[Hawkeye_a]

It's weird i tell you. sometimes we all, especially myself get caught up n the technicality of the situation and the babbling of strangers and leaders that we kinda loose sight of the environment (the stuff going on around us).
I spent my undergraduate years tryingto comprehend capitalism-socialism and democracy-communism. why one is prefered and why i always thought socialism was good.

After doing some minor research into Marxism, leninism, et al.... you kinda expect socialism to be the next step after communism, at least thats what china(if you could call them communist) and the USSR believed.

Many ppl i talked to....friends, professors told me that in order for communism to work , everyone had to be communist, and that it was only an idealogical concept...which looked good on paper but could never be implemented. i agreed. Now... look at the world's landscape....there were once 2.....USA and USSR...both seemed to battling it out for real estate. .....so if capitalism is great...how come the US has more control globally than the USSR ever had ? and it got that control through your back door....TVs, radios, automobiles, planes, computers (guess where all of the above originated).

But thats besides the point..... it's been what ? 2 years since Sept 11 (i know everything dosent have to include 9/11), but take a look at the US since.... it made it apparent that Americans are far more 'socialistic' than they would let you beleive. you have small communities (counties) working on their own, supporting the society and environment around them, with 'healthy' competition from their neighbours. i might not be able to articulate my idea perfectly, but it seems as though.....capitalism was/is the stepping stone to socialism.

why is it positive ?
well..... look at the US after 9/11...seems as though the population united to help a community in distress.

This dosent nullify the fact that i beleive the leaders censor n conjur up information to further their own cause, but on a 'working class' level it seems like theres been a nice and 'positive' (imo) progression of society.

just thought id put this out there. comments ? suggestions ?

[Spliffdaddy]

Further evidence that people are inherently good.

As if waking up alive for 14,000 days in a row wasn't proof enough for me.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by Hawkeye_a:
there were once 2.....USA and USSR

There could be only one.

Americans are far more 'socialistic' than they would let you beleive. you have small communities (counties) working on their own, [...]'healthy' competition from their neighbours.

This is a result of the American system of government. States and counties have broad authority to manage their affairs and create the kinds of communities they want. And the '"healthy" competition' is, uh, capitalism.

[Lerkfish]

(responding to the first post)
I think so, in a lot of regards.
But I also think its like when I had cancer in '85, and people came up to me and said things like "how brave you are". Bravery had nothing to do with it, it was simple survival...besides, what choice did I have?

I think, yes, America on the local level is doing well, but I think we're being too loose with cause and effect....I think we're relaxing some after the shock of 9/11 and getting back to business as usual to some degree.

This is not to deflate any of the great and nice things done since then, but to say that we had to keep on keeping on...its simple survival...besides what choice do we have?

[icruise]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Further evidence that people are inherently good.

As if waking up alive for 14,000 days in a row wasn't proof enough for me.

So how about all the people murdered in their beds? I'm sure they would find your confidence in the innate goodness of humanity very comforting... Sorry to break it to you, but the world does not revolve around you.

[Spliffdaddy]

I don't know anybody that was murdered in their beds or otherwise. I'm 37 years old and I know a lot of people.

The simple fact of the matter is that 99.9999% of folks won't kill you.

If you prefer to believe that people are inherently bad - I assure you that's what you'll find.


edited after I put on my liberal-colored glasses:

All people are bad, however, all convicts are saints and were wrongly imprisoned.

[ZackS]

Arguably, the United States began a shift towards a socialist nation starting with FDR and his new deal programs. According to strict definition, America is a socialist nation, but keep that on the down low (ie: just don't tell the republicans).

[Joshua]

Originally posted by ZackS:
Arguably, the United States began a shift towards a socialist nation starting with FDR and his new deal programs. According to strict definition, America is a socialist nation, but keep that on the down low (ie: just don't tell the republicans).

Arguably is right. Care to give us your "strict definition" of a socialist nation?

[ZackS]

Originally posted by Joshua:
Arguably is right. Care to give us your "strict definition" of a socialist nation?

Certainly.

1.) Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which a centralized government often plans and controls the economy.

