hot girls read books discussion

so, do you think that if something for you its "good" everything you do bc of it it's justified? do you believe that the concepts of a good person vs a person that's evil are opposites, or do you believe that no one can be defined just by good or evil?

I believe that no one can be defined by simply saying they’re good or evil.
Ppl (excluding rapists, murderers, pedophiles, sexists etc) are more gray than either black or white.
No one is solely good or solely evil, we all can be selfish or cruel. We can all hurt ppl or be greedy. And we can all be kind, caring, selfless, and giving.

It’s the actions we take and the decisions we choose to make everyday that count, because ppl aren’t defined by a single virtuous deed or a lone atrocity.

We can always make mistakes or amends for said mistakes.


A purely good person doesn’t exist, and very few wholly evil ppl exist.


We are a mass of various shades of gray, a mix of both good and evil.

i 100% agree on what you said, honestly i think it's almost imposible do identify someone so generically when there are so many shades to it.
Rowan wrote: "I believe that no one can be defined by simply saying they’re good or evil.
Ppl (excluding rapists, murderers, pedophiles, sexists etc) are more gray than either black or white.
No one is solely go..."

Exactly

No one is simply just good or evil.

I know so many people believe that God, or Jesus (I'm not Christian, by the way. I used to be Mormon, long story short, I kind of believe in my own idea of spiritual power now), or angels, or whoever the hell lives in Heaven. I know so many people believe that when a soul dies they get wiped fully of their "sins" or their "imperfections" their "bad". I know that people scorn Death. Scorn "Satan" - whoever the hell that is. I know people scorn devils, demons.
And perhaps I have no clue what I'm talking about, but what we do - our words, actions, thoughts, mistakes, etc - is much more identified than good or bad. Than a sin and a praised action. Than a mistake and a virtue.
The villains we read and talk about from the hero's perspective.
What I know is that what happens to us and how we respond to that is what shapes us. Shapes our decisions. Our thoughts and feelings. What we think when we see someone we love. What matters to us. And what doesn't. What wounds us. The obstacles.

This is what I stand by.

omg you guys need to read my book lol.

no the weird sex thing, but the metaphysical question of the existence of right vs wrong and how it's decided is a central although rather well hidden theme of my book. In some sense it was the entire point of me writing, but let try to summarize.


Perception is subjective, that is to say what you perceive as things you like or dislike or believe to be right are wrong are formed by two things, your experience (usually this is cultural) as well as preference one can argue this is also a derivative of experience, but i won't fall into the fate vs destiny by circumstance argument at this juncture.

The problem lies less in a single culture as they tend to agree for the vast majority of morale's as the experiences of the entire group are so similar that it causes the different perspectives to largely agree on what is right or wrong.

(keep in mind this is an academic argument I'm not trying to offend or condone any particular culture.)

What do we do when culture A and Culture B disagree about what is right and what is wrong?

The obvious answer is to attempt to canadianize it and find a way for both cultures to exist by their own set of principles without interfering with each other.

Of course this is not always possible for example.
Now lets say we take the culture of some places in east India where things such as revenge killing are not just culturally accepted, but legal.

Some places are even more nefarious and consider even people such a woman to be possessions or in China the millions of enslaved (i cant remember the name of the people hrghurs or something) and i don't even want to talk about north korea.

Obviously there do exist some universal right or wrongs that transcend all cultures, but i would argue only those that all agree on are universally so.

If we are to make an argument that something is wrong in an particular culture compared to another we cannot use any justification from within a different culture only a different perspective.

If we did this would imply that one perspective or one culture is less good or bad, better/worse than another and no matter how you try and make that argument it's got pretentious written all over it.

In the end the best thing to do is neither to condone or condemn it, but to speak up about what is right or wrong.
Ideally by creating a systematic argument from inherit morals of the culture with a different perspective to argue against the morality of the perceived incorrect cultural norm.

Why would anyone want to do that?
Some things like slavery or murder should be inherently wrong.

The problem lies in dismissing those Morales with a different cultural perspective makes you an instant hypocrite and there is no way in hell another person from said culture will listen to you at that point. (basically u cant say one culture is wrong simply because it does not agree with your own.)

As you are basically claiming they are wrong because their traditions are different from your own.

The problem can only be solved by arguing within their own framework, from existing morale structures inside of that culture using a different perspective.

There simply is no other way to change peoples minds on the scale needed for change to occur without this step. Well, or without at least committing cultural genocide or actual genocide.

Which i HOPE we all can agree is wrong.

The question then becomes what's the least wrong?

