Bad People Don't Exist

Jack said:
Ok, if I were able to introduce to a key the same physical and measurable changes that you would make to a key by touching it, but I didn't allow you to touch it, that key would not have the property of having been touched by you would it?
Click to expand...

I really don't know where you are going with this to be honest. It wouldn't have been touched by me but anyone testing wouldn't be able to tell the difference

How is this relevant exactly?
 
Poetic Justice said:
I hated them for a while. Now I pity them. I have a deep and fairly comprehensive understanding of narcissism
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I too have experience with both sociopaths and narcs. I'm sorry that you have had to deal with them too.

I hated for awhile too and am truly ashamed at some of the things I did in retaliation and for a short while became the thing I hated and it was a nightmarish situation. In my own self-righteousness I declared one my enemy and went to war. In a sense, though not physically I basically strapped a bomb to myself and almost took us both down in flames. At some point I was able to recognize what I was doing as wrong and stopped myself though it was hard because that is something they will never be able to do. They will never be able to stop. Labeling it as evil instead of using psychological terms helped me turn the anger into sorrow, and eventually love and also stopped me from becoming evil myself. I was also able to escape without being totally broken into a million pieces myself.

Maybe one day I'll be comfortable saying that 'bad people' don't exist but I just don't know. I don't know. How can we deal with something we are afraid to recognize in ourselves/others? I think this is a serious problem. I think that is someone/thing is evil there is hope that it can be conquered.
 
Poetic Justice said:
I really don't know where you are going with this to be honest. It wouldn't have been touched by me but anyone testing wouldn't be able to tell the difference

How is this relevant exactly?
Click to expand...

I was using this point to demonstrate that simply because something isn't a material property, like the property of 'having been touched by poetic justice' doesn't mean something isn't objective, or a fact about the world.
 
CindyLou said:
Unfortunately, I too have experience with both sociopaths and narcs. I'm sorry that you have had to deal with them too.

I hated for awhile too and am truly ashamed at some of the things I did in retaliation and for a short while became the thing I hated and it was a nightmarish situation. In my own self-righteousness I declared one my enemy and went to war. In a sense, though not physically I basically strapped a bomb to myself and almost took us both down in flames. At some point I was able to recognize what I was doing as wrong and stopped myself though it was hard because that is something they will never be able to do. They will never be able to stop. Labeling it as evil instead of using psychological terms helped me turn the anger into sorrow, and eventually love and also stopped me from becoming evil myself. I was also able to escape without being totally broken into a million pieces myself.

Maybe one day I'll be comfortable saying that 'bad people' don't exist but I just don't know. I don't know. How can we deal with something we are afraid to recognize in ourselves/others? I think this is a serious problem. I think that is someone/thing is evil there is hope that it can be conquered.
Click to expand...

Why do you need to conquer them? first try understanding them and helping them. If that fails either avoid them or try to limit their ability to do harm. Think of them as 3 year olds with knives. Take the knife off of them and teach them the dangers of running around stabbing people

We are all capable of doing bad things. We are all capable of doing good things. We just need the right information interpreted in the right way to do either.

You may not know how to convince someone to change but that doesn't mean it can't be done. Of course, once you've run out of ideas the only option left is removing their ability to harm by locking them up or even killing them if locking them up is off the table for some reason

No need to be a hater yo

Just increase the peace
 
Poetic Justice said:
Why do you need to conquer them? first try understanding them and helping them. If that fails either avoid them or try to limit their ability to do harm. Think of them as 3 year olds with knives. Take the knife off of them and teach them the dangers of running around stabbing people

We are all capable of doing bad things. We are all capable of doing good things. We just need the right information interpreted in the right way to do either.

You may not know how to convince someone to change but that doesn't mean it can't be done. Of course, once you've run out of ideas the only option left is removing their ability to harm by locking them up or even killing them if locking them up is off the table for some reason

No need to be a hater yo

Just increase the peace
Click to expand...
Until we find a cure. ;)
 
Jack said:
I was using this point to demonstrate that simply because something isn't a material property, like the property of 'having been touched by poetic justice' doesn't mean something isn't objective, or a fact about the world.
Click to expand...

