiliar name, or say a basketball player, I'd have to say that my answer would be "eh, they're all just entertainers." And that really would be my answer.

On another forum that I sometimes visit (although a few of the conservatives have gone kind of nutso, so I haven't participated in some time), a fellow made a similar list, only instead of "respect" the question was about "trust". Who would you "trust" the most. You can guess the choices, most likely. Rush Limbaugh, Bill Clinton, and some hard core democrat that wrote popular opinion columns (the name escapes me now, sorry). On a board of conservatives, you might suspect that Rush Limbaugh would be the answer...but actually, the winner of that poll was Bill Clinton, because...you guessed it! He wasn't "just an entertainer".

Now, Eric Clapton is revered for his talents, but if he didn't market and sell them, we'd have never heard of him. Jerry Seinfeld, sort of funny guy I guess, although certainly not unique...but again, he marketed and sold himself, or else we'd have never heard of him. "Some porn star"...I note that you have a problem with people whose names you aren't even aware of?...is simply marketing and selling her own brand of "talent" if you will (and yeah, I'm sorry, I think that certainly some people are more talented sexually than others...sue me, but that's how I feel.)

So, as a consumer, of entertainment and talent of some kind, me personally? Clapton. But...different people are entertained by different things.

As to "most people" and what they would answer, well of course they aren't going to answer a porn star! They'd be crucified by people who think it is okay to sit around and watch people romp around on the big screen having sex, but wrong to sit around and watch it if an x is involved. I don't like to say "duh" too much, but duh. You know? They'd probably answer whichever name they were more familiar with. If you frame the question with a particular porn actress, and people are familiar with her, she'd get a hell of a lot more votes, probably, than "some porn actress".

But anyway...in the list you offered, I think I see another issue. Recalling the "parading around" aspect of this conversation, and seeing that list, I realized that perhaps what you are talking about is what people will do to make money, and how what they do contributes to society? And you see (example you gave, feces and urine consumption) as, like, below zero contribution. Right? (To which I would wholly agree, by the way) That's understandable. On the other hand, Jerry Seinfelds dry humor didn't contribute anything to society either, other than giving people a reason to sit on their couches or in their chairs and learn how to mock and ridicule others. Below zero. My opinion. Clapton, on the other hand?

Well, again, we're back to my personal preferences. My loves and enjoyments. Culturally, most anyone, out of that list, would select Clapton, I would assume. So?

Throw up three famous artists/photographers. Make sure one of them is the person that uses dead bodies as art. Art is art is art...but people's personal revulsions will automatically make the person that uses dead bodies fall at the bottom of the list consistently. Because *not many people will openly admit to enjoying anything that offends puritanical sensiblities*. That's just how it is. Who wants to be targeted by religious or moral zealots? Not I. It is too troublesome and annoying, and there is no way to react politely to them for very long. They don't respond to "polite". They will push and push until they get one to react in a way that "proves their claim of depravity". No matter how unrealistic it is.

Is there something wholly negative about some unknown porn film in which someone consumes something gross? I don't know, Southwind17, but I've never been walking in the mall and seen a movie poster depicting a scene like that. I've never been in a bookstore and seen a magazine cover depicting anything like that. So...unless I *seek it out*--and that's a big point here, how can it harm me? How can I be offended by it? And if I WERE offended by it, who would I have to blame but myself, who sought it out in the first place?

Or...are you one of those people that believes that certain kinds of pornography lead to more sex crimes and social depravity?

I also have another question, and yeah, it is mainly curiosity...but why do you seem to loathe these women more than you pity them? If you really believe they are somehow stuck in a harmful sort of behavior? I don't think the idea of pity has been brought up yet, so that's kind of an interesting thing to know, for me. When I'm repulsed by something, or someone, I immediately do feel a sense of sorrow, moreso than anger or indignation.

One more question, if I may (sorry for so many). Do you watch the types of films you are talking about? Have you? If so, seeing as how they repulse you, how did you come to view them?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins
Would you find it fair that you're being judged only because of your acts?

