Posts by redbear2

darkcyclist92 said:In my view, Hitler was an above-average intelligence, a highly capable leader—he was simply born with that drive. He had a remarkable knack for selecting the right tools and people to achieve his objectives, most notably choosing Rommel, a man others might have dismissed, and recognizing him as one of the greatest field marshals of the Wehrmacht, not to mention the experts who built up the Luftwaffe and the naval forces of the Bundeswehr... even today, scientists are baffled by certain technical solutions they developed, sometimes even copying details sixty years later because he was so far ahead of his time.

While Hitler was a natural "mover," it was his upbringing that diverted that innate power away from moving the world forward and toward using it as a weapon of vengeance against the world. That is a philosophical theory, I suppose. You’re essentially arguing that he was born neutral, and his environment turned him evil, isn't that right?

I disagree—that explanation falls short. Even if we assume Hitler wasn't inherently evil in his soul, he certainly wouldn't have engineered a scenario to slaughter half the planet. Especially not someone as brilliant and capable as he was.

I know there is a fundamental difference because I see it in myself. In the midst of the absolute worst chaos, under the most crushing circumstances and massive problems, I will find the positives, the meaning, and the solutions, and I will push a "frenzied mob" toward the very best versions of themselves. I am simply wired that way, and you don't learn that in any school.

For God's sake, killing someone... it's idiotic to even debate whether that is a good or evil act. It is obviously evil, regardless of how heavy the arguments behind it might be. And claiming pure egocentrism as a justification is particularly moronic.

Then again, there are those for whom such things are perfectly acceptable. Life, philosophy, and circumstance taught them otherwise. They are simply "built" that way, in my opinion; they were born with it.

If you still find those points unconvincing, my honest advice is to take a trip to Central America—visit Mexico, Panama, or Colombia first. Go somewhere where the philosophy we hold dear here has long since vanished.

PS: By the way, you have another similarly interesting philosophical topic posted here 😉

Yeah, I stand by that. He wasn't exactly cooking up some grand scheme to take over the entire world.

I’ve been quoted on this thread before: "Every villain is a hero in his own mind."

Good and evil are subjective. What looks like pure evil in one person's head might just look like common sense to someone else. It all depends on whose perspective you're looking through.

Dammit, killing someone... It’s honestly stupid to even sit there weighing whether it’s a good or bad act. Of course it's evil. Even when people try to stack up heavy arguments to justify it, it doesn't change the math. And using pure ego as a reason? That’s just plain moronic.

Look, some people just find it totally cool. Life, philosophy, circumstances—it all shapes you differently. Some folks just "have" it in them, I guess. They were born that way.

If those points still don't convince you, my honest advice is to take a trip down to Central America—start with Mexico, Panama, or Colombia. It’s a good reality check. You'll find that the kind of philosophy we hold dear over here has long since checked out.

P.S. I actually have another interesting one just like it. Let's dive into the philosophical side of things here, too. 😉

There’s nothing foolish about asking questions. How can you possibly gauge the weight of a decision if you don't put it on the scale? Take murder, for instance. How can killing one person be viewed as a negative outcome if that single act saves ten others? To be honest, I’ve run through several scenarios in my head where letting ten people die just to save one would actually be the worse choice—but then again, that also carries its own weight on the scale. Let's look at it this way: imagine eleven average Americans. If killing one person ensures the other ten survive, then without that act, one lives and ten die. In that case, you have one killer and ten captives. In a setup like that, isn't killing the one actually the positive move? Why exactly would we call that an evil deed?

I originally pointed to egocentrism as the root cause when a kid snatches a toy or a candy bar away from someone else. Murder, though, usually stems from something different. Still, that whole "If I can't have you, nobody can" mentality? That's pure egocentrism and selfishness driving the blade.

