Where do you draw the line between a good person and a bad person?

I know the question may sound dumb because a lot of (or most?) people are neither good or bad, but are somewhere in between. But still... what kind of people, in your opinion, definitely deserve to be treated badly and what kind of people deserve to be treated well? This world is just so confusing, but maybe you will be able to give me an answer to my question.

How about remove your signature first,and then start this discussion?

First of all, how is my signature even related to this discussion? Also, there are a lot of people on FST who have forum signatures...
Please just stay on topic, and answer the question that I asked in post #1.
Other folks, I am waiting for you to respond!

bad people do others harm, like as a habit. assholes do others emotional harm, like as a habit. If you're not actively trying to change the fact that your actions do others harm then you're becoming a bad person I think.

What is your point to this, trOleg?

People are becoming less nice to you because you are irritating/trolling. It doesn't make any of us "bad"- we are simply reacting to your dumbassedness. Have you tried not being an irritating troll? People might be nicer. Maybe not, though. You've dug yourself in pretty deep.

This is what I read in wikipedia:
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4] ".

According to this definition, I am not a troll. I don't post inflammatory messages. I am not sure what "extraneous" is, but I guess it's the same thing as "off-topic"? Well, every time I posted off-topic messages, I always said, "Sorry for being off-topic." Sometimes a person wants to be off-topic, but it doesn't necessarily mean he's a troll. Every time I was off-topic, I always asked valid questions and made valid statements. So, I don't understand why you called me a troll.
Anyway, you are being off-topic, megabyteme. The question that I asked was, "Where do you draw the line between a good person and a bad person?" You need to stop making responses that are unrelated to my questions.

Someone should update the wikipedia to have ignoramous as one of the adjectives

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OlegL

First of all, how is my signature even related to this discussion?

---

The good and the bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CQ1ST

bad people do others harm, like as a habit. assholes do others emotional harm, like as a habit. If you're not actively trying to change the fact that your actions do others harm then you're becoming a bad person I think.

---

But I often don't know if I harm others or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a7x

The good and the bad.

---

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OlegL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a7x

The good and the bad.

---

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean.

---

That's because he forgot the ugly

Good people inherently know who bad people are, and treat them as such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

Good people inherently know who bad people are...

---

"Instinctively" works better than "inherently" in this case, not that anyone cares.

Quote:

---

inherent

in·her·ent
[in-heer-uhnt, -her-]–adjective

1.existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute

---

Since I was implying that the state of being good was a birthright (yeah, obviously no one cared enough to call BS on it), I think "inherent" was an acceptable choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

Since I was implying that the state of being good was a birthright (yeah, obviously no one cared enough to call BS on it), I think "inherent" was an acceptable choice.

---

Your statement says, or implies, nothing about the "state of being good"- which would be why nobody called you on it-rather, it speaks to the ability to recognize good, which ability I still say is more instinct/conditioning than genetic.

Quibbling, FTW.

Anyone who demonstrates cruelty towards others in the form of violence or emotional abuse deserves no respect, and if the incident is severe enough, they've forfeited their own right to life. The active infliction of suffering upon sentient beings is horrific, and I would rather deal with the fallout of slaying a monster and being seen as one than stepping aside and remaining ethically unscathed in the eyes of others.

A good person is one who deliberately attempts to avoid becoming a source of suffering, regardless of whether or not they succeed in doing so. If the effort is sincere, I would consider them good, though depending on the result, possibly careless or stupid as well. Some individuals go beyond that basic duty and attempt to actively alleviate suffering, which is a particularly noble motive, but all I see as required for 'goodness' is to avoid infliction of suffering, not alleviation of it.

Personally, I fall into the category of those who avoid inflicting suffering but do not alleviate it, unless I can do so without causing myself to suffer in the process or as a result. An example would be assisting a blind woman in the middle of a street; I would do so if there were little risk of death or severe injury, but if cars are whizzing by and I could easily be hit by one, I wouldn't step into such a situation to potentially save her life. Some would view this as cowardly, but I have a strong impulse towards self-preservation and don't believe my responsibility extends to the point of sacrificing myself.