Yup, fixing prices on crops, abusing the interstate commerce clause of the constitution to allow this without amendment. Yes, the US government does this.

2.) A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor.

Welfare anyone?

[icruise]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I don't know anybody that was murdered in their beds or otherwise. I'm 37 years old and I know a lot of people.

The simple fact of the matter is that 99.9999% of folks won't kill you.

If you prefer to believe that people are inherently bad - I assure you that's what you'll find.

Point #1 -- There are other choices besides "inherently good" and "inherently bad".

Point #2 -- You can't judge the entire world by only your experience. (Hence the "world doesn't revolve around you" remark) You actually sound very sheltered and naive.

Point #3 -- Just because someone doesn't kill you doesn't mean that they're good. There are many "evils" that don't entail murder. The point is, your "proof" is nothing of the kind.

Point #4 -- You obviously have your mind made up about everything (down to your predefined view of what a liberal believes) so I guess there's really no point to writing any of this.

[Spliffdaddy]

I reckon I would be a liberal if chose to look only for the bad things in life.

Instead, I look for the good things - small as they are - and I find them at every turn.

Try it yourself. Look for the good things. Sit down. Take a load off. Watch people for a while. Pay attention to them. The children, the young couples, the old folks.

Then come back here and tell me how many bad ones you found.

There is nothing on this Earth worth a damn except for people.

Even the bad ones are good - it all depends on what you're looking for.




< I survived 14,000 days surrounded by 300million people with 200million guns.

*glances at his unlocked front door, then snuggles down for another restful night of sleep - in a city ranked in the top-10 for murders*

[icruise]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I reckon I would be a liberal if chose to look only for the bad things in life.

Instead, I look for the good things - small as they are - and I find them at every turn.

Believe it or not, I agree with you on this point. I am basically an optimist and I generally trust people. Where we differ is in how these points of view influence our views on public policy.

[Spliffdaddy]

That's easy.

Liberals tend to want to punish all those bad people that are out there. To make examples of them. This is the essence of liberalism - to MAKE people be good.

Conservatives don't feel a great need to impact the lives of millions of people in order to make sure that the 5 or 6 bad ones get punished. It is assumed that people will "do the right thing" - the opposite perspective of a liberal. Not having a rule against something is often confused by liberals as "condoning the crime".


Is your goal to eliminate the bad or to promote the good?

Answer that question and you'll know whether you're a liberal or a conservative.

edit:

or just ask me. I probably already have you categorized as one or the other in my all-knowing brain.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Conservatives don't feel a great need to impact the lives of millions of people in order to make sure that the 5 or 6 bad ones get punished. It is assumed that people will "do the right thing" - the opposite perspective of a liberal. Not having a rule against something is often confused by liberals as "condoning the crime".

Sadly, many conservatives' faith in the decency and law-abidingness of human nature flies south when issues like abortion, sodomy and drug use are set on the table.

[Spliffdaddy]

Like most everything in life the best answer is somewhere in the middle of the two extremes.

Liberals, conservatives - both opinions are wrong.

I tend to believe the correct answer most often lies on the conservative side of the line of scrimmage. But that doesn't make me right. Just wrong less often.

confused yet?

[riverfreak]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:

There is nothing on this Earth worth a damn except for people.

Spliff. Jah mon. Don't be so negative, mon. Positive vibration.

What about the

mountains...
deserts...
snow....
surf...
oh yeah, I almost forgot....
rivers...

Those things are worth a damn, too, no?

and then spliffdaddy wrote

Conservatives don't feel a great need to impact the lives of millions of people in order to make sure that the 5 or 6 bad ones get punished.
...
Is your goal to eliminate the bad or to promote the good?

Answer that question and you'll know whether you're a liberal or a conservative

Yeah, that's because the conservative agenda is about promoting yourself, because nothing else is worth a damn.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by riverfreak:
Spliff. Jah mon. Don't be so negative, mon. Positive vibration.

What about the

mountains...
deserts...
snow....
surf...
oh yeah, I almost forgot....
rivers...

Those things are worth a damn, too, no?

