Good will always defeat Evil in the end!

There is no pure good and there is no pure evil. No black and white, only grey

Well, I don't believe that.

That's too bad

:(((((

I don't believe that's true.

Well, I believe it. I've always believed it.

I remember when I was 11

I'm 49. Our thoughts and words hold great power. I wish more people knew this and realized the truth.

The truth is that all throughout human history psychopaths have been able to take positions of power from good people because of their willingness to do anything, and hurt anyone, to get that position of power.
At present a small handful of wealthy psychopaths have hijacked the most powerful government and military on the planet and are using them to carry out their own personal world domination agenda with virtually no real opposition.
They're two steps away from having so much power that nothing besides a massive meteor impact will ever defeat them.

So really you're going to be pretty much dead by the time anything happens after your generation polluted our culture, raped our government, and handed down trillions of wealth to your kids and grandkids, and you wanna say good always wins in the end? Seems like the opposite is true, the boomers won. You just think your generation is good.

Is it near the end yet?

The problem is we don't agree on what is good and what is evil.

We have established morals and Natural Law. Don't let TPTB trick you into compromising them.

If these "natural laws are so dominant," why don't I know what they are.

Can you list the "natural laws," and tell me where they are recorded and who created or agreed upon what they are?

What are these, natural laws,?

Natural law (Latin: ius naturale, lex naturalis) is a philosophy asserting that certain rights are inherent by virtue of human nature, endowed by nature—traditionally by God or a transcendent source—and that these can be understood universally through human reason. As determined by nature, the law of nature is implied to be universal,[1] existing independently of the positive law of a given state, political order, legislature or society at large.

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

Wikipedia was created for the single purpose of providing misinformation and lies and history rewriting all delivered with a libertarian/Bircher vision.

1. We cannot rely that any of the ideas posted there were not altered from their original.

2. These "natural laws," are all written by men. And the idea of God is from the brains of men and or women.

3. There are many ideas, and some are directly opposite of others.

Stoic natural law

Cicero

Christianity

English Jurisprudence

American jurisprudence

Hobbes

Liberal (libertarian) natural law

Islamic natural law

Brehon law

Catholic natural law

Contemporary jurisprudence

Which one is the "Natural" Natural laws

So no, you cannot provide me with a list of "natural laws."

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

-US Declaration of Independence

Do you agree with this declaration?

No, it excludes women and there is no "right to life" and you know not even the founders gave it a second thought when they decided the slaves were 3/5ths of a person so the slave holding states could have good solid numbers in the House of Representatives.

And it was written by men, it is not a natural law by any stretch of the imagination.

Who defies "equal" and how can you have a "right" to life when you are dependent upon another human to acquire that life and to stay alive for several years.

And who is this, "creator?"

No evidence on that one at all.

No

Glad we got that out of the way.

it excludes women

No it doesn't.

and there is no "right to life"

All men have a right to life, which means, the means to protect and preserve one's life. (ie. the Right to Keep and Bear arms - protection and hunting - feeding oneself)

founders gave it a second thought when they decided the slaves were 3/5ths of a person so the slave holding states could have good solid numbers in the House of Representatives.

Irrelevant to our conversation right now.

And it was written by men,

Irrelevant. Furthermore, do you feel the same way about math/sciences (for example)? They were also developed and written by men.

it is not a natural law by any stretch of the imagination.

Yes, they are: "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" Meaning, no man or institution (Government) can take them away.

Who defies "equal"

It's right there: "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." If you are a human being, you have certain unalienable Rights. That's what equal means, this context.

how can you have a "right" to life when you are dependent upon another human to acquire that life and to stay alive for several years.

Irrelevant to our conversation right now.

And who is this, "creator?"

That's the beauty of it. It could be anything, regardless of whether someone believes in it. It just is.

Thanks for the thoughts they are your beliefs, not "natural laws," that apply to all humans. As I said befor you have no natural right to stay alive just because you are born. You are entirely dependent upon others to gain that life.

I in a general sense love that opening sentence of the Declaration of Independence, but it really is and always about the men of property, who wrote it.

You should watch some Mark Passio explain Natural Law and then come in here and argue against it. I'd love to hear your talking points then: since as you said before, you had never heard of it. So why should I take alyour flippantly negative assertions as anything but that. Your ignorance is showing and my patience is low for someone who chooses to ignore.

"It is easy to cheat when you work for men, but hard to cheat when you work for heaven. You have heard of flying with wings, but you have never heard of flying without wings. You have heard of the knowledge that knows, but you have never heard of the knowledge that does not know." - Zhang Zi

Nice, thanks.

Good illustration about finding agreement, I disagree that competition is the driver. I think it is need, individual, family, community, an outward expansion of needs to be met and goods and services to meet them.

I am not sure though what kind of competition you mean? do you mean for social and financial status?

Or are you saying competition produces the frictions of social and financial status and that is the need, to win a place in a hierarchical system?

How does competition work in an ancient culture like Hinduism, with really strict hierarchies, but a long history of trading and building?

Try posting a comment critical of the US military on any popular sub.
Something's really wrong right now.

I think adopting this view point comes with being a bit naive at this point...

You would know wouldn't you fuck face since you have HERPES bitch.

There is no pure good and there is no pure evil. No black and white, only grey

I don't believe that's true.

I remember when I was 11

"It is easy to cheat when you work for men, but hard to cheat when you work for heaven. You have heard of flying with wings, but you have never heard of flying without wings. You have heard of the knowledge that knows, but you have never heard of the knowledge that does not know." - Zhang Zi

Is it near the end yet?