this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2025
65 points (100.0% liked)

Asklemmy

47298 readers
515 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Edit: I don't mean someone that will sacrifice their life for yours, more someone who would go out of their way to rush you to the hospital or something

(page 2) 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (13 children)

I think it's dangerous to consider anyone to be a fundamentally good person or a fundamentally bad person. It's impossible to know what someone is internally and I am not a believer in determinism. Every person is complex and capable of good and evil acts depending on their circumstances.

Especially when you live in a cutthroat competitive culture in which what little to win is jealously guarded by narcissistic psychopaths, many people understand at least on some level that public behavior is a performance intended to reap rewards rather than an honest presentation of oneself. Good and evil is inapplicable here. Our system is amoral, and we human animals are just going to do what we consider to be a good idea at a time and only a few of us really consider the ethics of what we're going to do before we do it, and the few of us capable of that only do it some of the time.

Someone can do the right thing for the right reasons, the right thing for the wrong reasons, the wrong thing for the right reasons, or the wrong things for the wrong reasons. I can never know their internal part, just base my expectations on how their behavior effects me and others. I wouldn't trust anyone until I consider them to be trustworthy, though I can't expect to always be right about that either.

load more comments (13 replies)
[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (9 children)

0%

I don't think it's wise to ever trust another person 100%. You should be aware that anyone could turn on you in the correct situation with the correct pressures.

[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You're right, but sometimes you need someone to hold the other end of the rope when you lower yourself over a cliff.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

That is very hard to asses. I prefer to look it like this, what chances is that you will find a partner (like for marry to) out of 100 or so. I do believe, if given equal chance of interaction, you could find a marrying-material partner every 7 or 8 people. Now, in a world of plenty of choices, biases etc, we shuffle through hundreds of people before settling with one... and, even then, still unhappy with the choice for the people we haven gone through yet in our search. Now, that is for me... Chances is you would choose a different person out of these very same 7 to 8 people. Both chosen persons have the same chance of being equally good persons, as the non chosen ones.

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[โ€“] [email protected] -4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

There are no good or bad people.

[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Can you tell me why you believe serial killers are neither good or bad

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They do bad things. If a rabid dog attacks a child, killing it, is the dog bad? If a priest gives comfort to a dying man then molests a child is he good then bad? No he's neither. The actions are good or bad; the individual is neither.

[โ€“] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

You do understand dogs that attack people unprovoked are put down everyday right? And to compare a dog's critical thinking to a human's is asinine.

A priest is allowed to molest kids as long as he does good things to balance it? If you truly believe that then you are out of your mind.

You've got an interesting sense of logic

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Look, you can interpret what I said anyway you like, but regardless I'm correct. If a serial killer believes himself to be "good" and you believe him to be "bad" which one of you is correct? How about a man that wants so badly to murder everyone he meets but doesn't ever do it? Is he a good man as long as he doesn't act?

[โ€“] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Those are completely different situations? So you believe serial killers are good and someone who doesn't actually kill is the same as a serial killer. Good lord man, you need to either stop the drugs or start taking some.

Don't bother me with your insanity anymore

[โ€“] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

Reading comprehension is truly a lost art...

load more comments
view more: โ€น prev next โ€บ