There is no such thing as good or evil. These are concepts society enforces in order to maintain order. As an example of forced ideology for control: some of the richest countries in the world have no taxes, yet, as a society in North America, we are told that that is impossible (this debate goes down towards the education side, so I'm not pursuing it much further). Just to spite at MBM, your point is absolutely wrong as a discussion starter. People, animals, even trees all have inherent traits that could force them to be "good" or "evil", regardless of who they are. Research has been done to shown this, temperament on human babies proves this, and eons of our existence on our planet exhibit this. So how do you jump around the issue? If people are inherently evil, then there is no actual scale of good vs evil. It simply becomes another argument against human nature. Simple: As humans we just have a capacity to strive for survival, as Glod put it. Some of us are more attuned to helping the pack survive, and are seen as good, because the weaker, humbler neanderthals in the crowd can't survive without assistance. Some of the more evolved of us, know that the further we step away from the big picture, the more the image becomes apparent that survival of the fittest truly counts. There's far too many of us for society to count. Anywhere you go nowadays being competitive is a good thing. I don't see "team-based" groups being successful. Name me successful people. How many of them needed a "group" to get to where they are. Mostly just the resources of the group, but the raw talent of their own selves.

Want to know my opinion? If an old lady can't cross the road alone, I'd encourage her to try. Natural selection at its finest. If you can't feed or walk by yourself, I view it as cruelty to keep providing for you, when I or someone else might need said provisions and are capable of maximizing benefits from them. Gaining my preference as to where I should put my efforts, is where my efforts could matter the most. For all I know, old lady crossing the road is dying tomorrow, and any effort I put it returned zilch gains. But in Africa, the same amount in effort could save entire lives. Such is the nature of the hypocrisy of good and evil. People "instinctively" think they have to be good. But, alas, no. People are all vile and selfish. Psychological research has shown that you can only care about your immediate (!) community and nobody else outside it. Why? Well because in a way you are maximizing your own gains. You know that your social circle might give as much back one day. Why fight for pension rights today? Because you want them tomorrow. Why fight for gay rights today? Because you want people to parade for your atypical habits tomorrow. So on and so forth.

There is no greater evil than the obsession with being good. People spend their entire lives compulsively valuing one doctrine over another, when most of them inherently know that none of it means anything. People invent the concept of a deity in order to remove the responsibility out of their own hands, and creating a power that compels us to follow the one ideology that they believe is better. But in doing so have created a trojan horse that can easily be defeated. People advocate humility, sincerity, forgiveness, and mercy as qualities of a good person, but at the end of the day, point out one person in your proximity who enjoys having and carrying out any of these qualities. I feel fantastic picking up $500 unmarked off the side of the road. I feel shitty when someone tells me the "right" thing to do is look for its owner.

If you think I'm wrong, answer me this: What is the point? If you're a good person, what do you gain? If you're a bad person, what do you lose? This question deals with why value good or evil, or is it just a decision that was made for you?
If you think I'm wrong, also answer me this: If you're a bad person, what do you gain? If you're a good person, what do you lose? And this question deals with how most people will say that they can relate to this question, but fight against the urge, simply thinking there's some logical fallacy to it, because of how they've been tamed.

Answer those two questions and you have my answer. And perhaps a few of you have already seen through the charade for social control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darth Rings

There is no such thing as good or evil.

---

Proof please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darth Rings

Want to know my opinion? If an old lady can't cross the road alone, I'd encourage her to try.

---

There is a reason she needs help in crossing. She is old...

What if this same old lady begged for a lay. You'd be safe, and she'll be a lot more grateful that you got her across the apex than when you got her across the street. Where's the good and evil there? Would you do it?

By not helping someone you won't necessarily become an evil person. You are just letting an opportunity to be kind pass by. Moreover in that quote, I was addressing the reason why the old women needs help, not what action one takes.

But if you agree to do it and then force her to take it anally instead, good or evil?

You are agreeing willfully. Makes no sense that you do something forceful if not asked for.

Well you'd have to put it in her ass, that old loose vagina just aint gonna cut it these day.

edit: that's assuming she would want you to cum, now that my hypothetical has had some elaboration, you can probably address the inquiry.

Too much porn?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aby

Too much porn?

---

Too much oxygen?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

Too much oxygen?

