Is a person defined by the best/worst thing they have ever done?

[Lufia Erim]

I'm basically having a conversation about people in general with a friend and i'm trying to see people perceptions of others.

Is person defined by the worst thing they have ever done? or inversely are they defined by the best thing they have ever done?

What do you think?

 

[CaitSeith]

It depends.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

I would say at least socially people are defined by the most known thing they've done.

For example lets look at Martin Luther King. He's most known as the leader of the African civil rights movement here in America. Is that the best thing he's ever done? Perhaps. Probably actually. But there might be a smaller, but simply better act he committed at one point that virtually no one knows about.
Likewise was cheating on his wife with all those secretaries the worst thing he's done? I hope so, but I don't know. He may have done some truly hideous things and we don't know.

Regardless he's defined by the civil rights movement.

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

There's this joke you've probably heard before:

Joe meets Bill at the pub. Awkwardly, he starts a conversation: "Hey Bill... you know, you're always out on your yard, chopping wood. But noone ever calls you "Woodchopper Bill, right?" "Nope," replies Bill, "they don't." Joe starts again "And Steve... he's always out, washing his car. But they don't call him "Carwasher Steve", do they?" Joe shakes his head. "That's true, Joe. They don't. Where are you going with this?" Joe let's out a sigh. "Well, Bill, you know... I fucked one single goat..."

The moral of the story is, no shit you're defined by the things you do. And no shit some of them will define peoples opinion of you more than others.

 

[Callate]

Oh, worse than that... I think at this point, someone might be judged by the worst thing others think they've done, or even the worst thing they might do, based on incredibly specious reasoning.

"I'm not saying you go out at night and stomp bunnies to death. But, y'know, there is that pic of you wearing those slippers..."

 

[Abomination]

A person, by definition, is better than the worst thing they've ever done, because the worst thing they've done has been surrounded by events that must have been better than that action.

At the same time, a person will always be worse than the best thing they've ever done for the same reason.

When someone continues to do the worst thing they've ever done is when you've got yourselves a right asshole.

 

[davidmc1158_v1legacy]

It depends on whether or not you like/agree with them. If you do, then you will tend to judge them based on the best thing they have done. If you don't, then you judge them based on the worst.

Martin Luther King, Jr. is a great example. To those who opposed him, he was either a communist, an anarchist trying to overthrow the existing societal order, a serial adulterer, or even worse. To those who supported him, he was practically a saint. Same for Ghandi (except when that bastard gets nuclear tech, then he goes postal).

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

What do you mean *defined* by exactly to start?

Like for historical figures and such for better or worse they often can be defined by their best or worst actions. Think it's kind of different if you're talking about someone you know more personally? You know people you meet in a different way than say you know of Washington

 

[CaitSeith]

There's this joke you've probably heard before:

Joe meets Bill at the pub. Awkwardly, he starts a conversation: "Hey Bill... you know, you're always out on your yard, chopping wood. But noone ever calls you "Woodchopper Bill, right?" "Nope," replies Bill, "they don't." Joe starts again "And Steve... he's always out, washing his car. But they don't call him "Carwasher Steve", do they?" Joe shakes his head. "That's true, Joe. They don't. Where are you going with this?" Joe let's out a sigh. "Well, Bill, you know... I fucked one single goat..."

I laughed at this more than I should had...

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I'd hope not, otherwise we're all screwed.

 

[Abomination]

Matthew Colville has two books out, Priest, and Thief, that tackle this very question in a fantasy setting.

They're also just good reads. Grab em in ebook form for like $3-4.

Who is Matthew Colville? Video game storywriter/author. D&D dungeon master and all around fun fellow to listen to.

 

[Lufia Erim]

Matthew Colville has two books out, Priest, and Thief, that tackle this very question in a fantasy setting.

They're also just good reads. Grab em in ebook form for like $3-4.

Who is Matthew Colville? Video game storywriter/author. D&D dungeon master and all around fun fellow to listen to.

Do they exist in physical form?I'm oldschool i never rean an e-book . Now i feel old thanks.

 

[Agema]

Do they exist in physical form?I'm oldschool i never rean an e-book . Now i feel old thanks.

My general belief is that if an author has not been picked up by a reputable publishing company and made widely available (including dead tree format), there's usually a good reason why not.

I can think of a few examples of authors who managed to get book contracts through sufficiently popular internet-published work, and they mostly suck.

* * *

Is person defined by the worst thing they have ever done? or inversely are they defined by the best thing they have ever done?

Quick answer: no.

People are usually defined by the most noteworthy thing they've done. Obviously in some cases this will be something particularly good or bad they did, but it doesn't have to be.

 

[Abomination]

Matthew Colville has two books out, Priest, and Thief, that tackle this very question in a fantasy setting.

They're also just good reads. Grab em in ebook form for like $3-4.

Who is Matthew Colville? Video game storywriter/author. D&D dungeon master and all around fun fellow to listen to.

Do they exist in physical form?I'm oldschool i never rean an e-book . Now i feel old thanks.

They do exist in paperback, but authors get more of a cut from ebooks than they do from physical copies.

I just have the kindle app on my smartphone so I can read books when waiting for something.

My general belief is that if an author has not been picked up by a reputable publishing company and made widely available (including dead tree format), there's usually a good reason why not.

I can think of a few examples of authors who managed to get book contracts through sufficiently popular internet-published work, and they mostly suck.

A fair assumption to make, but incorrect in this case on both accounts.

Physical copies are possible, and they're good books.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

I'mma thinking maybe this can be tested, all I need is to raise two different schools of orphans with precisely the same backgrounds - am thinking probably cloning is the best bet for this - then when they hit 16, one school goes to the finest educational campus around to garuntee a sort of improved future, while the other school is quickly euthanised and disposed of. Two equally balanced acts on the scales of justice at the same time...watchya gonna do, society? Judge me into neutrality? At least...well, they seem like equally balanced acts.

More calculations are required.

 

[skywolfblue]

I'm basically having a conversation about people in general with a friend and i'm trying to see people perceptions of others.

Is person defined by the worst thing they have ever done? or inversely are they defined by the best thing they have ever done?

What do you think?

The mathematician inside of me asks "Soooo, what is the definition of "defined" here?"

"best thing" and "worst thing" are defining events.

We call them "Max" and "Min" in math, they form the boundary of an equation. It seems reasonable to me to define people based on what boundaries they will or will not cross. So to that end, it makes sense to define people in terms of their best and worst event.

But this can be in positive ways. As in "x is a so much better person now then they were back then".

 

[Trunkage]

If only people were judged by their behaviour. That would be way better than what we've got.

The current system is people get judged on by appearances. Tattoos mean you're a criminal, women aren't strong enough to be in the army, men look like pedophiles and shouldn't be teachers, far people are lazy etc.

Sometimes you're lucky enough to be judged by your job. Teachers and Nurses are caring, army is tough, journalist and judges are unbiased and politicians are slimy (not lucky on that one.)

It would be great to be judge by your actions. Unfortunately, that is very uncommon to the norm