Nope. Ain't none of it worth a damn without people to appreciate it. What good is snow if there's nobody to see it, feel it, and , Heaven forbid, appreciate it? Sure the snow is still there, regardless...but who would give a damn?

and then spliffdaddy wrote
----------------------------
"Conservatives don't feel a great need to impact the lives of millions of people in order to make sure that the 5 or 6 bad ones get punished.
...
Is your goal to eliminate the bad or to promote the good?

Answer that question and you'll know whether you're a liberal or a conservative"

--------------------------------

Yeah, that's because the conservative agenda is about promoting yourself, because nothing else is worth a damn.

If it is assumed that people are inherently good, then what is wrong with promoting yourself - an inherently good person, I presume?

If you believe that most people are inherently BAD and it would not be a good idea to allow people to promote themselves - then you are a liberal.

Most folks, I've discovered, reckon all people to be similar in nature to themselves. That is, if you're a thief you see all other people as thieves.

[Spliffdaddy]

Yes, Virginia, people ARE the most important thing on Earth.

It ain't doggies and puppies and cute furry things.

Without people, there is nothing good.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Like most everything in life the best answer is somewhere in the middle of the two extremes.

Liberals, conservatives - both opinions are wrong.

I tend to believe the correct answer most often lies on the conservative side of the line of scrimmage. But that doesn't make me right. Just wrong less often.

confused yet?

Just when I think I've got you figured out ...

[icruise]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Yes, Virginia, people ARE the most important thing on Earth.

It ain't doggies and puppies and cute furry things.

Without people, there is nothing good.

Funny. I would say without people there's nothing evil.

[swrate]

Originally posted by Icruise:
Funny. I would say without people there's nothing evil.

Makes me wonder....
Look at fire burning and destroying everything on its way,,,,

Animals can be evil too, to survive and eat. We are no better at times, but what makes it hard to swallow, is that often, the worst people are not fighting for food, but for power $$$ and notoriety.

9/11... yes...
I was agreeably surprised how well everything happened after the black outs.
People showed solidarity towards each other, and I believe the 9/11 attacks helped develop those altruistic feelings.

I wonder if without bad, they would be good, as all is a subtle balance, light, darkness, negative positive, heat, coldness and so on.

To be conservative, or liberal, black, white, yellow, imaho has nothing to do with the level of good/bad we have inside, neither does it change being Muslim or Jew or whatever.

Maybe to grow and live in climate of cruelty alters the perceptions of good/bad we have, but even, under worst circumstances, some stay good, whereas some become worse.

I think it has to do with ones own consciousness and the will power to progress towards the objectives of becoming a better person, less egocentric and wiser.

[asleep@thewheel]

Originally posted by Hawkeye_a:
.....so if capitalism is great...how come the US has more control globally than the USSR ever had ? and it got that control through your back door....TVs, radios, automobiles, planes, computers (guess where all of the above originated).

the united states is sending itself down a black sucking shitpit of no return.

everyone hates them...they have no jobs for the masses...they feed off live flesh...they are all fat with moles and tumors on their faces...when they fart they **** their pants...they shoot and stab their loved ones...they are self loathing...

but all in all they are bullies and all bullies get weak and die and rot...

[eklipse]

Originally posted by asleep@thewheel:
the united states is sending itself down a black sucking shitpit of no return.

everyone hates them...they have no jobs for the masses...they feed off live flesh...they are all fat with moles and tumors on their faces...when they fart they **** their pants...they shoot and stab their loved ones...they are self loathing...

but all in all they are bullies and all bullies get weak and die and rot...

Don't hold anything back now!

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by asleep@thewheel:
the united states is sending itself down a black sucking shitpit of no return.

everyone hates them...they have no jobs for the masses...they feed off live flesh...they are all fat with moles and tumors on their faces...when they fart they **** their pants...they shoot and stab their loved ones...they are self loathing...

but all in all they are bullies and all bullies get weak and die and rot...

But how do you really feel?