---

Yes, I think you've definitely consumed too much oxygen already... do feel free to stop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darth Rings

There is no such thing as good or evil. These are concepts society enforces in order to maintain order. As an example of forced ideology for control: some of the richest countries in the world have no taxes, yet, as a society in North America, we are told that that is impossible (this debate goes down towards the education side, so I'm not pursuing it much further). Just to spite at MBM, your point is absolutely wrong as a discussion starter. People, animals, even trees all have inherent traits that could force them to be "good" or "evil", regardless of who they are. Research has been done to shown this, temperament on human babies proves this, and eons of our existence on our planet exhibit this. So how do you jump around the issue? If people are inherently evil, then there is no actual scale of good vs evil. It simply becomes another argument against human nature. Simple: As humans we just have a capacity to strive for survival, as Glod put it. Some of us are more attuned to helping the pack survive, and are seen as good, because the weaker, humbler neanderthals in the crowd can't survive without assistance. Some of the more evolved of us, know that the further we step away from the big picture, the more the image becomes apparent that survival of the fittest truly counts. There's far too many of us for society to count. Anywhere you go nowadays being competitive is a good thing. I don't see "team-based" groups being successful. Name me successful people. How many of them needed a "group" to get to where they are. Mostly just the resources of the group, but the raw talent of their own selves.

Want to know my opinion? If an old lady can't cross the road alone, I'd encourage her to try. Natural selection at its finest. If you can't feed or walk by yourself, I view it as cruelty to keep providing for you, when I or someone else might need said provisions and are capable of maximizing benefits from them. Gaining my preference as to where I should put my efforts, is where my efforts could matter the most. For all I know, old lady crossing the road is dying tomorrow, and any effort I put it returned zilch gains. But in Africa, the same amount in effort could save entire lives. Such is the nature of the hypocrisy of good and evil. People "instinctively" think they have to be good. But, alas, no. People are all vile and selfish. Psychological research has shown that you can only care about your immediate (!) community and nobody else outside it. Why? Well because in a way you are maximizing your own gains. You know that your social circle might give as much back one day. Why fight for pension rights today? Because you want them tomorrow. Why fight for gay rights today? Because you want people to parade for your atypical habits tomorrow. So on and so forth.

There is no greater evil than the obsession with being good. People spend their entire lives compulsively valuing one doctrine over another, when most of them inherently know that none of it means anything. People invent the concept of a deity in order to remove the responsibility out of their own hands, and creating a power that compels us to follow the one ideology that they believe is better. But in doing so have created a trojan horse that can easily be defeated. People advocate humility, sincerity, forgiveness, and mercy as qualities of a good person, but at the end of the day, point out one person in your proximity who enjoys having and carrying out any of these qualities. I feel fantastic picking up $500 unmarked off the side of the road. I feel shitty when someone tells me the "right" thing to do is look for its owner.

If you think I'm wrong, answer me this: What is the point? If you're a good person, what do you gain? If you're a bad person, what do you lose? This question deals with why value good or evil, or is it just a decision that was made for you?
If you think I'm wrong, also answer me this: If you're a bad person, what do you gain? If you're a good person, what do you lose? And this question deals with how most people will say that they can relate to this question, but fight against the urge, simply thinking there's some logical fallacy to it, because of how they've been tamed.

Answer those two questions and you have my answer. And perhaps a few of you have already seen through the charade for social control.

---

I couldn't have put it better myself... fuck everyone else :-)

Lol at trOleg (great find there MBM) ... he still keeps poking members of this board 'ad infinitum' it seems (almost as persisitent as J-DIE) ... he's what people call a 'trOleg De Luxe' ... a troll, but not the obvious kind ... the kind that always makes you wonder if he is or isn't a troll after all. Most people tend to ignore him entirely or just respond trolling with trolling.

Am I a bad boy now for stating the obvious???

The interesting part of this is that he has suddenly reduced his postings to almost nothing. Trolling must be somewhat like fishing- you don't want to over-fish the best spots, or you will find yourself looking for a new favorite spot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

The interesting part of this is that he has suddenly reduced his postings to almost nothing. Trolling must be somewhat like fishing- you don't want to over-fish the best spots, or you will find yourself looking for a new favorite spot.

---

Its a philosophy and an art and he is the Confucius of it on FST.

Good and evil is a social construct and not inherent. We are not born with a biologically driven sense of morality- that aspect is learned behaviour. What we are born with is a survival instinct which in part, determines such decisions and reactions as flight or fight.

Case in point is how people view human life, suffering etc on a global basis. If you stopped to feed a beggar or throw out a few alms in your nice charming western town somewhere in north america, you'd be out a few dollars without notice. Walk a street in Delhi for an example, and you'd be broke before you got halfway down the street.