Rita, I genuinely think that you're being too judgmental on that basis.

My best friend's family supports Trump/Kirk (🤢) and they're some of the best people I know. I don't support either, I'm against everything they stand for (Trump/Kirk), but I do support Chica's (bestie) family. I have no absolute clue what their reasons are. I don't ask Chica about those kinds of things because I recognize that it kind of hurts our relationship a little bit, but I do know her family, and I do know that they're good human beings

And I know her. Possibly better than anyone else.

It's also worth noting that most humans are good, some are entirely neutral though the psychopaths/sociopaths that make up 3-5% of the population are neutral in the sense that they can only act based on perceived self interest.

While this may appear to be a shared trait among humans that's a very shallow view of our social structure as a society.

Most humans are inherently good, because they have empathy most negative interactions with these individuals tend to be due to short sightedness or lack of understanding.

Followed of course by the unwilling to speak up when only modestly offended.

Given the circumstance of choosing to act in way that benefits another person at a cost that is very little normal people will always take this opportunity. (unless the request is presented tot hem in a very bad way.)

Of course narcists won't unless they can use it as leverage or they are smart enough to understand the long term returns on being kind to people when the cost is low. (very few are that smart, but they have existed.)

@Christopher are you talking to me?

Or just the chat in general? 😅

this is some tea right now😂

Christopher wrote: "It's also worth noting that most humans are good, some are entirely neutral though the psychopaths/sociopaths that make up 3-5% of the population are neutral in the sense that they can only act bas..."

Sorry i was just babbling in general about metaphysical nonsense, feel free to ignore me. ^^

Elsie wrote: "Rita, I genuinely think that you're being too judgmental on that basis.

My best friend's family supports Trump/Kirk (🤢) and they're some of the best people I know. I don't support either, I'm agai..."

One does not need to agree with their personal behavior or deportment to agree with what they stand for. Though i honestly would argue both are wrong in this context, one is significantly less wrong than the other.

Rita wrote: "I think everyone is good on some level. Like i agree with nothing trump or Charlie Kirk said but i do believe they have some form of goodness inside of them even if they dont show it.

But i do thi..."

I have to adamantly disagree with the guns statement, i get your probably in the us from your comments and your gun laws are beyond insane as they do not even preclude the mentally ill from owning them.

I live in Canada, we have ALOT of guns, even by American standard we are no slouches especially in the western 2/3 of the country where all the firearms are.

We generally come in somewhere in the top 4 or 5 in fire arms owned per civilians with only active warzones and the USA ever topping us.

More people die from basically anything else in Canada than guns with around 300 deaths per year involving guns many accidents or suicides and while do have 43 million people and while that is not a lot compared to the USA with over 300 million people. The us clocked in at 48k deaths by fire arm.

The us has a gun problem, but its not the guns that are the problem, its the people you guys give them to and the lethality of the firearms given.

(For the record most people in Canada that have guns, have them cause we live in the middle of nowhere with wild animals that can be very dangerous or even required to hunt for food.)

I also can't disagree with the rest, though i have no idea who Percy Jackson is.

What we actually have a problem with in Canada is using cars for terroristic or hate attacks by driving over large numbers of people as they are in many ways more effective and a lot easier to get than a gun.

@Christopher Gamlin I agree with what you're stating. Also, I feel like you're name should belong in a D&D game. I feel like the name "Gamlin" is a very fantasy realistic game. I love it. 😂

Morals are so subjective, there's no set good and evil. Things seen as good/okay to one person can be seen as bad by another, and one side can't control what the other thinks or does with their life.

Some great examples are same-sex marriages and abortion. I fully support LGBTQ+ couples getting married and a woman's right to do what she wants with her body, but plenty of people I've met disagree with that and believe that same-sex marriage and abortion are sinful and immoral. There's no right or wrong, we just have different worldviews.

Even things like killing in revenge, cannibalism, vigilantism, etc are super gray areas because they can be seen as justifiable in certain situations (not saying I support!). So there's no set of what's right and what's wrong, it all depends on the person and the situation (besides rape, there's no justification for that whatsoever).

Some religions do have set moral codes that help you decide what's right and wrong, and forms of punishment (hell, karma) when you don't follow that code. But how do we know which religion's moral code is correct, and should that control laws?

I don't think laws should be based on people's morals. I think they should be based on what benefits the majority of the society as well as the economy and structure. Laws don't tell you what's morally right and wrong, they keep you in line so the community and society doesn't get harmed.

There's no set right and wrong; morals are entirely subjective.