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by asleep@thewheel:
the united states is sending itself down a black sucking shitpit of no return.

everyone hates them...they have no jobs for the masses...they feed off live flesh...they are all fat with moles and tumors on their faces...when they fart they **** their pants...they shoot and stab their loved ones...they are self loathing...

but all in all they are bullies and all bullies get weak and die and rot...

225 years of bullying - and counting

No. Don't get up.

Just sit there and wait for the bully to die. Like you've been doing for your entire life.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally posted by asleep@thewheel:
the united states is sending itself down a black sucking shitpit of no return.

everyone hates them...they have no jobs for the masses...they feed off live flesh...they are all fat with moles and tumors on their faces...when they fart they **** their pants...they shoot and stab their loved ones...they are self loathing...

but all in all they are bullies and all bullies get weak and die and rot...

Funny.... the last time i checked there were more people trying to get into the United States borders than trying to get out. i wonder if that can be taken as an indicator of anything. Im not dissing your argument completely.....i totally agree that America has some problems, just like anywhere else. but it seems Americans are proud to be americans and help ppl (for the most part...im not getting down to the individual level here), but you goto Russia, India, China, South America, etc... seems as though everyone is out for themselves. u know ? no rule of law....a heck of a lot of corruptionthan than in the U.S. (on a local, international and global level). people killing each other in hordes over a mosque, temple, church or synagogue (spell?), etc....

Im not saying America is free of racism..... but i'll tell you what....it's a lot better than anywhere else.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by swrate:
Makes me wonder....
Look at fire burning and destroying everything on its way,,,,

Animals can be evil too, to survive and eat.

Merely hunting and eating to stay alive isn't evil, even though it may seem so to our sensibilities. And forest fires and earthquakes are certainly not evil—destruction is simply a part of nature, just as important as creation.

[christ]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
...There is nothing on this Earth worth a damn except for people....

And ice-cream.

[christ]

Originally posted by Icruise:
Funny. I would say without people there's nothing evil.

Is this in addition to what Spliff said, or instead of?

It isn't clear, and any response to you would be foolhardy until this is clarified.

[icruise]

Originally posted by christ:
Is this in addition to what Spliff said, or instead of?

It isn't clear, and any response to you would be foolhardy until this is clarified.

I suppose in addition to it -- I don't really think that the concepts of good and evil are applicable to non-humans. But I do consider nature as a whole to be a very "good thing."

[christ]

Originally posted by Icruise:
I suppose in addition to it -- I don't really think that the concepts of good and evil are applicable to non-humans. But I do consider nature as a whole to be a very "good thing."

Without humans to make value judgments, things are just 'things'.

Good, bad, happy, sad are human things.

No humans, no emotions.

But 'evil', as in Dahmer, is not the opposite of 'good' as in rainbow. People are evil, things aren't; but without people to appreciate it, nature just exists.

If a tree falls in a forest and no-one is there to hear it, it doesn't matter if it makes a sound.

[swrate]

Originally posted by christ:
Without humans to make value judgments, things are just 'things'.

Good, bad, happy, sad are human things.

No humans, no emotions.

But 'evil', as in Dahmer, is not the opposite of 'good' as in rainbow. People are evil, things aren't; but without people to appreciate it, nature just exists.

If a tree falls in a forest and no-one is there to hear it, it doesn't matter if it makes a sound.

It’s the privilege of humans to have a conscience and therefore to put value onto things.

I disagree with you when you say no humans, no emotions, as I believe animals feel emotions.
A tree falling in the forest might crash a few plants and animals, a squirrel for example, will miss his partner. So the sound matters for him.

Evil on our scale is the opposite of good.
It seems to me that most religions were started with exactly the concept of good and bad.

In a rainbow there are colours, and when two rainbows are in the sky on the same time, the colours of the sedond one are reversed.
Why is a rainbow supposed to be good?

[icruise]

Originally posted by christ:
Without humans to make value judgments, things are just 'things'.

Good, bad, happy, sad are human things.

No humans, no emotions.

But 'evil', as in Dahmer, is not the opposite of 'good' as in rainbow. People are evil, things aren't; but without people to appreciate it, nature just exists.

If a tree falls in a forest and no-one is there to hear it, it doesn't matter if it makes a sound.

