What's a bad person?

niffer said:
Lol. I finally delivered the main objective and background info to my thread at post #43?

Is that being passive-aggressive? :D
Click to expand...
nope, just evil.
 
niffer said:
No, they are not the same in that they are very different people who had very different roles in history. But they are roughly the same in that, yes, they are both human beings who could just as easily have switched roles if circumstances caused them to do so...They are being inconvenienced very very much. I just use the word "inconvenience" to encompass all things that could bring misfortune to others.
Click to expand...

As Dennis Prager says, I'm not interested in agreement so much as I am in clarity. Basically, you reperesent nihilism very well. I think it's terribly sad that at age 17 you are already so cynical and jaded.
 
GracieRuth said:
In most cases I would totally agree with you. Most of us in this world are morally mediocre, and that is probably where I fall on the spectrum as well. But when a person is so much better than the norm, I just think of them as good. And when another is so much worse than the norm, I think of them as bad. Sometimes a bad person only really does one thing bad, but its so horrific that it overwhelms anything they might do taht is good. Like, I don't really care if a serial killer goes to church regularly and gives money to the poor -- he's just an evil man. But usually "bad" refers to someone who does selfish mean things habitually, knows its wrong, and decides to live that way anyhow.

Has anyone in here read the book "People of the Lie"? Same guy who wrote "Road Less Traveled." He's a psychiatrist, and "People of the Lie" is about a certain personality of person who is willing to damage other people in order to avoid feeling guilty about their own wrongs. He believes that it's not the people in the psych wards and jails that are evil, but they were driven to criminal activity and psychology extremes BY evil people -- he says the evil people themselves are usually the pillars of society sort. Very interesting read.
Click to expand...

I agree with your comments here. I guess my philosophy on what is "bad" is questioning its use outside of typical moral constructs.

Thanks for the book rec, it sounds interesting.
 
GracieRuth said:
As Dennis Prager says, I'm not interested in agreement so much as I am in clarity. Basically, you reperesent nihilism very well. I think it's terribly sad that at age 17 you are already so cynical and jaded.
Click to expand...

What was unclear? Perhaps instead of "clarity", you mean "semantics"?

Also, what was cynical about the points I made? I will agree that I am cynical/jaded about very specific topics, but not this one in particular. On the contrary, I don't see how my stance casts a negative light on humanity at all.

I actually read more into nihilism last night... I don't think I'm actually *that* nihilistic, so much as morally relativist?
 
niffer said:
why place the responsibility of each person's goodness solely on a person, rather than everyone's goodness/badness being shared by everyone?
Click to expand...

how would that be done? i thought that is what i meant when i said everyone is responsible.
 
niffer said:
What was unclear? Perhaps instead of "clarity", you mean "semantics"?
Click to expand...
No, no no. You read it the opposite of what it meant. I was trying to say that you are very clear in what you are saying. We disagree, sure, but I think we both understand what the other is saying.
 
lenina said:
how would that be done? i thought that is what i meant when i said everyone is responsible.
Click to expand...

I thought you said "each person is responsible for their own goodness", vs. "everyone is communally resposible for the world's goodness".

GracieRuth said:
No, no no. You read it the opposite of what it meant. I was trying to say that you are very clear in what you are saying. We disagree, sure, but I think we both understand what the other is saying.
Click to expand...

Oh ok then
 
niffer said:
I agree with your comments here. I guess my philosophy on what is "bad" is questioning its use outside of typical moral constructs.
.
Click to expand...
This whole thing of questioning what we grew up with and trying to decide what we ourselves believe is just sooo part of life. I probably come across as an old prude to you. But trust me, I remember being 17-- I hope you will make less mistakes than me!!!
 
To expand a little on what [MENTION=4313]lenina[/MENTION] and I just briefly discussed there:

Obviously it's only the individual that can truly choose, within their limits, what actions they take. In that aspect others give up responsibility. But still I do not see a reason for blame. Blame and hatred and disappointment, even if it's cast towards a "bad" individual, is allowing more negativity in the world to circulate. Communal responsibility for goodness, where everyone is made an advocate of goodness (should they be advocates of goodness about individuals being responsible for it in the first place), free of negative influence and energy towards others... would that not help to eradicate the "problems" more?
 
Black Sheep said:
Under what circumstance is it absolutely necessary to rape someone?
Click to expand...

You're the last man and woman on Earth: she's going to die in a year, and she won't put out.
 
Norton said:
I disagree.

Hitler was a bad person. Gaddafi was a bad person. Stalin was a bad person. Pol Pot was a bad person. John Wayne Gacy was a bad person. Idi Amin was a bad person. Augusto Pinochet was a bad person. Kim Jong-Il is a bad person. Enver Hoxha was a bad person. Ted Bundy was a bad person. I've personally known two psychopaths who are bad people and I've had a couple of bosses in my distant past who are going to hell, no doubt. I could go on and on. Is this enough or do you need more proof?
Click to expand...

I think it's all subjective. Every one of those people had admirers who thought the world of them.
 
niffer said:
Lulz... that still wouldn't make it *necessary*. xD Although it's true that there many societies who value reproduction over female consent.
Click to expand...

Necessary for the survival of our species. What could be more necessary, collectively speaking? I personally wouldn't do it, but, sometimes, you just gotta use that Fe.
 
Nah, I'd rather let the race die than engage in all the crazy f----d up incest it would require to repopulate from just one pair.
 
Black Sheep said:
Nah, I'd rather let the race die than engage in all the crazy f----d up incest it would require to repopulate from just one pair.
Click to expand...

Well, according to a certain, very-popular, text, we all came from one pair.
 
subwayrider said:
Necessary for the survival of our species. What could be more necessary, collectively speaking? I personally wouldn't do it, but, sometimes, you just gotta use that Fe.
Click to expand...

Hmm... ok some people might see it that way, but I don't rly care about the species lol. Especially, a species that was re-populated as a result of rape wouldn't be worth it for me, even ruling out the messed up incest babies.
 
niffer said:
Hmm... ok some people might see it that way, but I don't rly care about the species lol. Especially, a species that was re-populated as a result of rape wouldn't be worth it for me, even ruling out the messed up incest babies.
Click to expand...

I think many, many of our kind are only here as a result of rape, if we go waaaayyyyy back. But, I think that's an entirely different discussion.

Sleepy time for me. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top