Richard Wells said:I'm not judging. It just looks to me like you aren't being logical here. If you were truly self-aware, you would have changed things by now. Step by step. A lot of people claim they're "aware," but they either aren't deep enough or they just don't have the guts. I'm not buying the "it can't be done" excuse. I know it can. I had a rough childhood myself, and if I had just taken the path of least resistance and stayed stuck in those old patterns, my life today would be a total nightmare. But you can't just let life happen to you.

Actually, the logic holds up because you can't be "aware" of losing something you never truly possessed in the first place. He’s basically saying he saw potential connections or opportunities with certain people, but those paths didn't appeal to him because his way of navigating the world is different. It's a trade-off. Those missed experiences could have been great, sure, but they could have been just as bad.

He even points out that he views his specific way of operating as an advantage, so from his perspective, there isn't anything to fix.

darkcyclist92 said:

redbear2 The user states:
Now that we have reached the conclusion that "good" and "evil" are merely constructs of pure cynicism—and that even the act of murder can be interpreted through either lens depending entirely on the context—one must confront the underlying question: What kind of person is the killer? Are they fundamentally good, or are they inherently evil?

That’s a fair question, but we’re drifting into pure philosophy now, so let’s not get bogged down in that. Besides, you'll eventually arrive at your own realization regarding whether killing is a good or an evil act all on your own.

You’re out here hunting for some deep philosophical justification just to decide whether murder is a good or bad act, but I couldn't care less about that intellectual scavenger hunt.

Don't you dare lie and suggest I claimed children lack a sense of self.

You asked whether I believe a person possesses a fully formed personality at the moment of birth. By asking that, you’ve essentially made the preemptive assertion that they don't—you've already boxed yourself into that conclusion. You have your own quote right there above to prove it.

I say... it exists.

The fundamental difference between our perspectives boils down to this:
I am firmly convinced that environment—the philosophy of one's surroundings—is what ultimately carves out a person's identity, shaping their instincts, their deepest drives, and their core characteristics, whereas we all enter this world fundamentally sound, simply waiting to be molded by the world around us.

And here is my position on the matter:
A person is born with a fixed personality—a set of innate instincts, primal drives, and core characteristics—that they will be absolutely forced to bend and adapt to their environment, or what we might call the prevailing philosophy of the world around them.

If you really want to be shocked, then let me drop this on you: I personally believe there is absolutely no distinction between man and beast. I could provide enough examples to make your head spin, though I have zero interest in wasting my breath trying to convince you or anyone else—especially not some self-proclaimed philosopher. Just look at war. It serves as the ultimate proof, especially when you consider what a "human being" is actually capable of becoming during wartime, in those moments where the Law (philosophy) has completely vanished.

I maintain that most human beings aren't just born "not okay," they are actually born fundamentally flawed, yet it is through the influence of philosophy and their environment that they are eventually molded into functional individuals—provided, of course, they weren't already born stable.

***
Man is undoubtedly the most advanced creature on this planet, yet when faced with the raw, unyielding power of nature and the forces of the Earth, he is nothing more than a philosopher.

Man cannot be a force on this Earth; he can only dissect and exploit existing forces—which is precisely the only thing he ever actually does. This holds true whether you're talking about the wind, the sun, electromagnetic fields, fruit, fire, or petroleum derivatives.

Take a tree as a prime example. Is it actually possible for a human being to engineer something even remotely resembling one? I'm talking about a biological machine that can simply sprout into existence without drawing mass from the soil—something that converts nothing but sunlight and water into a massive, rigid, towering structure, while simultaneously "manufacturing" 300 pounds of pears out of thin air.

It’s simply impossible. It is equally impossible to predict or define exactly what kind of child will be born.

What am I even trying to get through to you? It’s simple: a human being is not some inherently superior entity. We aren't. And the reason I’m hammering this point home is because you stubbornly insist on the exact opposite by constantly contradicting me, clinging to this delusional notion that humanity is somehow a supreme being capable of conquering anything under the sun.

