Are people good or bad?

[ding]

Try putting that into the proper context of this discussion.

The end of your rabbit hole is placing a value on outcomes, saying outcomes differ, categorizing outcomes.. and saying voila good and evil.

Where you are in error is that human values, versus natures values, and even in many cases human values versus human values...

vary.


And are not absolute, but subjective.

Actually it isn't. It's just the beginning. We haven't even begun to scratch the surface.

Certain behaviors lead to certain outcomes because failed behaviors naturally lead to failure just as successful behaviors naturally lead to success.

There is nothing subjective about this. You have already conceded that not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes.

Success and failure imply goals.

A non-conscious Nature has no goals.

Failure and success is not absolute in description, but based on human goals.



You dont know what absolute means, its ok dinguss.

If Nature had no goals why did nature give all life the survival instinct?

Instinct is a function of an organism's survival.

If Nature wanted organisms to survive, youd have to explain why it made it so that most dont, as well as demonstrate that nature can "want," period, in the first place.

Can you name any life form that does not have the survival instinct?

Is that random? Or is it part of the fabric of living things?

 

[G.T.]

The end of your rabbit hole is placing a value on outcomes, saying outcomes differ, categorizing outcomes.. and saying voila good and evil.

Where you are in error is that human values, versus natures values, and even in many cases human values versus human values...

vary.


And are not absolute, but subjective.

Actually it isn't. It's just the beginning. We haven't even begun to scratch the surface.

Certain behaviors lead to certain outcomes because failed behaviors naturally lead to failure just as successful behaviors naturally lead to success.

There is nothing subjective about this. You have already conceded that not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes.

Success and failure imply goals.

A non-conscious Nature has no goals.

Failure and success is not absolute, but based on human goals.



You dont know what absolute means, its ok dinguss.

Do you believe that successful behaviors naturally lead to success?

Success is a function of goals.

If a star dies, thats not a failure or success unless you apply a conscious goal.

Your logic is that shooting bricks is nothing but net.

We're talking about humans, GT. Do you believe when you succeed at something (make it anything you want and use and standard you want for success) is it by accident? Was it luck? Or was it a result of things (i.e. behaviors) you did?

You might be talking about humans.

Im talking about absolutes, and your lack of understanding that human opinion regarding values, outcomes or anything else based on human opinion makes it absolute.

It doesnt.

 

[G.T.]

The end of your rabbit hole is placing a value on outcomes, saying outcomes differ, categorizing outcomes.. and saying voila good and evil.

Where you are in error is that human values, versus natures values, and even in many cases human values versus human values...

vary.


And are not absolute, but subjective.

Actually it isn't. It's just the beginning. We haven't even begun to scratch the surface.

Certain behaviors lead to certain outcomes because failed behaviors naturally lead to failure just as successful behaviors naturally lead to success.

There is nothing subjective about this. You have already conceded that not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes.

Success and failure imply goals.

A non-conscious Nature has no goals.

Failure and success is not absolute in description, but based on human goals.



You dont know what absolute means, its ok dinguss.

If Nature had no goals why did nature give all life the survival instinct?

Instinct is a function of an organism's survival.

If Nature wanted organisms to survive, youd have to explain why it made it so that most dont, as well as demonstrate that nature can "want," period, in the first place.

Can you name any life form that does not have the survival instinct?

Is that random? Or is it part of the fabric of living things?

Life itself may be random.

The nature of things does not imply nature consciously having a goal. Thats failed logic.

 

[ding]

Try putting that into the proper context of this discussion.

The end of your rabbit hole is placing a value on outcomes, saying outcomes differ, categorizing outcomes.. and saying voila good and evil.

Where you are in error is that human values, versus natures values, and even in many cases human values versus human values...

vary.


And are not absolute, but subjective.

Actually it isn't. It's just the beginning. We haven't even begun to scratch the surface.

