Are people basically good?

[ding]

Even before that there were men who behaved decently and it was those results that showed what the standard was. It couldn't be just anything we desired. Standards exist independent of what we want. Standards exist for logical reasons. And when we deviate from those standards predictable surprises will eventually occur. It's all very logical.

And the men who didn’t “discipline” their wives were considered whipped, not in charge, not keeping the woman in line, tolerating lip, and the dress-wearer in the family.

You do know about the saying, “the one who wears the pants in the family.” While not about wife-beating per se, it’s a direct reference to how a man should be the ruler of the house.

Not sure what your point is here exactly.

It certainly does not negate that not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. Or that standards exist for logical reasons.

Or that when one deviates from the standard that predictable surprises will eventually occur.

It means that the standard used to be “beat your wife.” The government agreed with it, the church agreed with it, and the neighbors suspected you weren’t wearing the pants in the family if you didn’t do it.

Wrong. The standard was never that. Not every man beat his wife. The standard always existed even when it wasn't accepted. Which is exactly my point, the standard is independent of what man desires it to be.

Thanks for proving my point.

So the standard is what EVERYONE does?

And you think everyone agrees on them?

Ok.

I think the closest thing to a universal standard is don’t kill people and the human race can’t even get that one right.

No. The standard is independent of what man does or desires. The standard is.

Not everyone has to agree upon them. Nature has a funny way of teaching us lessons when we normalize our deviance to the standard.

I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept to grasp for a logical thinking woman like yourself. Standards are logical because there are consequences to our actions.

 

[ding]

So, how do you know the standard is “Don’t beat your wife,” because clearly not everyone follows that..... ?

By the outcome.

We have laws against murder and not everyone follows them but it does not negate the law, right?

So just because you don't follow the standard that doesn't negate the standard either.

 

[ding]

To answer this question, we should first define what "good" means to each of us, and then answer.

What say you?

Put a bunch of people in the dark, with no cell phones, no food, no water and then scare the shit out of them. Pretty sure you won't find any good people in there.

You might be surprised by that.

I don't aim to find out, but I doubt if I would be surprised.

Are you basing that on how you would behave?

 

[ricechickie]

So, how do you know the standard is “Don’t beat your wife,” because clearly not everyone follows that..... ?

By the outcome.

We have laws against murder and not everyone follows them but it does not negate the law, right?

So just because you don't follow the standard that doesn't negate the standard either.

That’s a law. Law and morality don’t always coincide.

 

[Gracie]

To answer this question, we should first define what "good" means to each of us, and then answer.

What say you?

Put a bunch of people in the dark, with no cell phones, no food, no water and then scare the shit out of them. Pretty sure you won't find any good people in there.

You might be surprised by that.

I don't aim to find out, but I doubt if I would be surprised.

Are you basing that on how you would behave?

Nope. I am basing it on my opinion that people are NOT basically "good". Your own mileage may vary.

 

[ding]

So, how do you know the standard is “Don’t beat your wife,” because clearly not everyone follows that..... ?

By the outcome.

We have laws against murder and not everyone follows them but it does not negate the law, right?

So just because you don't follow the standard that doesn't negate the standard either.

That’s a law. Law and morality don’t always coincide.

True enough. Truth like standards are discovered.

 

[ding]

To answer this question, we should first define what "good" means to each of us, and then answer.

What say you?

Put a bunch of people in the dark, with no cell phones, no food, no water and then scare the shit out of them. Pretty sure you won't find any good people in there.

You might be surprised by that.

I don't aim to find out, but I doubt if I would be surprised.

Are you basing that on how you would behave?

Nope. I am basing it on my opinion that people are NOT basically "good". Your own mileage may vary.

I can only assume you are basing it on yourself. Why else would you believe people are any different than you? Do you somehow think you are different and special?

 

[ding]

I keep pondering “successful behaviors lead to successful outcomes” and are therefore “good.”

Are there not people who are seen as successful who got that way through dishonest means? Or even through honest, but let’s say, “cutthroat” means, which may be at the expense of others. Are those people “good”?

You're reading too far into it, it's actually a tautology because the outcomes are what's being used to call the behaviors "successful," via adhoc analysis.