You worded an objective event in an abstract way and demonstrated nothing in the process my friend

I believe you have been defeated. It was fun though
 
Poetic Justice said:
Edit: Envy isn't green. It only is in some peoples subjective experience. The reason for their synaesthesia cand be stated objectively but not the individual experiences of the person. So you're right
Click to expand...

No one sees envy as a color, so it's a silly example anyway. Synaesthesia isn't even seeing emotions as colors - it corresponds with perception, whether it be touch or sound. Some people try to explain emotions by means of metaphors, but that's different than saying envy is green as though it has physical properties like a green tennis ball. Plato basically thought that a concept actually is tangible, but claimed that things like truth and other concepts existed in another dimension, separate from reality as you know it. This is what Billy is arguing against, the notion that there is some "Moral Truth" to be grasped at that exists independent of your existence and is an attribute like the color red. By the sounds of it, unless we can prove to Billy that there is a Moral Detector in the same way there are Wavelength Detectors, morality is subjective. But this is impossible. Interesting enough, detecting wavelengths doesn't help you prove colors, either! There is so much more to discuss, including how your mind processes colors, illumination, and even if you know even have a concept of the particular color. I already offered a standard of morality to be accepted or refuted, but does have some form of a provable morality.

Also, on the standard I offer, there is no need for a list any more than there is a need for a list of every possible way for the sun not to rise tomorrow and deny each possibility to conclude that it will rise tomorrow. As in science or any other means to objectively come to conclusions, we use principles. As Jack was saying, this is a topic of epistemology. But with principles, it is possible to apply some set of generalizations/inductions to any situation upon being put into a situation. For instance, if one principle of yours is "honesty is a crucial way to find value in other people". Like any principle, it has to be proven, but once it is proven, you can apply it to any situation thrown at you. You may make an error, but the same is true in science. You will only discover that your reasoning was shoddy to develop your principle, or you need to clarify your principle. Scientists do this all the time, Newton's Laws weren't thrown out because his laws didn't really explain cosmic interactions between entire galaxies or two stars. The principles at work were clarified to apply to certain bodies of mass (I'm not a physicist, so I can't say much more). Morality can work in a similar way...
 
Poetic Justice said:
You worded an objective event in an abstract way and demonstrated nothing in the process my friend
Click to expand...

You can't touch color, you can't touch cell division, you can't touch justice, you can't touch truth, you can't touch mass, you can't touch calculus, you can't touch a psychotic breakdown. These are all abstract concepts, none can be touched, all are objectively real.
 
ImpureHedonism said:
No one sees envy as a color, so it's a silly example anyway. Synaesthesia isn't even seeing emotions as colors - it corresponds with perception, whether it be touch or sound. Some people try to explain emotions by means of metaphors, but that's different than saying envy is green as though it has physical properties like a green tennis ball. Plato basically thought that a concept actually is tangible, but claimed that things like truth and other concepts existed in another dimension, separate from reality as you know it. This is what Billy is arguing against, the notion that there is some "Moral Truth" to be grasped at that exists independent of your existence and is an attribute like the color red. By the sounds of it, unless we can prove to Billy that there is a Moral Detector in the same way there are Wavelength Detectors, morality is subjective. But this is impossible. Interesting enough, detecting wavelengths doesn't help you prove colors, either! There is so much more to discuss, including how your mind processes colors, illumination, and even if you know even have a concept of the particular color. I already offered a standard of morality to be accepted or refuted, but does have some form of a provable morality.

Also, on the standard I offer, there is no need for a list any more than there is a need for a list of every possible way for the sun not to rise tomorrow and deny each possibility to conclude that it will rise tomorrow. As in science or any other means to objectively come to conclusions, we use principles. As Jack was saying, this is a topic of epistemology. But with principles, it is possible to apply some set of generalizations/inductions to any situation upon being put into a situation. For instance, if one principle of yours is "honesty is a crucial way to find value in other people". Like any principle, it has to be proven, but once it is proven, you can apply it to any situation thrown at you. You may make an error, but the same is true in science. You will only discover that your reasoning was shoddy to develop your principle, or you need to clarify your principle. Scientists do this all the time, Newton's Laws weren't thrown out because his laws didn't really explain cosmic interactions between entire galaxies or two stars. The principles at work were clarified to apply to certain bodies of mass (I'm not a physicist, so I can't say much more). Morality can work in a similar way...
Click to expand...