I don't agree with this idea, since it encourages people to think that only people matter, and they can do whatever they like to animals or nature. Animals may not feel human emotions, but they do have emotions, and they do experience things. It's the height of hubris to say that if no human is there it doesn't matter.

[Face Ache]

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"

The Second, feeling of the tusk
Cried, "Ho! what have we here,
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me `tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up he spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a snake!"

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee:
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he;
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope.
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

Moral:

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Icruise:
I don't really think that the concepts of good and evil are applicable to non-humans.

Damn straight.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
225 years of bullying - and counting

No. Don't get up.

Just sit there and wait for the bully to die. Like you've been doing for your entire life.

Um, people who don't like the US have gotten up and fought. And failed. Then gotten up and fought again. And failed. Now, out of desperation, they have turned to other tactics that you don't consider "fighting" so you're able to dismiss them as not really counting. Nice strategy you got there. It's hard to lose when you don't acknowledge that your opponents are fighting. Of course, it's hard to win too.

[christ]

Originally posted by swrate:
It’s the privilege of humans to have a conscience and therefore to put value onto things.

My point, exactly.

...I disagree with you when you say no humans, no emotions, as I believe animals feel emotions.
A tree falling in the forest might crash a few plants and animals, a squirrel for example, will miss his partner. So the sound matters for him.

That is your privilege. I disagree with you, but that doesn't make me right, but either way that doesn't really effect the issue

Evil on our scale is the opposite of good.
It seems to me that most religions were started with exactly the concept of good and bad.

No - 'bad' is the opposite of 'good', even on the scale being discussed here. 'Evil' implies intent, and the opposite would be something like 'saintly' (although a better word would be something with less religious overtones, maybe 'altruistic', or 'selfless').

...IWhy is a rainbow supposed to be good?

I meant 'pretty', looking for something natural to counterbalance 'tree falling and crushing squirrel = bad'

Conclusion: Nature can be good or bad (depending on your point of view) but to be evil or altruistic really takes intent, and therefore a person.

Originally posted by icruise:
I don't agree with this idea, since it encourages people to think that only people matter, and they can do whatever they like to animals or nature. Animals may not feel human emotions, but they do have emotions, and they do experience things. It's the height of hubris to say that if no human is there it doesn't matter.

I don't really care what it encourages, I only care whether it is right or wrong. I think that it is the height of stupidity to not consider something because it might 'encourage people into doing wrong things'.

I may be wrong - if so, demonstrate it, don't use soft 'I don't want it thought about' arguments.

But it doesn't matter. If there were no humans, this discussion would be irrelevant. We only need this discussion because there are humans.

[icruise]

Originally posted by christ:
I may be wrong - if so, demonstrate it, don't use soft 'I don't want it thought about' arguments.

I'd like to see you "demonstrate" or "prove" how anything is right or wrong.

I could make the argument that without me being present, things have no meaning (and in fact, I have no way of knowing that the world really exists beyond the range of my senses). If I believed this, it wouldn't matter what happened to anyone else, or what I did to anyone else. I am the center of the universe and if I died, the universe would wink out of existence. You can see how this might be a problematic point of view I hope. Is it wrong? Demonstrate how.

I could make the argument that people who don't speak the same language or come from the same culture as I do are not truly human, and I may treat them however I like. Is this wrong? Demonstrate how.

The point I am trying to make is that assuming that humans are all that matter is just an extension of these ways of thought. I'm not sure that you can demonstrate empirically why they are wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that they are.

I think it's natural to be human-centric in our views, but to say that the world would have no meaning without humans? Why? Just because we don't can't get inside their heads and experience their brand of emotion or consciousness, or understand their language, does that make animals any less important than us?

(We've officially strayed way off topic by now)

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by Icruise:
I suppose in addition to it -- I don't really think that the concepts of good and evil are applicable to non-humans. But I do consider nature as a whole to be a very "good thing."

Nature is neither "good" or "evil", it's neutral. It just IS. We promote morailty, or immorality based on our actions because we (for the most part) want to shape everything around us to fit into our image. Other animals just want to survive, they don't look beyond what is neccessary.