What you’re describing is nothing more than the byproduct of pure, unadulterated egocentrism, a phenomenon that is all too common in children.

Fine, if you insist on dismissing this as nothing more than mere eccentricity, then let us pivot to more substantial matters—let us talk about warfare, about theft, and the raw, unapologetic seizure of territory.

It isn't exactly a Hershey’s bar, but it'll suffice. 😁 The Author provided an excellent example—Hitler.

Do you honestly believe people wouldn't be stealing left and right if the Law (philosophy) didn't exist to stop them? Why does Law in general even exist? I'll tell you exactly why: it exists to ensure that everyone is forcibly kept "okay." 🙂 So that we don't... slaughter one another.

That’s precisely why organizations like the EU exist, and why America was once a reality 🙂 Look, the moment someone decides they want a bigger slice of chocolate, 300,000 people end up slaughtered, raped, or burned alive, while everyone else was born into an "OK" world only to watch everything go up in flames!

So, the philosophy is simple: you’re a decent human being only as long as the structure exists. The second it vanishes, our raw instincts—those inherent human traits—take center stage and put on a damn show.

Mistakes are an essential part of learning.

Don't try to force that logic where it doesn't belong. All a person can truly "learn" in that realm is how to create Ebola, AIDS, and other mass-casualty disasters, whereas cloning sex with sex will just result in a cripple. And I mean a SERIOUS cripple.
It would be just fucking wonderful if the entire planet turned into a collection of cripples; that would certainly be a "smart and scientific" achievement for mankind.

Only then would a man finally become a philosopher and remark, "he who acts, errs." 🙂 How touching.

I'm telling you—humanity does nothing but act foolishly by meddling with the laws of nature. That's it. Nothing more. And once someone makes a fatal mistake, even nature won't step in to save them. ☕

**
PSS: You have the last word; I'm out.

There isn't really any other way to define it, unless you're one of those people who believes every single action is strictly good or evil. I don't see much point in commenting on that, though. It feels unnecessary.

So, you're asking if I believe a person has a fully formed personality right at birth. By framing it that way, you’ve basically already decided my answer is "no," haven't you? You’ve got your own quote sitting right there above, setting the stage.

Follow the logic here. What I'm really saying is that a person isn't born with any of this. built Personality.

I say... there is.

Personality isn't just one thing. It’s built from the inside out—a mix of what's happening under the hood and what the world throws at you.

Here’s where you and I differ:
I’ve always leaned toward the idea that our environment—the philosophy of our surroundings—is what ultimately carves out a person's identity. You know, those core instincts, drives, and specific personality traits we carry around. My take? We all start out perfectly fine. We're born "OK," just sitting there somewhere in the middle, waiting for the world to shape us.

Here’s my take on it:
We’re born with a certain personality—set instincts, drives, and traits that are just hardwired into us. It's a given. Because of that, we have no choice but to bend those traits to fit our surroundings, or what you might call the prevailing social philosophy.

I didn't say that. Everything you just listed could be purely genetic—honestly, some of those traits couldn't even manifest any other way. I’ll just point out that I'm not entirely sure what exactly you're defining as "characteristics."

If you really want a shocker, here it is: I honestly don't see any real distinction between humans and animals. I could give you enough examples to make your head spin, but I’m not interested in trying to convince you—or anyone else, especially not some self-proclaimed philosopher. Just look at warfare. It’s the ultimate proof of what a "human" is capable of when the Law in general vanishes and all that social philosophy falls away.

This feels like the opening salvo of a personal attack that doesn't actually have much to do with the topic at hand. It seems like you’re feeling a bit threatened. You're throwing out wrong assumptions about what I actually believe, seemingly in hopes of undermining my point.

Fine by me. I’m not really interested in sinking to your level, but I will point out that your assumptions about me—which have absolutely nothing to do with what we're actually discussing—are dead wrong.