In other words, it was a vacuous comment not even worth a second thought.......but what you seem to have responded to was more like this: ""Good" behaviors lead to successful outcomes......" - - and then your response, "yeah but so do bad ones," also renders the comment vacuous.

Doing philosophy or logic with Ding is just tedious - it's vacuous claim after tautology after piling on MORE unsupported assertions every time he attempts to support a claim....and then when he's cornered he starts memeing with slogans....it's literally like arguing with a 4yr old.

It isn't a tautology. Reason and experience tells us that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. You can't just behave any old which way you want and get the same outcomes. Certain behaviors produce better results and certain behaviors produce worse results. We teach our kids to behave certain ways for good reason and we teach our kids not to behave a certain way for good reason. Why? Because not all behaviors produce equal results. Some behaviors produce better results and some behaviors produce worse results.

So the standards we teach are based upon observations and logic. They exist independent of man because man cannot choose what he desires the standard to be. The standard exists in and of itself.

So there is nothing vacuous or unsupported. If anything it is your claim that is vacuous and unsupported. You have offered no proof or logic for your claim. In fact, you really have not even made a claim other than ding is wrong.

But you did use a couple of big words to make people think you know what you are talking about when in reality you don't.

 

[G.T.]

keep trying lil engine that could

paypal me $36.82 and ill do so much as consider something you post

 

[Gracie]

Put a bunch of people in the dark, with no cell phones, no food, no water and then scare the shit out of them. Pretty sure you won't find any good people in there.

You might be surprised by that.

I don't aim to find out, but I doubt if I would be surprised.

Are you basing that on how you would behave?

Nope. I am basing it on my opinion that people are NOT basically "good". Your own mileage may vary.

I can only assume you are basing it on yourself. Why else would you believe people are any different than you? Do you somehow think you are different and special?

Assume what you want.

 

[ding]

keep trying lil engine that could

paypal me $36.82 and ill do so much as consider something you post

Given that your logic effectively establishes science as a tautology I can see why you pass.

 

[ding]

You might be surprised by that.

I don't aim to find out, but I doubt if I would be surprised.

Are you basing that on how you would behave?

Nope. I am basing it on my opinion that people are NOT basically "good". Your own mileage may vary.

I can only assume you are basing it on yourself. Why else would you believe people are any different than you? Do you somehow think you are different and special?

Assume what you want.

The only information you possess on this matter is how you would respond to that situation.

 

[G.T.]

keep trying lil engine that could

paypal me $36.82 and ill do so much as consider something you post

Given that your logic effectively establishes science as a tautology I can see why you pass.

It doesn't; therefore, the price has now gone up to $37.00 (usd).

 

[Taz]

I keep pondering “successful behaviors lead to successful outcomes” and are therefore “good.”

Are there not people who are seen as successful who got that way through dishonest means? Or even through honest, but let’s say, “cutthroat” means, which may be at the expense of others. Are those people “good”?

You're reading too far into it, it's actually a tautology because the outcomes are what's being used to call the behaviors "successful," via adhoc analysis.

In other words, it was a vacuous comment not even worth a second thought.......but what you seem to have responded to was more like this: ""Good" behaviors lead to successful outcomes......" - - and then your response, "yeah but so do bad ones," also renders the comment vacuous.

Doing philosophy or logic with Ding is just tedious - it's vacuous claim after tautology after piling on MORE unsupported assertions every time he attempts to support a claim....and then when he's cornered he starts memeing with slogans....it's literally like arguing with a 4yr old.

It isn't a tautology. Reason and experience tells us that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. You can't just behave any old which way you want and get the same outcomes. Certain behaviors produce better results and certain behaviors produce worse results. We teach our kids to behave certain ways for good reason and we teach our kids not to behave a certain way for good reason. Why? Because not all behaviors produce equal results. Some behaviors produce better results and some behaviors produce worse results.

So the standards we teach are based upon observations and logic. They exist independent of man because man cannot choose what he desires the standard to be. The standard exists in and of itself.

So there is nothing vacuous or unsupported. If anything it is your claim that is vacuous and unsupported. You have offered no proof or logic for your claim. In fact, you really have not even made a claim other than ding is wrong.

But you did use a couple of big words to make people think you know what you are talking about when in reality you don't.

Doing bad things often can result in positive outcomes. Just look at the Donald, he became POTUS.

