Are people basically good?

[ding]

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.

My greatest FZ achievement was getting dingerred into the urban dictionary.

 

[G.T.]

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.

My greatest FZ achievement was getting dingerred into the urban dictionary.

Oh, I agree...but probably for different reasons

 

[ding]

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.

My greatest FZ achievement was getting dingerred into the urban dictionary.

Oh, I agree...but probably for different reasons

I wouldn’t have expected you to rationalize it any other way, bro.

 

[G.T.]

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.

My greatest FZ achievement was getting dingerred into the urban dictionary.

Oh, I agree...but probably for different reasons

I wouldn’t have expected you to rationalize it any other way, bro.

Your expectations are as dingerred as your ciggy breath. I saw that cringe post you deleted, too obsessed much?

 

[ding]

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.

My greatest FZ achievement was getting dingerred into the urban dictionary.

Oh, I agree...but probably for different reasons

I wouldn’t have expected you to rationalize it any other way, bro.

Your expectations are as dingerred as your ciggy breath. I saw that cringe post you deleted, too obsessed much?

It sounds like you are the one obsessing. I’m sorry you don’t have logical arguments you can use to refute mine.

 

[G.T.]

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

My greatest FZ achievement was getting dingerred into the urban dictionary.

Oh, I agree...but probably for different reasons

I wouldn’t have expected you to rationalize it any other way, bro.

Your expectations are as dingerred as your ciggy breath. I saw that cringe post you deleted, too obsessed much?

It sounds like you are the one obsessing. I’m sorry you don’t have logical arguments you can use to refute mine.

No problem, you will keep trying by going back to posts youve long since passed and obsessing to argue like usual...and my offer stands that anyone else can take up for your claims and I'll handle it. You, though? No, I just have no respect for you Dingdong.

 

[OldLady]

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

What say you?

Evil, like cold and darkness are not extant. They do not exist by themselves, they exist as the absence of something else. Darkness is the absence of light. Cold is the absence of heat. And evil is the absence of good. So to answer your question, man is good as evil is not extant.

Evil is a lot more active than just the "absence of good." It is actions abhorrent to society. However, different societies find different things "abhorrent." For that reason, I find it hard to believe the Platonic theory that Good (and its flip side evil) is an immutable force in the universe. Humans determine the rules, and they determine what is good and what is evil.

What I have been trying to explain is that standards exist independent of man. In other words, man cannot pick just any standard and get the same results. Ergo standards exist independent of what man wants them to be.

I took a Philosophy 101 course in college, a core requirement, but it was fun. Then I took my required Humanities courses from a prof in the philosophy department, too, and he and I butted heads from day one because I didn't buy your theory. He told me I was basically a Nazi (even back in 1990) because of my beliefs.
Well,I have always been interested in exploring this a little more, since I KNOW I'm not a Nazi and never would be, but I had other courses to pursue and never did have time to get back to philosophy.
So, Ding, if you would, can you explain to me what leads you to believe that Good somehow exists outside the realm of human definition. I'm interested in that, not in how many times G.T. insulted you or whatever.

 

[ding]

My greatest FZ achievement was getting dingerred into the urban dictionary.

Oh, I agree...but probably for different reasons

I wouldn’t have expected you to rationalize it any other way, bro.

Your expectations are as dingerred as your ciggy breath. I saw that cringe post you deleted, too obsessed much?

It sounds like you are the one obsessing. I’m sorry you don’t have logical arguments you can use to refute mine.

No problem, you will keep trying by going back to posts youve long since passed and obsessing to argue like usual...and my offer stands that anyone else can take up for your claims and I'll handle it. You, though? No, I just have no respect for you Dingdong.

My world doesn’t revolve around you. At any point in your life you are the sum of your choices. Choose wisely.

 

[G.T.]

Oh, I agree...but probably for different reasons

I wouldn’t have expected you to rationalize it any other way, bro.

Your expectations are as dingerred as your ciggy breath. I saw that cringe post you deleted, too obsessed much?

It sounds like you are the one obsessing. I’m sorry you don’t have logical arguments you can use to refute mine.