Actually synaesthesia is much more than you seem to think. Any sensory input either internal or external can trigger any other sensory input. Everyone's is slightly different. I guarantee you it is possible for green and envy to be connected

Forget epistomology. I'm not saying people shouldn't use the term "bad person". I'm saying people shouldn't believe it exists as a concept i.e. a truly, fully and completely bad person.

It's fine to use whatever word you want to identify people you want to stay away from. I have said this several times. But to believe that someone is utterly and completely bad with no hope whatsoever of any kind of any redemption at any time is simply wrong
 
Poetic Justice said:
Why do you need to conquer them? first try understanding them and helping them. If that fails either avoid them or try to limit their ability to do harm. Think of them as 3 year olds with knives. Take the knife off of them and teach them the dangers of running around stabbing people

We are all capable of doing bad things. We are all capable of doing good things. We just need the right information interpreted in the right way to do either.

You may not know how to convince someone to change but that doesn't mean it can't be done. Of course, once you've run out of ideas the only option left is removing their ability to harm by locking them up or even killing them if locking them up is off the table for some reason

No need to be a hater yo

Just increase the peace
Click to expand...

When I say conquer I mean cure! :)
 
ImpureHedonism said:
You can't touch color, you can't touch cell division, you can't touch justice, you can't touch truth, you can't touch mass, you can't touch calculus, you can't touch a psychotic breakdown. These are all abstract concepts, none can be touched, all are objectively real.
Click to expand...


Actually they aren't all abstract concepts and they aren't all objectively real. I can't be bothered explaining them all to you as you obviously don't get it
 
Poetic Justice said:
Forget epistomology. I'm not saying people shouldn't use the term "bad person". I'm saying people shouldn't believe it exists as a concept i.e. a truly, fully and completely bad person.

It's fine to use whatever word you want to identify people you want to stay away from. I have said this several times. But to believe that someone is utterly and completely bad with no hope whatsoever of any kind of any redemption at any time is simply wrong
Click to expand...

I can definitely agree with that. :) I wouldn't be qualified to determine who those people were even if they did exist.
 
Poetic Justice said:
You worded an objective event in an abstract way and demonstrated nothing in the process my friend

I believe you have been defeated. It was fun though
Click to expand...

lol I think you've conceded without realizing.

You maintained that unless you actually touched your keys, they do not have the property of 'being touched by poetic justice', material changes or material aspects notwithstanding.

You also maintained that key that you touched is 'different' in the present material changes notwithstanding.

And that is the key, because history is not material in the present. Therefore the abstract property 'having been touched by poetic justice' being a fact about our world, would be immaterial.
:m155:
 
Last edited:
CindyLou said:
I can definitely agree with that. :) I wouldn't be qualified to determine who those people were even if they did exist.
Click to expand...

Yay!

I managed to convert one the haters

JK...
 
Jack said:
lol I think you've conceded without realizing.

You maintained that unless you actually touched your keys, they do not have the property of 'being touched by poetic justice', material changes or material aspects notwithstanding.

You also maintained that key that you touched is 'different' in the present material changes notwithstanding.

And that is the key, because history is not material in the present. Therefore the abstract property 'having been touched by poetic justice' being a fact about our world, would be immaterial.
:m155:
Click to expand...

History is material in the present. Sorry dude. No information is lost. Nothing. It is one of the fundamental properties of the universe. Proving this is one the reasons Stephen Hawkings is such a celebrated physicist
 
Poetic Justice said:
History is material in the present. Sorry dude. No information is lost. Nothing. It is one of the fundamental properties of the universe. Proving this is one the reasons Stephen Hawkings is such a celebrated physicist
Click to expand...
Equivocation. Information is not material, and material is not information, they are not terms that can be used interchangeably.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top