lin00b,

The GOLDEN RULE is RELATIVE.

Treat others like how YOU like to be TREATED. It is SUBJECTIVE. It is based on YOUR POV.

BTW, he may not be a Buddhist to begin with. Why would a Buddhist argue with anyone to begin with?? Enlightenment is WITHIN us. You cannot find it outside.

Dreamer

This post has been edited by dreamer101: Feb 9 2010, 09:37 AM

so someone who is willing to be killed is ok in killing others? among other things.

or someone might not be exactly truthful with himself/he may not know himself well. like a bully that goes "might is right" until he gets beaten up and change his POV. so is his new POV right? or is his old POV right?

either way, in reinforce the point that there is no good/evil.

i didnt even bring up buddhism or buddha. You did. Probably from my avatar...i get comments like i'm a zen master, a practitioner of yoga etc ever since i started using dhalsim's picture. lol.

---

Added on February 9, 2010, 12:53 pmFalse again.

Good = spreading postive energy/vibe
bad = spreading negative energy/vibe

It is very clear cut.

the example u gave shows that even a bully once ignorant, may eventually come to a realisation that he was wrong to cause harm. Such realisation can only be realised by an intelligent mind though. the ignorant ones will just come up with excuses eg. "yeah but that was different this is different blablabla".






This post has been edited by teongpeng: Feb 9 2010, 12:53 PM

Previously you stated "harm others=bad". Now you say it is the intention. That is contradictory in itself. Every example given involves someone harming someone else, which by your definition is bad. Yet, all you say is they are different. I sense it is time for you to join this group:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/realizing-yo...26.219233034..1

FYI, if you kill someone without intending to do so, it is still a crime. You get charged with manslaughter. Maybe you should read up first before making uninformed statements.

"Preferential differences" is subjectiveness. It is what I have been talking about all along. It applies here all the same. Good taste, bad taste. Good art, bad art. Good person, bad person. Good action, bad action. How are they any different? You think Robin Hood is Bad, I think Robin Hood is Good.

Happiness and sadness are emotions. Guilt and remorse are emotions too. Get it right, please.

I brought up the difference between affect and effect because I thought you might like to learn. Not to strengthen my argument. But, obviously, you are too wise for that. Too wise to learn. There's a term for that...ah, Smart Alec. (Oh and by the way, it is not a spelling mistake. It is a completely different word. But you are too wise to need to know that.)

Everything is a different category for you. They are all part of the discussion of Good and Bad.

You make unintelligent statements, I ask unintelligent questions. To clarify your meaning. Simple.

Your view on cannibalism is a perfect example of how your views are based on social conventions, not reasoning. It is bad because it is sick? Why is it sick? Don't bring out another adjective.

Yes, I know one event can have both good and bad. Which is my point all along. Does the good outweigh the bad to justify that action? Or does the bad outweigh the good so it should be prohibited? Is that not subjective? I am not aware of a fixed scale that exist to measure good and bad, and allows you to subtract one from the other.

So you are addressing each case individually? So then, you are retracting your earlier statement of "harm people=bad"?
If you are, good on you, and I have nothing else to say, as I was only arguing against that blanket statement of yours, which make it seem like every action is covered by a rule you invented, and there is no need for individual consideration.

But you can't differentiate affect from effect. So I am inclined to think that you are wrong and others are right.

Everything aside, not related, just curious, do you mind if I ask how old are you?

This post has been edited by thesupertramp: Feb 9 2010, 10:04 PM

Harming people is good, from my POV.

Helping people is bad, from my POV.

This makes me a evil or good ?

no it just make u stupid. I'll get to supertramps post tomoro....havent even read it yet.

---

Added on February 9, 2010, 11:18 pmYou are stupid. harming others is bad. the intention part is an expansion. It doesnt change nor contradict the original statement.
Not if its an accident. Manslaughter is only charged if you're guilty of drinking under influence of alchohol or sumthing like that..
Geeez. You should stop seeing things in either black or white. i've explained this before. In case of Robin Hood, it involves good and bad. Its bad to steal but its good to donate. Also, good and bad are not subjective. in terms of morality they are not subjective. In terms of harming others = bad, it is not subjective. They are only subjective to people incapable of having deeper insight. Good and bad isnt a matter of preferance. Like darkness and light...they are definite.
Happiness is the absent of negative emotions. Its a result. guilt and remorse are what causes sadness. See what i mean when i say u lack wisdom?
I already admit my english isnt very good. Now if u have to bring that up in a discussion like this, it shows u got nothing to say.
Good, now u are getting closer. However im not interested in subjective. Its not what i'm talking about. When i say robin hood is both good and bad i see thru both parts. A skill which u obviously lack.

And i did not say cannibalism is bad or good, unless it involves harming another. i said it is sick. You are running out of things to say if u have to nitpick that and use it to back up your lame accusation that i'm basing my entire argument on social convention. What can i say, try harder.
I'm not retracting my ealier statement as that is the basis for all scenarios that that were answered. I really dont think u understand that simple equation because until now, you have not come up with one scenario to refute it.

This post has been edited by teongpeng: Feb 9 2010, 11:24 PM

"Not if its an accident. Manslaughter is only charged if you're guilty of drinking under influence of alchohol or sumthing like that.."

no it isnt. you can be charged for manslaughter if you by your actions cause the death of another human.

from wikipedia

"Manslaughter is a legal term for the killing of a human being, in a manner considered by law as less culpable than murder.
The law generally differentiates between levels of criminal culpability based on the mens rea, or state of mind. This is particularly true within the law of homicide, where murder requires either the intent to kill, a state of mind called malice, or malice aforethought, which may involve an unintentional killing but with a wilful disregard for life.
Manslaughter is usually broken down into two distinct categories: voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter."

of course, being the wisest human in the world, you must know of this....

---

Added on February 10, 2010, 2:30 amdifferent people will feel differently (good/bad/neutral "vibe") about the same action due to their environment, culture, lifestyle, upbringing, etc. so how can one action be categorized as "good" or "bad" if different people feel differently about it?

you feel bad about cannibalism. which is not wrong. but the cannibals feel pretty darn good about it. who are you to get dictating your terms to them? its the same if some religion come and convert you by force, because that religion feel "good" to them and they decide you are "wrong".

my example is to show that people can change; and what is once good vibe (bullying people) may turn to bad vibe sue to certain events. or it may not. the bully may go "ok, i'm weaker than him, i accept that, time for me to train up so i can get my revenge!" in this case the bully's POV does not change.

This post has been edited by lin00b: Feb 10 2010, 02:30 AM

good people become evil to protect themselves, evil people become good when they feel that there is nothing more they can get from being evil.

----

This post has been edited by marsalee: Nov 13 2010, 09:37 PM

The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.

i think that it's evil not to invent a security measure that will avoid such thing in the first place

Good and evil is definitely perception.
The society sees an act as a norm, it is acceptable, therefore, not evil. If the society sees an act of goodness as the opposite, darn right it is not good.
Good and evil exist only on the conscience of an individual. If you know and ACCEPT that a particular act is evil, and yet you do it, you're committing an evil act. So do vice-versa.
The paradoxical dilemma only occurs when two culture, as in two societies with ultimately different in mentality, clash. Hitler thinks what he did was right, ethic cleansing, by religion, environment, education and acceptance of his society, therefore, to him and his society, he was not evil, but more of the opposite. The rest of the world thought differently. That proved that good and evil is, also, relative.

just my 20cent:
the idea of good & evil just a standard used by the society 2 judge themselves.
p/s: don yell @ me if 'm wrong........

This post has been edited by ErgoProxi: Mar 1 2012, 10:44 PM