Certain behaviors lead to certain outcomes because failed behaviors naturally lead to failure just as successful behaviors naturally lead to success.

There is nothing subjective about this. You have already conceded that not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes.

Success and failure imply goals.

A non-conscious Nature has no goals.

Failure and success is not absolute in description, but based on human goals.



You dont know what absolute means, its ok dinguss.

If Nature had no goals why did nature give all life the survival instinct?

Instinct is a function of an organism's survival.

If Nature wanted organisms to survive, youd have to explain why it made it so that most dont, as well as demonstrate that nature can "want," period, in the first place.

So you don't believe nature has a preference for life to continue and evolve? Why else would nature give life the instinct to survive?

 

[ding]

Actually it isn't. It's just the beginning. We haven't even begun to scratch the surface.

Certain behaviors lead to certain outcomes because failed behaviors naturally lead to failure just as successful behaviors naturally lead to success.

There is nothing subjective about this. You have already conceded that not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes.

Success and failure imply goals.

A non-conscious Nature has no goals.

Failure and success is not absolute, but based on human goals.



You dont know what absolute means, its ok dinguss.

Do you believe that successful behaviors naturally lead to success?

Success is a function of goals.

If a star dies, thats not a failure or success unless you apply a conscious goal.

Your logic is that shooting bricks is nothing but net.

We're talking about humans, GT. Do you believe when you succeed at something (make it anything you want and use and standard you want for success) is it by accident? Was it luck? Or was it a result of things (i.e. behaviors) you did?

You might be talking about humans.

Im talking about absolutes, and your lack of understanding that human opinion regarding values, outcomes or anything else based on human opinion makes it absolute.

It doesnt.

We are talking about the absolutes of right and wrong; good and evil as it pertains to human behaviors, GT.

Unless of course you want to discuss the right and wrong and good and evil of quantum mechanics.

 

[G.T.]

The end of your rabbit hole is placing a value on outcomes, saying outcomes differ, categorizing outcomes.. and saying voila good and evil.

Where you are in error is that human values, versus natures values, and even in many cases human values versus human values...

vary.


And are not absolute, but subjective.

Actually it isn't. It's just the beginning. We haven't even begun to scratch the surface.

Certain behaviors lead to certain outcomes because failed behaviors naturally lead to failure just as successful behaviors naturally lead to success.

There is nothing subjective about this. You have already conceded that not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes.

Success and failure imply goals.

A non-conscious Nature has no goals.

Failure and success is not absolute in description, but based on human goals.



You dont know what absolute means, its ok dinguss.

If Nature had no goals why did nature give all life the survival instinct?

Instinct is a function of an organism's survival.

If Nature wanted organisms to survive, youd have to explain why it made it so that most dont, as well as demonstrate that nature can "want," period, in the first place.

So you don't believe nature has a preference for life to continue and evolve? Why else would nature give life the instinct to survive?

Again, "give" implies a conscious effort. It could "just be," which you cant disprove, whoch would disprove a conscious goal -

Again, success and failure are functions of a goal.

Your rabbit hole on outcomes doesnt prove an absolute good or evil....simply human descriptions of outcomes.

 

[ding]

Actually it isn't. It's just the beginning. We haven't even begun to scratch the surface.

Certain behaviors lead to certain outcomes because failed behaviors naturally lead to failure just as successful behaviors naturally lead to success.

There is nothing subjective about this. You have already conceded that not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes.

Success and failure imply goals.

A non-conscious Nature has no goals.

Failure and success is not absolute, but based on human goals.



You dont know what absolute means, its ok dinguss.

Do you believe that successful behaviors naturally lead to success?

Success is a function of goals.

If a star dies, thats not a failure or success unless you apply a conscious goal.

Your logic is that shooting bricks is nothing but net.

We're talking about humans, GT. Do you believe when you succeed at something (make it anything you want and use and standard you want for success) is it by accident? Was it luck? Or was it a result of things (i.e. behaviors) you did?