People are not less caring, or evolved in delhi vs small town merkia - they're learned to accept that life is not written out in such narrow lines as help=good, ignoring = evil.

simple.

a bad person drives slow in the fast lane.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mollywogger

simple.

a bad person drives slow in the fast lane.

---

:lol: And TRUE!

I was in the grocery store a few nights ago picking up a single item. The store was quite busy at the time, and I was looking for the shortest lin in which I could pay for my item and get home. I had a 65+ year-old woman literally run in front of me to beat me to the checkout. She had an entire basket full of varied groceries.

Evil. Evil. Evil! :fist:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

I was in the grocery store a few nights ago picking up a single item. The store was quite busy at the time, and I was looking for the shortest lin in which I could pay for my item and get home. I had a 65+ year-old woman literally run in front of me to beat me to the checkout. She had an entire basket full of varied groceries.

Evil. Evil. Evil! :fist:

---

I had someone do that to me at wally world once, and this was already a really long line (pretty much only lane open). She was also aged. I stood uncomfortably close behind her the entire time since I didn't have a shopping cart, sometimes breathing on the back of her neck. She kept trying to move around and reposition but I remained her shadow, even though I was standing almost in front of her cart while she was trying to create some personal space.

The cashier must have seen my change of attitude once she left so she asked what that was all about. I just said you never know what kind of weirdos you might end up cutting off, so I was deciding to be one type of weirdo. It was quite nice of me to provide her with that demonstration for future reference, I possibly saved her life. Though, I couldn't have done it if she smelled like your standard wally world shopper.

Overall I handled it better than a much earlier incident, where I exclaimed, "I'm going to fucking murder you in the parking lot"

ha. self note.
never push in line in front of young men when i am old (er).
you're lucky to have the constitution to be able to breathe down the old bat's neck.
knowing me, if she pushed in front of me, she'd turn around, flash me her pearly offwhite, food soaked dentures, then say, "you dont mind do you dear"
then I'd offer to carry her milk for her. grr.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mollywogger

ha. self note.
never push in line in front of young men when i am old (er).
you're lucky to have the constitution to be able to breathe down the old bat's neck.
knowing me, if she pushed in front of me, she'd turn around, flash me her pearly offwhite, food soaked dentures, then say, "you dont mind do you dear"
then I'd offer to carry her milk for her. grr.

---

Acknowledgment is another story. Then I'm all laughing and saying, "no problem." I just get proactive if the person is an obvious douche or cunt. What happens when you put a douche and a cunt together? Nothing! Nobody washes that way anymore.

its depend on me that how can i judge the man is he good or bad,no body is bad , its habit and society makes it bad, society force it to do bad things which make it bad ,but mostly people are good education is a major difference between good and bad.so in my point of view if we teach bad people it may they are become good

I dont, I judge the act.

Heya all (new guy here)!
Philosophically, a good person may be a person that does something good according to general values. That is, if a decision is made due to the right values, then no matter the outcome, he is still good. But wether someone is good or bad, is simply down to the individual in my opinion. The Nazis were good according to those involved in their philosophy. They are counted as evil only because the general public's opinion about them (of course including me) is negative. One could argue that their actions are inhuman and opposes every normal social value (sorry if I'm a bad writer, I'm Norwegian). This small discussion ultimately gets down to a simple question; Are humans controlled by "laws" determining good and bad, or is the definition of good and bad a product of each individual's psyche created by their environment? If there are laws, then we can map the general ideas of good and evil, if not, those terms become relative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Al_X

The Nazis were good according to those involved in their philosophy.

---

Whoa whoa, before the spilling of wet feces slosh deflates your face cheeks, support for the 'Nazis' was not based on a matter of them doing philosophical good. There are many other reasons, none of them in the name of good. If we're going to do a Nazi thing, do it right... like the Nazis.

I think "good" and "bad" are inherently subjective terms, but if you want to be able to usefully judge actions then you have to agree on a basis. I think there are two contenders: survival of the species, and self-preservation. They are both fundamentally part of our core beings and they're both powerful instincts. And they would both result in different answers to the question of whether a given action was "good" or "bad". Personally, I think survival of the species is the stronger of the two. People do lay down their own lives to protect children, particularly their own. So I think it is reasonable to judge an individuals actions based on whether they benefit or harm the interests of the wider public. So, on that basis, trying to breed a race of blue-eyed blondes isn't in itself bad (though if you were too selective in your breeding then you would end up concentrating recessive genes and that wouldn't be weonderful). But trying to exterminate other races is definitely bad.