[icruise]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Nature is neither "good" or "evil", it's neutral. It just IS. We promote morailty, or immorality based on our actions because we (for the most part) want to shape everything around us to fit into our image. Other animals just want to survive, they don't look beyond what is neccessary.

I believe that is precisely what I said...

I think we are probably talking about different things here, but I said in my very first post on the subject (and you quoted it) that you cannot imbue nature with concepts of good and evil. I think nature is good not in the "big G" Good/Evil definition of good, just...good.

My issue with what christ was saying really has nothing to do with that however (at least as I understood his point).

[christ]

Originally posted by Icruise:
...nothing to do with that however (at least as I understood his point).

I don't know what your issue is (I didn't realise that anyone had issues with me!), but I'll go over how we got to this point - stop me if I go wrong.

I said:

Without humans to make value judgments, things are just 'things'.

(I also said stuff about emotions that I later conceded is open to question, and about which I have no desire to argue. If you think that critters have emotions, that is your business)


You said:

I don't agree with this idea, since it encourages people to think that only people matter, and they can do whatever they like to animals or nature.

This doesn't address whether things are just 'things', it addresses whether we should even codify the idea, because this idea (regardless of its accuracy) may encourage folk to think bad things. This is what I objected to. I would not have objected if you had stopped after 'I don't agree'.

It was not my intention to have you drag out some proof, and for me then to attempt counter-proof, but simply to point out that 'don't say that because it may encourage bad things' is not a sensible approach.

I apologise if my intemperate, and ill-phrased, response tweaked a nerve. It was not my intention so to do.

[icruise]

I don't know, I get the feeling that we are completely talking at cross-purposes, so I'll just let it go.

[finboy]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I reckon I would be a liberal if chose to look only for the bad things in life.

Instead, I look for the good things - small as they are - and I find them at every turn.

Try it yourself. Look for the good things. Sit down. Take a load off. Watch people for a while. Pay attention to them. The children, the young couples, the old folks.

Then come back here and tell me how many bad ones you found.

There is nothing on this Earth worth a damn except for people.

Even the bad ones are good - it all depends on what you're looking for.




< I survived 14,000 days surrounded by 300million people with 200million guns.

*glances at his unlocked front door, then snuggles down for another restful night of sleep - in a city ranked in the top-10 for murders*

Part of realizing the inherent good in the world is understanding the pervasive nature and relative ease of the potential for "bad" stuff. In other words, given the number of things (and people) that could go bad, it is quite inspirational to see how many things (and people) don't go bad. Once you understand how tenuous a system this is, and that its success relies upon people being good at the margin, it becomes a marvel.

[Spliffdaddy]

People are amazing.

I drove 1,300 miles last weekend. I passed within 10 feet of cars traveling in the opposite direction. No telling how many. Thousands, easy. I've been doing things like that for twenty years and, so far, I've lived to tell about it.

Trust is something you take for granted. Everytime you dine at a restaurant, visit your doctor, or drive your car. While there's a million things that could go wrong and million ways for you to die because of it - human beings seem to be pretty reliable at being good.

If there are so many idiots, so many 'bad' people out there - where are they? Seriously. I don't hardly ever see 'em.

Hell, even when people screw something up and somebody dies - it's nearly always 'human error' as opposed to simply an evil deed.

Either I've been extraordinarily lucky, or people are inherently good.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
People are amazing.

I drove 1,300 miles last weekend. I passed within 10 feet of cars traveling in the opposite direction. No telling how many. Thousands, easy. I've been doing things like that for twenty years and, so far, I've lived to tell about it.

Trust is something you take for granted. Everytime you dine at a restaurant, visit your doctor, or drive your car. While there's a million things that could go wrong and million ways for you to die because of it - human beings seem to be pretty reliable at being good.

If there are so many idiots, so many 'bad' people out there - where are they? Seriously. I don't hardly ever see 'em.

Hell, even when people screw something up and somebody dies - it's nearly always 'human error' as opposed to simply an evil deed.

Either I've been extraordinarily lucky, or people are inherently good.

