Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Humanophile" data-source="post: 158977" data-attributes="member: 1049">Your problem now is you're talking all theory.  When you have people sitting back, in a good mood, and able to talk in a semi-detached way about this, then yes they'll want what's "good" by their moral systems, which can at least be explained to your average sane person.  (Agreed with may be a whole other kettle of fish, but you can see where even, say, a klansman is coming from and think "If I were raised in that small-minded and angry a setting, I might think like that too".)However, that's all in theory.  Somewhere way back in the mists of time, someone lost something valued "unfairly" in a no-fault setting, or maybe someone realized that they stood to gain something by stabbing someone else in the back.  Ever since then, you've had opportunistic jerks who think that other people don't matter in the pursuit of what they want, and you have a lot more people who feel powerless for one reason or another and like to feel powerful in any way they can.  And it's an unfortunate fact that the best and easiest way to feel power over someone is to screw them over.(It's unimportant to this discussion, but I've found that no means of "filling the power hole" ever works.  Hedonism, crime, or just being an <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />, all of them leave the person always coming back for more.  But that's all IME.)So while I guess you could say that there are no good or bad people, just good or bad actions, I think that if a person does bad often enough, you can bet that they'll do bad again if given the chance.  And I don't feel like dodgy semantics enough to always say "people who have tended towards being bad most of the time I've seen/heard of them, so I'll assume they keep doing bad and will do so given the opportunity until I see otherwise".  Most of them deserve t obe called simply "bad people" anyways.</blockquote>

Verification