You might be talking about humans.

Im talking about absolutes, and your lack of understanding that human opinion regarding values, outcomes or anything else based on human opinion makes it absolute.

It doesnt.

Do you believe when you succeed at something (make it anything you want and use and standard you want for success) is it by accident? Was it luck? Or was it a result of things (i.e. behaviors) you did?

 

[G.T.]

Success and failure imply goals.

A non-conscious Nature has no goals.

Failure and success is not absolute, but based on human goals.



You dont know what absolute means, its ok dinguss.

Do you believe that successful behaviors naturally lead to success?

Success is a function of goals.

If a star dies, thats not a failure or success unless you apply a conscious goal.

Your logic is that shooting bricks is nothing but net.

We're talking about humans, GT. Do you believe when you succeed at something (make it anything you want and use and standard you want for success) is it by accident? Was it luck? Or was it a result of things (i.e. behaviors) you did?

You might be talking about humans.

Im talking about absolutes, and your lack of understanding that human opinion regarding values, outcomes or anything else based on human opinion makes it absolute.

It doesnt.

We are talking about the absolutes of right and wrong; good and evil as it pertains to human behaviors, GT.

Unless of course you want to discuss the right and wrong and good and evil of quantum mechanics.

Dont tell me what I am discussing.

Absolute implies a standard outside of human existence in general - its not my fault you are back to talking about the subjective human experience.

 

[ding]

Actually it isn't. It's just the beginning. We haven't even begun to scratch the surface.

Certain behaviors lead to certain outcomes because failed behaviors naturally lead to failure just as successful behaviors naturally lead to success.

There is nothing subjective about this. You have already conceded that not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes.

Success and failure imply goals.

A non-conscious Nature has no goals.

Failure and success is not absolute in description, but based on human goals.



You dont know what absolute means, its ok dinguss.

If Nature had no goals why did nature give all life the survival instinct?

Instinct is a function of an organism's survival.

If Nature wanted organisms to survive, youd have to explain why it made it so that most dont, as well as demonstrate that nature can "want," period, in the first place.

So you don't believe nature has a preference for life to continue and evolve? Why else would nature give life the instinct to survive?

Again, "give" implies a conscious effort. It could "just be," which you cant disprove, whoch would disprove a conscious goal -

Again, success and failure are functions of a goal.

Your rabbit hole on outcomes doesnt prove an absolute good or evil....simply human descriptions of outcomes.

You are conflating the two. Two different subjects.

 

[ding]

Do you believe that successful behaviors naturally lead to success?

Success is a function of goals.

If a star dies, thats not a failure or success unless you apply a conscious goal.

Your logic is that shooting bricks is nothing but net.

We're talking about humans, GT. Do you believe when you succeed at something (make it anything you want and use and standard you want for success) is it by accident? Was it luck? Or was it a result of things (i.e. behaviors) you did?

You might be talking about humans.

Im talking about absolutes, and your lack of understanding that human opinion regarding values, outcomes or anything else based on human opinion makes it absolute.

It doesnt.

We are talking about the absolutes of right and wrong; good and evil as it pertains to human behaviors, GT.

Unless of course you want to discuss the right and wrong and good and evil of quantum mechanics.

Dont tell me what I am discussing.

Absolute implies a standard outside of human existence in general - its not my fault you are back to talking about the subjective human experience.

Do you believe when you succeed at something (make it anything you want and use and standard you want for success) is it by accident? Was it luck? Or was it a result of things (i.e. behaviors) you did?

 

[G.T.]

Success and failure imply goals.

A non-conscious Nature has no goals.

Failure and success is not absolute, but based on human goals.



You dont know what absolute means, its ok dinguss.

Do you believe that successful behaviors naturally lead to success?

Success is a function of goals.

If a star dies, thats not a failure or success unless you apply a conscious goal.

Your logic is that shooting bricks is nothing but net.