No problem, you will keep trying by going back to posts youve long since passed and obsessing to argue like usual...and my offer stands that anyone else can take up for your claims and I'll handle it. You, though? No, I just have no respect for you Dingdong.

My world doesn’t revolve around you. At any point in your life you are the sum of your choices. Choose wisely.

Your choices led you to obsessing over GT posts on the internet, making cringey posts youve had to delete and a literal begging for an argument with someone whose given you the no thanks now dozens of times. Seems reasonable.

 

[ding]

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

What say you?

Evil, like cold and darkness are not extant. They do not exist by themselves, they exist as the absence of something else. Darkness is the absence of light. Cold is the absence of heat. And evil is the absence of good. So to answer your question, man is good as evil is not extant.

Evil is a lot more active than just the "absence of good." It is actions abhorrent to society. However, different societies find different things "abhorrent." For that reason, I find it hard to believe the Platonic theory that Good (and its flip side evil) is an immutable force in the universe. Humans determine the rules, and they determine what is good and what is evil.

What I have been trying to explain is that standards exist independent of man. In other words, man cannot pick just any standard and get the same results. Ergo standards exist independent of what man wants them to be.

I took a Philosophy 101 course in college, a core requirement, but it was fun. Then I took my required Humanities courses from a prof in the philosophy department, too, and he and I butted heads from day one because I didn't buy your theory. He told me I was basically a Nazi (even back in 1990) because of my beliefs.
Well,I have always been interested in exploring this a little more, since I KNOW I'm not a Nazi and never would be, but I had other courses to pursue and never did have time to get back to philosophy.
So, Ding, if you would, can you explain to me what leads you to believe that Good somehow exists outside the realm of human definition. I'm interested in that, not in how many times G.T. insulted you or whatever.

First of all I don’t think you are a nazi and I don’t hold a grudge against GT. I treat every encounter as a clean slate. I believe growth filled communities should explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth. I believe that honest men and women can have honest differences of opinion without acting like jerks or being afraid to express their beliefs. I believe that objective truth can be discovered but to do so one must die to self and have no preference for an outcome.

I have to leave in a few minutes but I would really like to have that discussion with you. Would you mind if we did it in a private discussion?

If so I will PM my response to your question to you when I get back later this afternoon.

 

[ding]

I wouldn’t have expected you to rationalize it any other way, bro.

Your expectations are as dingerred as your ciggy breath. I saw that cringe post you deleted, too obsessed much?

It sounds like you are the one obsessing. I’m sorry you don’t have logical arguments you can use to refute mine.

No problem, you will keep trying by going back to posts youve long since passed and obsessing to argue like usual...and my offer stands that anyone else can take up for your claims and I'll handle it. You, though? No, I just have no respect for you Dingdong.

My world doesn’t revolve around you. At any point in your life you are the sum of your choices. Choose wisely.

Your choices led you to obsessing over GT posts on the internet, making cringey posts youve had to delete and a literal begging for an argument with someone whose given you the no thanks now dozens of times. Seems reasonable.

No. My responses were because I disagreed with what you wrote.

 

[OldLady]

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

What say you?

Evil, like cold and darkness are not extant. They do not exist by themselves, they exist as the absence of something else. Darkness is the absence of light. Cold is the absence of heat. And evil is the absence of good. So to answer your question, man is good as evil is not extant.

Evil is a lot more active than just the "absence of good." It is actions abhorrent to society. However, different societies find different things "abhorrent." For that reason, I find it hard to believe the Platonic theory that Good (and its flip side evil) is an immutable force in the universe. Humans determine the rules, and they determine what is good and what is evil.

What I have been trying to explain is that standards exist independent of man. In other words, man cannot pick just any standard and get the same results. Ergo standards exist independent of what man wants them to be.

I took a Philosophy 101 course in college, a core requirement, but it was fun. Then I took my required Humanities courses from a prof in the philosophy department, too, and he and I butted heads from day one because I didn't buy your theory. He told me I was basically a Nazi (even back in 1990) because of my beliefs.
Well,I have always been interested in exploring this a little more, since I KNOW I'm not a Nazi and never would be, but I had other courses to pursue and never did have time to get back to philosophy.
So, Ding, if you would, can you explain to me what leads you to believe that Good somehow exists outside the realm of human definition. I'm interested in that, not in how many times G.T. insulted you or whatever.