 

[ding]

I keep pondering “successful behaviors lead to successful outcomes” and are therefore “good.”

Are there not people who are seen as successful who got that way through dishonest means? Or even through honest, but let’s say, “cutthroat” means, which may be at the expense of others. Are those people “good”?

You're reading too far into it, it's actually a tautology because the outcomes are what's being used to call the behaviors "successful," via adhoc analysis.

In other words, it was a vacuous comment not even worth a second thought.......but what you seem to have responded to was more like this: ""Good" behaviors lead to successful outcomes......" - - and then your response, "yeah but so do bad ones," also renders the comment vacuous.

Doing philosophy or logic with Ding is just tedious - it's vacuous claim after tautology after piling on MORE unsupported assertions every time he attempts to support a claim....and then when he's cornered he starts memeing with slogans....it's literally like arguing with a 4yr old.

It isn't a tautology. Reason and experience tells us that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. You can't just behave any old which way you want and get the same outcomes. Certain behaviors produce better results and certain behaviors produce worse results. We teach our kids to behave certain ways for good reason and we teach our kids not to behave a certain way for good reason. Why? Because not all behaviors produce equal results. Some behaviors produce better results and some behaviors produce worse results.

So the standards we teach are based upon observations and logic. They exist independent of man because man cannot choose what he desires the standard to be. The standard exists in and of itself.

So there is nothing vacuous or unsupported. If anything it is your claim that is vacuous and unsupported. You have offered no proof or logic for your claim. In fact, you really have not even made a claim other than ding is wrong.

But you did use a couple of big words to make people think you know what you are talking about when in reality you don't.

Doing bad things often can result in positive outcomes. Just look at the Donald, he became POTUS.

It is probabilistic in nature, but exceptions do not define the rule.

 

[ding]

keep trying lil engine that could

paypal me $36.82 and ill do so much as consider something you post

Given that your logic effectively establishes science as a tautology I can see why you pass.

It doesn't; therefore, the price has now gone up to $37.00 (usd).

If you could hang you would. Better for you to not engage than to be made the fool. But since your ego must be fed you do what you can without ever realizing that it only makes you look more foolish. I welcome your efforts.

 

[G.T.]

keep trying lil engine that could

paypal me $36.82 and ill do so much as consider something you post

Given that your logic effectively establishes science as a tautology I can see why you pass.

It doesn't; therefore, the price has now gone up to $37.00 (usd).

If you could hang you would. Better for you to not engage than to be made the fool. But since your ego must be fed you do what you can without ever realizing that it only makes you look more foolish. I welcome your efforts.

I consider you dumb, which is why I dont. You can make up whatever the fuck narrarive you'd like, but Im sure of one thing and its that youre an obsessive. I dont like that shit, its gross.

 

[ding]

keep trying lil engine that could

paypal me $36.82 and ill do so much as consider something you post

Given that your logic effectively establishes science as a tautology I can see why you pass.

It doesn't; therefore, the price has now gone up to $37.00 (usd).

If you could hang you would. Better for you to not engage than to be made the fool. But since your ego must be fed you do what you can without ever realizing that it only makes you look more foolish. I welcome your efforts.

I consider you dumb, which is why I dont. You can make up whatever the fuck narrarive you'd like, but Im sure of one thing and its that youre an obsessive. I dont like that shit, its gross.

If that were true you could prove it using logic and facts in response to my logic and facts. I don’t see you doing that. That’s because you can’t. If you could you would. I can and I do.

 

[G.T.]

keep trying lil engine that could

paypal me $36.82 and ill do so much as consider something you post

Given that your logic effectively establishes science as a tautology I can see why you pass.

It doesn't; therefore, the price has now gone up to $37.00 (usd).

If you could hang you would. Better for you to not engage than to be made the fool. But since your ego must be fed you do what you can without ever realizing that it only makes you look more foolish. I welcome your efforts.

I consider you dumb, which is why I dont. You can make up whatever the fuck narrarive you'd like, but Im sure of one thing and its that youre an obsessive. I dont like that shit, its gross.

If that were true you could prove it using logic and facts in response to my logic and facts. I don’t see you doing that. That’s because you can’t. If you could you would. I can and I do.

I dont require proving it, because my locus of control is on my lap, dingerred.

 

[rightwinger]

In my interactions with people, the answer is yes