We're talking about humans, GT. Do you believe when you succeed at something (make it anything you want and use and standard you want for success) is it by accident? Was it luck? Or was it a result of things (i.e. behaviors) you did?

You might be talking about humans.

Im talking about absolutes, and your lack of understanding that human opinion regarding values, outcomes or anything else based on human opinion makes it absolute.

It doesnt.

Do you believe when you succeed at something (make it anything you want and use and standard you want for success) is it by accident? Was it luck? Or was it a result of things (i.e. behaviors) you did?

The probability of my success and failure does fluctuate, of course.

But again, you started in on this thread trying to prove an absolute good and evil exist.

Youre going the wrong direction if youre still stuck on human experience.


Or...you simply dont know what an absolute is.

 

[ding]

Do you believe that successful behaviors naturally lead to success?

Success is a function of goals.

If a star dies, thats not a failure or success unless you apply a conscious goal.

Your logic is that shooting bricks is nothing but net.

We're talking about humans, GT. Do you believe when you succeed at something (make it anything you want and use and standard you want for success) is it by accident? Was it luck? Or was it a result of things (i.e. behaviors) you did?

You might be talking about humans.

Im talking about absolutes, and your lack of understanding that human opinion regarding values, outcomes or anything else based on human opinion makes it absolute.

It doesnt.

Do you believe when you succeed at something (make it anything you want and use and standard you want for success) is it by accident? Was it luck? Or was it a result of things (i.e. behaviors) you did?

The probability of my success and failure does fluctuate, of course.

But again, you started in on this thread trying to prove an absolute good and evil exist.

Youre going the wrong direction if youre still stuck on human experience.


Or...you simply dont know what an absolute is.

Except I have already proven it through your evasion.

 

[G.T.]

Success is a function of goals.

If a star dies, thats not a failure or success unless you apply a conscious goal.

Your logic is that shooting bricks is nothing but net.

We're talking about humans, GT. Do you believe when you succeed at something (make it anything you want and use and standard you want for success) is it by accident? Was it luck? Or was it a result of things (i.e. behaviors) you did?

You might be talking about humans.

Im talking about absolutes, and your lack of understanding that human opinion regarding values, outcomes or anything else based on human opinion makes it absolute.

It doesnt.

Do you believe when you succeed at something (make it anything you want and use and standard you want for success) is it by accident? Was it luck? Or was it a result of things (i.e. behaviors) you did?

The probability of my success and failure does fluctuate, of course.

But again, you started in on this thread trying to prove an absolute good and evil exist.

Youre going the wrong direction if youre still stuck on human experience.


Or...you simply dont know what an absolute is.

Except I have already proven it through your evasion.

No, you prove it by sliding over to only human standards as opposed to absolute ones that you dont know wtf you are talking about.

Post #11 was accurate, itd take proving an eternal omniscient god to refute it.


Your head is bigger than your britches on even trying.

 

[skye]

Are people good or bad?

The answer is they are both, good and bad.

Why?

Because we live in a world of duality.....hot and cold, happy and sad, yes and no.....etc....

Here on earth that's how it is.

 

[ding]

We're talking about humans, GT. Do you believe when you succeed at something (make it anything you want and use and standard you want for success) is it by accident? Was it luck? Or was it a result of things (i.e. behaviors) you did?

You might be talking about humans.

Im talking about absolutes, and your lack of understanding that human opinion regarding values, outcomes or anything else based on human opinion makes it absolute.

It doesnt.

Do you believe when you succeed at something (make it anything you want and use and standard you want for success) is it by accident? Was it luck? Or was it a result of things (i.e. behaviors) you did?

The probability of my success and failure does fluctuate, of course.

But again, you started in on this thread trying to prove an absolute good and evil exist.

Youre going the wrong direction if youre still stuck on human experience.


Or...you simply dont know what an absolute is.

Except I have already proven it through your evasion.