You're spot on when you say I believe there are fundamental differences between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom. Of course there are—just like there are distinctions between any other species out there.

Look, my argument is that most people aren't just born "not okay"—they’re actually born bad. It’s philosophy and environment that turn them into decent individuals (assuming they weren't born good to begin with).

I’m not sure how to respond to that. All I can say is that at birth, an individual can't be anything other than neutral. They haven't done anything yet, so there's no foundation to judge whether they are fundamentally good or evil.

Humans might be the most advanced beings on Earth, but against the raw power of nature, we’re just... philosophers.

Fair enough, I'll concede that point—if we define high intelligence as the ultimate stage of development. Though, I could probably list several organisms out there that could give us a run for our money.

Humans can't be a force of nature. We can only (philosophically speaking) dissect and exploit that force. Which is pretty much all we do, by the way. That goes for wind, the sun, electromagnetic fields, fruit, fire, or oil.

Take a tree. That's a solid example. Can a human create something remotely like a tree? Something that grows on its own without pulling mass from the ground, turns water and sunlight into a massive, rigid structure, and somehow "produces" 300 pounds of pears?

No. And for the same reason, you can't predict what kind of kid someone will turn out to be.

I don't think comparing humans to trees is helpful here. I could ask, "Can a tree launch a pear into space?" or "Can a tree solve math problems?" but what's the point?

What am I trying to tell you? Just that humans aren't some superior species. We can't be. And I'm saying this because you keep insisting otherwise by denying my point—acting like humans are "super beings" who can do anything.

Like I said before, you keep making this personal, which wasn't my intention at all. I don't see how that helps this discussion. Personally, I put humans in the same category as raccoons. Hope that makes you feel better. Honestly, raccoons probably contribute more to the global ecosystem than we do.

Fine, if that's just your eccentricity talking, let's talk about wars, theft, and seizing territory.

That's just egocentrism.

Not quite a perfect fit, but it works. 😁 The > gave a great example—Hitler.

Do you really think Hitler was the embodiment of evil from the moment he was born?

ps: You think people wouldn't steal so much if there wasn't a Law (philosophy) in place? Why does the Law exist at all? You know why? To ensure everyone is forcibly "okay." 🙂 Just so we don't... kill each other off.

To maintain order, sure, I agree. The thing is, humans are just animals, as we've already established. The whole point of a community is acting together to make survival a bit easier; naturally, you need order to keep that going.

That’s why things like the EU exist, or why America used to be a thing. 🙂 Look, the moment someone says, "I want the big chocolate bar," 300k people end up slaughtered, violated, or burned, and everyone was born "OK," only to have everything go to hell!

I suspect that wars between entire nations were caused more by external influences than by absolute evil within the human "soul."

So, you're only a good person as long as the Law exists—that's the philosophy. As soon as it's gone... instincts (human traits) take center stage. The innate ones.

I don't see any issue with this happening among other animals.

You don't need to overcomplicate it. All a human can "learn" in that field is Ebola, AIDS, and other massively lethal mistakes, and cloning sex with clones will just result in a freak. And a SERIOUS one at that.
It would be just great if the whole planet turned into freaks; that would be a truly "smart and scientific" move for humanity.

Are you claiming that humans are responsible for developing those diseases? You don't believe in the existence of viruses that cause them independently of human action?

Then man would be (only) a philosopher and say... "whoever acts, errs." 🙂 Touching.

But the truth is, the entire process of evolution relies on that.

I'm telling you—humans just mess up by trying to tinker with the rules of nature. That's it. Nothing else. And once they make a serious mistake... even nature won't help them. ☕

Fine.

PS: You get the last word, I'm out.

Thanks for your generosity and your boldness.

Paul Thompson3 said:Seeing the world through his eyes looks like this: "Ugh, I didn't get my way—so now everyone else has to suffer and I'm going to wreck everything for everyone." Honestly, if he actually got what he wanted, he’d be even more of a nightmare. I’ve always been all about looking out for number one.