First of all I don’t think you are a nazi and I don’t hold a grudge against GT. I treat every encounter as a clean slate. I believe growth filled communities should explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth. I believe that honest men and women can have honest differences of opinion without acting like jerks or being afraid to express their beliefs. I believe that objective truth can be discovered but to do so one must die to self and have no preference for an outcome.

I have to leave in a few minutes but I would really like to have that discussion with you. Would you mind if we did it in a private discussion?

If so I will PM my response to your question to you when I get back later this afternoon.

If you feel it needs to be under wraps, that's okay, but a little unusual. I will look forward to it. In the meantime, if anyone else wants to remind me of why "Good" exists outside the realm of human perception, I'd appreciate it.

 

[G.T.]

Evil, like cold and darkness are not extant. They do not exist by themselves, they exist as the absence of something else. Darkness is the absence of light. Cold is the absence of heat. And evil is the absence of good. So to answer your question, man is good as evil is not extant.

Evil is a lot more active than just the "absence of good." It is actions abhorrent to society. However, different societies find different things "abhorrent." For that reason, I find it hard to believe the Platonic theory that Good (and its flip side evil) is an immutable force in the universe. Humans determine the rules, and they determine what is good and what is evil.

What I have been trying to explain is that standards exist independent of man. In other words, man cannot pick just any standard and get the same results. Ergo standards exist independent of what man wants them to be.

I took a Philosophy 101 course in college, a core requirement, but it was fun. Then I took my required Humanities courses from a prof in the philosophy department, too, and he and I butted heads from day one because I didn't buy your theory. He told me I was basically a Nazi (even back in 1990) because of my beliefs.
Well,I have always been interested in exploring this a little more, since I KNOW I'm not a Nazi and never would be, but I had other courses to pursue and never did have time to get back to philosophy.
So, Ding, if you would, can you explain to me what leads you to believe that Good somehow exists outside the realm of human definition. I'm interested in that, not in how many times G.T. insulted you or whatever.

First of all I don’t think you are a nazi and I don’t hold a grudge against GT. I treat every encounter as a clean slate. I believe growth filled communities should explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth. I believe that honest men and women can have honest differences of opinion without acting like jerks or being afraid to express their beliefs. I believe that objective truth can be discovered but to do so one must die to self and have no preference for an outcome.

I have to leave in a few minutes but I would really like to have that discussion with you. Would you mind if we did it in a private discussion?

If so I will PM my response to your question to you when I get back later this afternoon.

If you feel it needs to be under wraps, that's okay, but a little unusual. I will look forward to it. In the meantime, if anyone else wants to remind me of why "Good" exists outside the realm of human perception, I'd appreciate it.

'Good' is a human concept, but once it's defined, we are able to use the nature of reality to measure whether things are good based upon how we defined it. It's really as simple as that...and if we start from the same definition then there are right and wrong answers grounded in objective observation. Good as most understand it requires an effect on a moral agent, i.e. a mind. We can call rain "good" because our crops were starved of water and our crops feed us, the moral agents......but is rain "good" or "bad" absent a moral agent? Clearly not, the same way the Comet t2g6i smashing lifeless planet Glecia 581g is not a moral act, not good or bad, because there's no agency (goal) involved.

 

[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.

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

Not an exception, a ton of nasty people do well in life.

 

[ricechickie]

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.

Too many exceptions render the rule invalid.

I understand what you are saying, but you dismiss the literally thousands of variables that go into life.

For example, you used a marriage as an example. You used traits such as honesty, loyalty, thoughtfulness, etc. You said people with those traits will lead to a happy relationship.

You would think that two “good people” sharing the traits of honesty, loyalty, and thoughtfulness should have a great marriage. But sometimes couples that both share those traits have miserable marriages, because they just aren’t compatible in many other spheres. There are a bunch of variables that go into a relationship, and even if both partners are “good” doesn’t mean they are good for each other.

Just about everything in life is like that. Thousands of little variables. People who measure the importance of each value differently. And perhaps most galling, no one is perfect.