No, you prove it by sliding over to only human standards as opposed to absolute ones that you dont know wtf you are talking about.

Post #11 was accurate, itd take proving an eternal omniscient god to refute it.


Your head is bigger than your britches on even trying.

Whether you admit it or not standards do exist and that is why failed behaviors naturally lead to failure.

 

[G.T.]

You might be talking about humans.

Im talking about absolutes, and your lack of understanding that human opinion regarding values, outcomes or anything else based on human opinion makes it absolute.

It doesnt.

Do you believe when you succeed at something (make it anything you want and use and standard you want for success) is it by accident? Was it luck? Or was it a result of things (i.e. behaviors) you did?

The probability of my success and failure does fluctuate, of course.

But again, you started in on this thread trying to prove an absolute good and evil exist.

Youre going the wrong direction if youre still stuck on human experience.


Or...you simply dont know what an absolute is.

Except I have already proven it through your evasion.

No, you prove it by sliding over to only human standards as opposed to absolute ones that you dont know wtf you are talking about.

Post #11 was accurate, itd take proving an eternal omniscient god to refute it.


Your head is bigger than your britches on even trying.

Whether you admit it or not standards do exist and that is why failed behaviors naturally lead to failure.

i didnt say standards dont exist. I said that ours are not absolute. Take a break from failing dang

 

[ding]

Do you believe when you succeed at something (make it anything you want and use and standard you want for success) is it by accident? Was it luck? Or was it a result of things (i.e. behaviors) you did?

The probability of my success and failure does fluctuate, of course.

But again, you started in on this thread trying to prove an absolute good and evil exist.

Youre going the wrong direction if youre still stuck on human experience.


Or...you simply dont know what an absolute is.

Except I have already proven it through your evasion.

No, you prove it by sliding over to only human standards as opposed to absolute ones that you dont know wtf you are talking about.

Post #11 was accurate, itd take proving an eternal omniscient god to refute it.


Your head is bigger than your britches on even trying.

Whether you admit it or not standards do exist and that is why failed behaviors naturally lead to failure.

i didnt say standards dont exist. I said that ours are not absolute. Take a break from failing dang

Then show me a standard of behavior that has changed?

 

[Bonzi]

People are dumb, and always head for the lowest common denominator, force.

Physically, men do (or intimidation)
Women don't really use force, just being persistent and annoying

 

[G.T.]

The probability of my success and failure does fluctuate, of course.

But again, you started in on this thread trying to prove an absolute good and evil exist.

Youre going the wrong direction if youre still stuck on human experience.


Or...you simply dont know what an absolute is.

Except I have already proven it through your evasion.

No, you prove it by sliding over to only human standards as opposed to absolute ones that you dont know wtf you are talking about.

Post #11 was accurate, itd take proving an eternal omniscient god to refute it.


Your head is bigger than your britches on even trying.

Whether you admit it or not standards do exist and that is why failed behaviors naturally lead to failure.

i didnt say standards dont exist. I said that ours are not absolute. Take a break from failing dang

Then show me a standard of behavior that has changed?

i dont have to, id be pointing to human subjectivity which doesnt speak to absolutes.

absolutes are not based on the subject, in this case the subject you obsessively point back to is a human.

 

[ding]

Except I have already proven it through your evasion.

No, you prove it by sliding over to only human standards as opposed to absolute ones that you dont know wtf you are talking about.

Post #11 was accurate, itd take proving an eternal omniscient god to refute it.


Your head is bigger than your britches on even trying.

Whether you admit it or not standards do exist and that is why failed behaviors naturally lead to failure.

i didnt say standards dont exist. I said that ours are not absolute. Take a break from failing dang

Then show me a standard of behavior that has changed?

i dont have to, id be pointing to human subjectivity which doesnt speak to absolutes.

absolutes are not based on the subject, in this case the subject you obsessively point back to is a human.

Thanks for proving my point. Standards are absolute.