You never really know. There might actually be a reason why he’s such a piece of work. It doesn't make it okay, obviously, but it makes it understandable.

northernsailor102 said:I’m of the opinion that we all enter this world as blank slates... the whole concept of good versus evil is nothing more than an illusion. This idea of polarity is just a program we’ve been conditioned to accept. Think of good and evil like the positive and negative poles of a magnet—they repel one another and act on opposite sides, yet they are fundamentally parts of the exact same entity.

I agree.

Paul Thompson3 said:There’s a limit to how much we can blame someone’s bad behavior on their circumstances. "An misunderstood child reaches a limit, but a bad person crosses it"—that's a line from the movie Haircut. I’ve crossed paths with plenty of terrible people in my life, and I know one particularly intimately (not in a romantic sense...) who is just fundamentally rotten. There isn't some grand external reason for his character—he’s just... well, he's just built that way. From day one.
It makes it pretty obvious to me that some people are born even worse—just pure evil from the start. Or, at least, from the moment they were physically and mentally capable of causing harm.

That isn't making excuses. It's just understanding.

Maybe there’s something about that guy you don't see. You're looking at the world through your own eyes, not his.

I'll accept the idea that a person is generally good or bad based on the average of all their actions over a lifetime. Of course, we can't actually know that, so there's not much point in debating it.

P.S. I’m going to have to cut ties here. We’ve started getting a bit too carried away, and that’s a line we aren't supposed to cross. It isn't like I'm actually interested or anything, though. Forgive me for that.

Nice. It was about time. We didn't exactly miss any deadlines, but whatever. I’m going to weigh in on this anyway, mostly because I feel like I haven't quite finished my thought. You were the first one to back off, which means the floor is mine to have the last word.

darkcyclist92 said:Listen, my friend... you’ve just gone and sabotaged your own argument. The fundamental distinction—the core characteristic that defines a human being—is precisely whether they are inherently good or evil.
That single line is going to define his entire existence. It’s the ultimate dividing line—good versus bad, if you want to be that simplistic about it—and it will dictate his path in absolutely everything he does.

So, you’re actually asserting that children arrive in this world with a fully formed personality already baked in?

Good grief, do you really need to draw that out? Is there absolutely no one around you with any sense of common decency? Are they all just clones of one another? Have you ever actually witnessed an instinctive moment where one child simply snatches a piece of chocolate right out of another kid's hand? You wouldn't call that a "personality trait," would you?

Now, look at this ridiculous spectacle: you have the "personality" type, then there’s the kid who had his candy bar snatched away. One is going to burst into tears, another will launch an immediate assault, a third might sit there paralyzed for the moment only to retaliate later, and a fourth? That one is going to absolutely beat the living daylights out of him.

I fail to see any logical connection between sexual orientation and the concepts of good and evil.

I provided that third example specifically so you would grasp the core of our discussion, yet I see now that attempting to make you understand is a fruitless endeavor. 🙂

If you truly believe that an individual possesses the sheer audacity to dictate the specific characteristics and temperament of a child before they are even born, then logically, you should be able to bypass nature entirely and decide whether that child will be gay or straight as well.

I don't know; it seems like everything is just incredibly simple to you. I provided a perfectly valid example just so you could finally grasp the absolute garbage you're churning out, but unfortunately, I already know how this goes—you'll stubbornly insist on being right despite having zero arguments or substance to back it up. It’s truly bizarre.

It doesn't even matter.

😉

Generally speaking, We aren't far off. Regardless of the factors you’ve laid out here, we cannot ignore the fact that external influences will inevitably play a massive role in shaping a child's personality.

If people like you are the ones tasked with steering our progress, then humanity is truly in a dire state. 🤣

And unfortunately, the man isn't even remotely close to anything meaningful, aside from his own absolute nonsense on the subject. Cloning fundamentally violates the laws of nature—it’s no surprise that Dolly turned out sickly—and frankly, I have nothing but contempt for these delusions regarding "humanity's proximity to the process of creating man."