 

[OldLady]

Evil is a lot more active than just the "absence of good." It is actions abhorrent to society. However, different societies find different things "abhorrent." For that reason, I find it hard to believe the Platonic theory that Good (and its flip side evil) is an immutable force in the universe. Humans determine the rules, and they determine what is good and what is evil.

What I have been trying to explain is that standards exist independent of man. In other words, man cannot pick just any standard and get the same results. Ergo standards exist independent of what man wants them to be.

I took a Philosophy 101 course in college, a core requirement, but it was fun. Then I took my required Humanities courses from a prof in the philosophy department, too, and he and I butted heads from day one because I didn't buy your theory. He told me I was basically a Nazi (even back in 1990) because of my beliefs.
Well,I have always been interested in exploring this a little more, since I KNOW I'm not a Nazi and never would be, but I had other courses to pursue and never did have time to get back to philosophy.
So, Ding, if you would, can you explain to me what leads you to believe that Good somehow exists outside the realm of human definition. I'm interested in that, not in how many times G.T. insulted you or whatever.

First of all I don’t think you are a nazi and I don’t hold a grudge against GT. I treat every encounter as a clean slate. I believe growth filled communities should explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth. I believe that honest men and women can have honest differences of opinion without acting like jerks or being afraid to express their beliefs. I believe that objective truth can be discovered but to do so one must die to self and have no preference for an outcome.

I have to leave in a few minutes but I would really like to have that discussion with you. Would you mind if we did it in a private discussion?

If so I will PM my response to your question to you when I get back later this afternoon.

If you feel it needs to be under wraps, that's okay, but a little unusual. I will look forward to it. In the meantime, if anyone else wants to remind me of why "Good" exists outside the realm of human perception, I'd appreciate it.

'Good' is a human concept, but once it's defined, we are able to use the nature of reality to measure whether things are good based upon how we defined it. It's really as simple as that...and if we start from the same definition then there are right and wrong answers grounded in objective observation. Good as most understand it requires an effect on a moral agent, i.e. a mind. We can call rain "good" because our crops were starved of water and our crops feed us, the moral agents......but is rain "good" or "bad" absent a moral agent? Clearly not, the same way the Comet t2g6i smashing lifeless planet Glecia 581g is not a moral act, not good or bad, because there's no agency (goal) involved.

If I'm not mistaken, you and I are Nazi's, since we could, hypothetically, define good as cooking 3 million people in the oven. No one takes into account that you and I also would not define that as "good" because it does not serve society as a whole to massacre huge numbers of people (look what happened to the Nazi's). My prof insisted that was because I had actually bought into all my Sunday school teachings and actually believed in universal good but ignored it when it comes to where it originates.

 

[LittleNipper]

Only GOD is good.

 

[G.T.]

What I have been trying to explain is that standards exist independent of man. In other words, man cannot pick just any standard and get the same results. Ergo standards exist independent of what man wants them to be.

I took a Philosophy 101 course in college, a core requirement, but it was fun. Then I took my required Humanities courses from a prof in the philosophy department, too, and he and I butted heads from day one because I didn't buy your theory. He told me I was basically a Nazi (even back in 1990) because of my beliefs.
Well,I have always been interested in exploring this a little more, since I KNOW I'm not a Nazi and never would be, but I had other courses to pursue and never did have time to get back to philosophy.
So, Ding, if you would, can you explain to me what leads you to believe that Good somehow exists outside the realm of human definition. I'm interested in that, not in how many times G.T. insulted you or whatever.

First of all I don’t think you are a nazi and I don’t hold a grudge against GT. I treat every encounter as a clean slate. I believe growth filled communities should explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth. I believe that honest men and women can have honest differences of opinion without acting like jerks or being afraid to express their beliefs. I believe that objective truth can be discovered but to do so one must die to self and have no preference for an outcome.

I have to leave in a few minutes but I would really like to have that discussion with you. Would you mind if we did it in a private discussion?

If so I will PM my response to your question to you when I get back later this afternoon.

If you feel it needs to be under wraps, that's okay, but a little unusual. I will look forward to it. In the meantime, if anyone else wants to remind me of why "Good" exists outside the realm of human perception, I'd appreciate it.