I have no problem with you thinking people are inherently good, but I find the examples you provide to support that concept very odd.
Essentially, it appears you are saying that because you've not been hit by a car or been personally victimized that proves there is no evil in people? That's applying good or evil to the law of averages....very odd.

I feel instead that all men are potentially both good OR evil, dependent on the choices they make. That's the essence of free will.
Whereas most of us are neither completely good nor completely bad, certainly humans have done some dastardly evil things throughout history. And very virtuous things, of course, as well.
IMHO, believing all men are inherently good ignores the other logical half of a binary system.

Better to say that all men are POTENTIALLY good.

[icruise]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Better to say that all men are POTENTIALLY good.

Precisely. I agree with the idea that most people are good overall, but to say that people are inherently good is a drastic oversimplification (even serial killers can be nice to their mothers, and even saints can be occasionally nasty). And Spliffdaddy's "proofs" are nothing of the kind.

Does not getting killed on the highway prove that people are good? No, it proves that they are doing their best to protect their own lives.

[Spliffdaddy]

*sigh*

If 99.9% of people are GOOD at any given moment - why is it wrong to say that people are inherently good?

My point - which I admit was weak - was to show you that the chances of being 'wronged' (even by accident) by a fellow human being are remote. It's akin to the chances of winning the Powerball lottery. Well, not quite, but close.

Like everybody else, I prefer that I be in charge of things. After all, I'm much more reliable and responsible than the average person. And so are you. Right? It's perfectly natural to feel better than average (which, btw, is the trouble with Socialism). So we can agree that most people aren't as 'good' as we are - you and I. That doesn't mean they're bad...and I think this is where our opinion varies.

Have you ever stolen anything?

Sure you have. Does that stop you from being a 'good' person?

We're so quick to take momentary snapshots of a life, then pass judgement as if it were a motion picture of a lifetime. Trust me, every good person has done bad things. What if tomorrow CNN airs a videotape of Bin Laden sobbing like a child, apologizing profusely for his past actions - asking forgiveness and making obvious efforts at righting his wrongs. What if he later becomes the poster child for world peace? Would you, then, think of him as a 'bad' person?

I believe all people are inherently good. Honestly I do. How anyone can enjoy a life that's shared with 'bad' people is beyond me. I think that's the difference between happy people and miserable souls. Perspective.

[icruise]

This is all really just semantics. The point I am trying to make is that to label people as being either "good" or "evil" is too simplistic -- too black and white.

Again, the original reason that I took issue with the idea of the inherent goodness of humanity was because you were using it as a justification for your political views. You said that things like relief for the poor, labor laws and the like weren't necessary because we are inherently good -- people would naturally help each other out. I'm sorry, but history just doesn't bear that out, not in the big picture.

[Spliffdaddy]

You illustrate my point better than I can.

I walk outside and I don't see any people starving. I can only assume that people are being fed.

Whether this reality is the result of legislation that forces people to help others or whether it's accomplished willingly out of compassion - doesn't matter. People are responsible for it either way.

Perspective.

You still envision people (as a whole) as being bad.

I look for the good things that people have done - not the mis-steps and downright evil things.

It wasn't long ago that I, too, looked for the bad things. People, in my estimation, were not to be trusted. They would do selfish, bad things - no doubt. For a good 30 years I felt that way. While I liked people that I knew, I had a disdain for people as a whole.

At a really low point in my life, when I needed people...needed to trust them with important things which they had no obligation to oversee - needed a favor, in other words - I was overwhelmed by the generousity of people I had never met. It was a humbling experience that made me feel truly stupid for ever allowing myself to think people sucked. Sure, it took 30 years to realize I was wrong - but others never do. It ain't likely that I would have paid any attention to the advice from a pot-smoking redneck posting love-your-neighbor BS on an internet discussion forum...and it ain't likely you will either. Just store this little tidbit in the back of your mind until the time comes when people are able prove to you just how good they are.

"Spliffdaddy was right" you'll say.

Again.

[christ]

Originally posted by Icruise:
This is all really just semantics...

You seem to fall foul of those a lot.