"Behaviour" would be a much better word than "acts", in which case active behaviour - yes, pretty much; passive behaviour - no.

I agree. And I think we're getting tangled up in the terminology. But what do you mean by "active behavior" and "passive behavior" in the context of a porn film? (Going back to the example of watersports)

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins
Additionally, some acts (like drinking urine in porn) are essentially harmless, and the only controversy they can arise is one of personal taste.

How do you like yours?!

I don't. That's the point. I find the idea of drinking urine disgusting (or drinking cum). But other people do it and I have no problem with that, nor see it reasonable to think less of them because of it.

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins
So, once again, you can decide to judge someone because they drink urine and draw a whole series of conclusions about it. But you shouldn't. And you will most likely be wrong about many of your assumptions.

I couldn't be bothered to check,

Does that mean you're "not interested in even finding out more about the person" and thus you will simply put them in your black list?

but I'd be interested to learn how many people you've judged on this very forum simply because they're Truthers, CTists, pro-homeopathists and the like. Please get down off your high horse too Ron.

So you're already assuming that I've judged other people here because they're truthers and homeopaths without even knowing that for sure? You're already assuming that as if it was a fact?
And I am the one who has to get off my high horse?
Wow. Just wow.
(And for the record, no. I do not make assumptions about people, and even much less when on a forum, where you have no idea who the person behind the screen really is. And that includes you. No matter how negative and pedant your attitude has been all along this thread, I can't even draw a conclusion about who you really are)

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins
Also, you made one obvious mistake. You certainly can judge someone by their genes. In fact, this discussion has been had before when dealing with the issue of Homosexuality. Homosexuality has been proven to be genetical (in addition to being cultural). Here the word "judge" can be misunderstood as "criticizing", but you get the point. Sometimes a person's act is not enough. Take another example, such as Tourettes. Imagine you see someone going around cussing and cursing everyone. You immediately judge him/her by their acts and conclude "He's a jerk". But it turns out that if you had looked deep into his genes, you would have seen that he suffers from an impairment. You would have saved the step of unfairly judging someone by their acts by looking deeper into the core. So, yes. The genes can be a much better source of judgement than the acts themselves.

Jeez - outside the box Ron - OUTSIDE THE BOX!

Is that supposed to mean anything in regards to the quote you're "responding" to or do you just put that phrase whenever you like as a fun tag line? If not, please explain what your real opinion is about what I said. Don't just throw a random, nonsense line cause it's meaningless.
If you disagree with the argument about genetic behavior, feel free to argument your position.

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins
I think losing respect is understandable once the person has disrespected you. Then, you are entitled to lose respect for them, because they lost yours (You could, however, choose to still respect them and that is up to the person).

This sits way off the top of my "nonsense scale"!

I bet you can't explain to me why that sits at the top off your nonsense scale. Care to elaborate?

Oh peleeaassse Ron. Who the hell do you think you are? Some stranger sits next to you at a ball game and they've got to "earn" your respect. If that's how you see things you can keep your precious respect to yourself thank you very much.

Of course. If a stranger sits next to me and starts treating me like crap, he's certainly losing my respect, don't you think?. I'm not saying he has to "actively do something" to earn it. He already had.

Let me explain: You seem to be implying that what I said is that every single human on this planet already has no respect of mine and they have to earn it. That is not what I said. It's the exact opposite: If a stranger sits next to me, they are perfectly fine with me until (and if) they decide to disrespect me or attack me in some verbal or physical way. Then, if they do that, they have lost my respect. Until then, they had it.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Killing a cat and hurting you in the process is an act.

Thoughtcrime doesn't exist in my books, for the same reason I don't judge people for their thoughts. If their actions hurt others, then they're bad. Otherwise they're ok.

I understand and trust me when I say we don't disagree on that. It was just that you said

Yes. However since "I" represents more than one action, I expect to be judged on the sum total.

That's why I made the analogy. A sum of millions of good deeds, still does not account for who the person really is.