Einstein had a profound observation regarding human stupidity, but I think I can frame it more accurately: man operates under the delusion that he is capable of everything, when the reality is that he is capable of nothing. To put it bluntly: his only true talent is finding new ways to screw everything up.

ps: Unfortunately, I have to cut ties here. We’ve let this conversation drift too far afield, and we aren't supposed to be doing that. It isn't as if I'm actually interested, either. Forgive me for that.

I’m going to throw this question out there, even though I know you’ve stepped away from the debate. Is there such a thing as an inherently good or evil act, or does our judgment of right and wrong depend entirely on the context surrounding the deed? We’ve already established that "good" or "evil" might just be labels we slap onto an action—that even something like murder can be viewed through two different lenses depending on the circumstances. So, where does that leave the person behind the act? Are they a good person or a bad one? Even if we decide an act is truly evil, how do we categorize someone who follows that up by donating a million dollars to charity? Or someone who saves a life right after taking one? They took a life, saved a life, and gave away a fortune. Where do we actually draw the line?

Good grief, do you really need to draw that out? Are there any kids around you at all? Is every single one of them exactly the same? Have you ever watched a kid instinctively snatch a chocolate bar right out of another kid's hand? You wouldn't call that a "personality trait," would you?

I never said kids don't have their own personalities, so let's not lie about that.

What you're describing is really just a byproduct of standard ego. It’s nothing out of the ordinary—you see it in kids all the time.

It’s funny how things play out. You’ve got the whole cast of characters ready to go: there’s the one with the massive ego, the kid who just had his candy snatched away, the bystander who stays quiet for now only to settle the score later, and then the one who just goes straight for the knockout.

So? What's your point?

I threw that third example out there just so you could grasp what we’re actually talking about, but I guess it was a waste of breath. 🙂

Of course. It’s clearly my own fault for being too dim to wrap my head around it.

If you can just flip a switch and decide exactly what kind of kid you’re going to have—picking out their specific personality traits and all that—then why stop there? If we've got that kind of control, we might as well step in for nature and decide whether they'll be gay or straight too.

I don't plan on having kids. (Personally)

Look, I get that this all seems simple to you. I just gave you a solid example to show how nonsensical your logic is. But unfortunately, I know you'll just keep doing your own thing, trying to be right without any actual arguments or anything else. It's strange.

An ad hominem squared. Interesting how you bring up arguments.

😉

Beat it.

Man, if people like you are going to lead progress, humanity is in serious trouble. 🤣

Thanks.

And unfortunately, man isn't close to anything except garbage in that regard. Cloning goes against the rules of nature—the sheep Dolly turned out to be sickly (which makes sense)—and that's about all I think regarding those "human similarities in forming humans."

Fine.

There's a good Einstein's quote about human stupidity, but I'll describe it slightly differently: "man thinks he can do everything, when the truth is he can do nothing." In plain English: he can only mess everything up.

Mistakes are a built-in part of learning.

Paul Thompson3 said:I wasn't aiming at anyone in particular—but if we step away from the philosophy side of things, you'll probably agree that in everyday life, certain actions can pretty clearly be labeled as good or evil.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_k...2/index_1.html

Sure, but it still boils down to a subjective judgment.

Paul Thompson3 said:Some people are just born that way.

Aiming for psychopaths?

In what specific sense are they inherently evil?

darkcyclist92 said:The only thing I can accept is the fact that a person—man as a species, not necessarily you personally—is capable of harboring an ego so inflated that they believe they can explain away the existence of good or evil simply because they possess self-awareness, as if being able to think gives them some sort of mastery over the entire natural world.

In my view, the single greatest intellectual failure regarding this topic is the assertion that all human beings are born fundamentally identical, such as being inherently "good." It seems to me that this is precisely the point you are attempting to drive home, and that you are stubbornly clinging to it.