'Good' is a human concept, but once it's defined, we are able to use the nature of reality to measure whether things are good based upon how we defined it. It's really as simple as that...and if we start from the same definition then there are right and wrong answers grounded in objective observation. Good as most understand it requires an effect on a moral agent, i.e. a mind. We can call rain "good" because our crops were starved of water and our crops feed us, the moral agents......but is rain "good" or "bad" absent a moral agent? Clearly not, the same way the Comet t2g6i smashing lifeless planet Glecia 581g is not a moral act, not good or bad, because there's no agency (goal) involved.

If I'm not mistaken, you and I are Nazi's, since we could, hypothetically, define good as cooking 3 million people in the oven. No one takes into account that you and I also would not define that as "good" because it does not serve society as a whole to massacre huge numbers of people (look what happened to the Nazi's). My prof insisted that was because I had actually bought into all my Sunday school teachings and actually believed in universal good but ignored it when it comes to where it originates.

Well, since Language isn't useful when it's made arbitrary ~ "good" cannot be discussed as a concept until the two rational interlocutors agree on what is meant by "good" in the conversation.

We can define good as: "any four legged creature that wags its tail when it's humid," and have a conversation about what is good and what isn't based on that definition. That's true, but we'd likely settle on a more useful/universal definition since you and I are objectively fuckin awesome

 

[Cecilie1200]

I didn’t say that at all nor do I believe you don’t.

I do believe there is a universal right and wrong.

The question I am posing is that if you don’t believe there is one how can you get upset when one violates it.

I know you believe that. I don’t.

Still, whether I agree with it or not, I would not intend to cause you pain. Or anyone on here. And I’ve said it before, but if I do cause someone pain with my words, I want someone to let ms know, and I would apologize and not do it anymore.

Just because I don’t believe in a universal standard of decency, doesn’t mean I’m not allowed to have feelings.....which seems like what you’re telling me.

No offense and I do not wish to cause you pain but I think you pay lip service to what you just wrote.

Tell me an example.

I have a few standards that I try to uphold, even when I’m angry. Anything else, someone would need ro tell me that it’s crossing their line. And I’d listen.

I’d like to come back to your standards. If standards are not universal then how can you blame someone for violating your standards?

I don’t. I blame them for not acknowledging (apologizing) when they’ve hurt someone. Maybe they didn’t know the pain they caused.

We all violate someone’s standards at some time, I believe usually out of ignorance. But once you’re made aware of it, if a sincere attempt to make amends isn’t made, then chances are you’re a callous person.

It’s called empathy.

Interesting theory, but here's a question. If there's no universal standard of good behavior that everyone knows, and only individual standards of what people desire from others, WHY should I apologize to someone if I violate their personal standard and offend them? Why should I want to empathize at all?

 

[G.T.]

I know you believe that. I don’t.

Still, whether I agree with it or not, I would not intend to cause you pain. Or anyone on here. And I’ve said it before, but if I do cause someone pain with my words, I want someone to let ms know, and I would apologize and not do it anymore.

Just because I don’t believe in a universal standard of decency, doesn’t mean I’m not allowed to have feelings.....which seems like what you’re telling me.

No offense and I do not wish to cause you pain but I think you pay lip service to what you just wrote.

Tell me an example.

I have a few standards that I try to uphold, even when I’m angry. Anything else, someone would need ro tell me that it’s crossing their line. And I’d listen.

I’d like to come back to your standards. If standards are not universal then how can you blame someone for violating your standards?

I don’t. I blame them for not acknowledging (apologizing) when they’ve hurt someone. Maybe they didn’t know the pain they caused.

We all violate someone’s standards at some time, I believe usually out of ignorance. But once you’re made aware of it, if a sincere attempt to make amends isn’t made, then chances are you’re a callous person.

It’s called empathy.

Interesting theory, but here's a question. If there's no universal standard of good behavior that everyone knows, and only individual standards of what people desire from others, WHY should I apologize to someone if I violate their personal standard and offend them? Why should I want to empathize at all?

The obvious, rational response from Rice's starting point would be that youd apologize if your personal morality was to not be offending people, and to be empathizing with them if you had.