I truly cannot fathom why you are so invested in this particular delusion. 🙂

PS: You aren't wrong about one thing. Every individual possesses distinct characteristics. The real question, however, remains: where exactly do those specific traits originate for any given person?

If jbte could actually solve that mystery—or even just convince themselves they had—we would be designing our children to our exact specifications, and life would be effortless. 😁 We wouldn't even have people being born with homosexual orientations, for instance!

Are you talking about yourself? 🍿

In my opinion, the biggest intellectual blunder in this thread is the idea that everyone is born exactly the same—for instance, inherently "good." I get the feeling that's what you're trying to say, and that you really believe it.

I’m not claiming we’re all born identical. I’m saying we aren't born "good" or "evil."

So, are you suggesting kids arrive with fully formed personalities already baked in?

Honestly, I have no idea why you even care.🙂

It doesn't really matter.

ps: you're right. Everyone has their own traits. Now the real question is... where does a person actually get those specific characteristics from?

Some are innate, while others are shaped by life circumstances and external influences.

Man, if people actually knew that (or thought they did), we could just design our children however we wanted and everything would be fine.😁 Nobody would even be born with a different sexual orientation, just as an example!

I don't see how sexual orientation has anything to do with being good or evil.

Generally speaking, we haven't moved far from what you described. Eventually, environmental factors and outside influences are going to step in and play a huge role in molding a child's personality anyway. I'm not sure where you're even going with this.

darkcyclist92 said:Don't be so socially sensitive. This topic is actually quite compelling (even if it’s largely futile, it serves as an excellent experiment), and let’s be clear: this psychology forum isn't a sanctuary where we should expect or demand content that is polite, comfortable, or socially pleasant.

It used to be a common, albeit reckless, assumption that environment alone breeds evil. Sure, the surroundings play a massive role, but you see children acting out from the moment they can walk; it’s hard to argue that their environment "calms them down" over time when many have already established a lifetime of trouble by age ten.

From a psychological standpoint, this subject doesn't just belong here—it provides necessary fuel for serious intellectuals in the field to debate.

In my view, the true source of human good and evil produces something that modern science and medicine haven't even begun to grasp, nor will they ever reach. That is why this entire thread, despite my writing it, remains ultimately futile; philosophy, medicine, and the human mind itself are all merely surface-level scratches compared to the actual core of this issue.

I'm not asking for anything impossible here. I just think these kinds of banal, mindless threads should be locked because they have zero connection to actual psychology or common sense.

It's a stretch to claim that environment alone creates evil out of thin air. Sure, surroundings play a role, but you see kids acting out from practically day one. It’s hard to blame their environment for calming them down later when they've already built up a lifetime of bad habits by age ten.

It’s much less of a stretch to suggest that evil is innate. Our nature dictates whether we turn out good or bad right from the start. There are no middle grounds for me. I don't do black-and-white nuances.

Of course, kids who act out are the embodiment of evil. A dog never chews on a slipper—where would it even learn that? If a dog happens to bite someone, we wouldn't call it "born evil" because it knows better. The issue is that it's bad, so it's better not to deal with it. An aggressive dog gets put down. That's just how it goes.

From a psychological standpoint, this topic doesn't just fit within the field; it provides excellent fodder for serious professionals to debate.

No comment.

In my view, the interplay of good and evil in humans produces something that science and medicine haven't even begun to touch. I don't think they ever will. That's why I wrote that this topic is ultimately futile. Philosophy and medicine are just scratching the surface of what this really is about.

Great "argument." 👏

Or you could just accept that circumstances, combined with certain traits, influence how any living thing reacts. That holds true regardless of the concepts of good and evil, which only exist as mental constructs in the human mind.

Can we please stop debating this? It’s honestly a bit much to be typing out arguments about whether people are fundamentally good or evil. Like, are we talking about some kind of genetic blueprint that decides our moral compass before we're even born? I get that this PDF covers a lot of ground beyond just straight psychology—and hey, I'm not saying that's a bad thing—but some of these topics are really pushing it.

"Every villain thinks they're the hero of their own story."

Relationships are basically just a way for one person to exert control over another.

So, what went wrong? 🍿

I’ve always had a soft spot for that raspy female vocal quality. Not the aggressive, heavy type, just... genuinely husky. 🤷

Kyle Vaughn8 said:I love it when people talk about something deep—they kind of drift off for a second and just get lost in thought.
But man, I can't stand it when someone keeps their eyes locked on yours without breaking away while they speak. It makes me feel like they’re lying or trying to force an idea down my throat... you know, that intense stare that just pierces right through you?

How do you guys feel about it? When someone's talking, do you actually like having them stare you down the whole time? 🤷

I’m not a fan. It bugs me even more when someone is just chatting away and starts inching closer to my personal space. I'll lean back, and they just keep closing the gap. It isn't quite the same as the eye contact thing, but the vibe is identical.

Jerry Bishop4 said:I’ve always found it hard to focus on someone if they have a really high-pitched, thin voice. It just makes it tough to stay tuned in, you know? 😳

Personally, I have a deeper, slightly raspier voice. I've noticed that when I'm giving presentations, speaking a bit faster actually helps me come across as more knowledgeable. 😲

Also, I can't stand it when people won't look you in the eye while they're talking. 😲

Beyond that, I don't really pay much attention to anything else. 😲

🙂
Quinn:

I’ve got a deeper, slightly raspier voice. I’ve noticed that when I’m answering questions, I actually get a better reaction if I pick up the pace a bit. It’s like people subconsciously assume you know more about the subject if you talk faster. It's an interesting little quirk of human psychology. 😲

The voice you hear in your own head? It isn’t the one everyone else is hearing. We all tend to think our own voice sounds deeper, more resonant than it actually does. It's a bit like looking in a mirror and thinking you look taller than you really are—a little trick of the mind that we all fall for.

ambercrane722 said:chill out... I didn't just stumble through those phases by choice, my subconscious basically drove the car. I've moved past all that and I'm playing much smarter now. You a believer in horoscopes? Because I'm all about astrology... and don't take me too literally here... you honestly think I'm being childish by suggesting love involves dominance or control? NO, I'm saying it's just obvious

If you can't put your thoughts into words, there isn't much else for me to say.

ambercrane722 said:redbear2, you just don't get it... I’m not saying this *is* love, I’m saying it’s a fundamental part of it. You have to go through the fire to reach that next level, and that level is true, eternal freedom. Like, what kind of person are you if you haven't faced this struggle at least once? You're basically incomplete—just some hollow, faceless shell. Right now, with Venus in Scorpio, everyone is feeling this intensity way more deeply, which is exactly why I’m pushing this conversation. Personally, I don't deal with those issues anymore; I moved past all that back when I was a teenager, though the echoes are still there. And honestly? I wouldn't trade them for anything because they're a core part of who I am.

First off, astrology is a hard pass for me.

Second, how does tying yourself to someone else somehow lead to freedom? That logic doesn't track.

Third, real love isn't about exerting control over another person. At its core, it's really just about self-love.

Brandon Bishop15 said:Well, at least you aren't yelling. 😁

It’s always just when the games are on. 🎉

ambercrane722 said:Look, we’re sane people who aren't just slaves to our basic impulses. All that talk about fairy tales and "true love" is nothing but pure fantasy... Real love is about control, power, and dominance—it's that intense, kinky, S&M dynamic where you surrender and take charge all at once. It's the ultimate yin and yang, right?

No, that isn't true love. That's just the version of love most people consume. It's nothing more than possession. That's why marriage exists in the first place—so you can formally belong to someone else.