If Good Is Good And Bad Is Bad, Shouldn't Neutral Be Just Neutral?

[Aiko_E_Lara]

There Are Good Deeds And Bad Deeds. But What About Neutral?

The world is pretty imbalanced actually and there's no surprise in that and also I doubt anyone can be completely neutral and balanced. But still neutral people exist. Not completely neutral but just neutral.

What Are Neutral People?

Obviously from the word itself, "Neutral" not caring about any situations going on. There just there to watch and just simply exist. But there are people who likes to make a big deal about them.

Just Examples (I'm not talking about myself)

Example would be, there is a criminal who escaped and I'm just there to watch. Now I'm viewed as a selfish, inconsiderate jerk or just simply demonized because I didn't do anything. But what anyone also failed to realize is I didn't do anything to help the criminal escape. I didn't do anything to help the criminal go even further and not even doing anything to stop the cops or cover for him. It wouldn't make any difference if I'm not there to witness it anyways.

Another example would be, If a child is in front of me abused, and I'm just watching. Of course the obvious reaction from people would be (just read the above) but in reality, I never gave the abuser any weapons or tools to hit that child, I never filmed it to gain views, I never just did anything to make it worse. Still it wouldn't make any difference if I'm not there to witness it anyways.

It's the very same thing getting demonized for not caring about oppression, homophobia, Pedophilia, racism, slavery or etc. Not realizing that of all the people supporting for the laws against oppression, homophobia, racism, slavery or etc, I did nothing to oppose the laws either. I did nothing to worsen it. I did nothing to perpetrate.

One can say the glass is half empty or half full. It's up to you which interpretation you like to take. It is a rights to do whatever i want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. (As long as you're not a perpetrator)

The Truth About The Results

Some people can do good deeds but not realizing that not all good deeds fix things. Some can worsen situations. Most people wouldn't care if the situation got worse as long as that person's intention was good. Vice versa, people doing something bad also doesn't always result in a bad situation. Something called blessings in disguise. Doing something neutral however just doesn't do anything if you're just really 100% involved. No good nor bad changes. The result is just as if you weren't there in the first place. Maybe a really slight change but you wouldn't notice it.

FYI

I do care if anyone is oppressed and it doesn't matter what gender, race, sexuality and age they are. That doesn't make me a supporter of those whatever BS movement. I'm just for equality and that's that. I'm a person who care if there are situations where anyone have to stand up but also I do understand neutrality most people just can't. Anyone being neutral just get demonized a lot. In case you didn't realize, they can be as much as a victim as those victims facing oppression or bullying on the spot. And what I said earlier, "I do care if anyone is oppressed and it doesn't matter what gender, race, sexuality and age they are." And yes that includes those neutral people who face such shame, stigma and getting all the blames. As studies once said that neutral people tend to be depressed. Why worsen it? In addition to the cancel culture which is getting trendy. I don't exactly blame them but are there people who actually praise them for not doing anything to do something that could've worsen the situation? Of course not. I'm not saying you should praise them either. But if you have the energy to put shame on them, you also have the energy to acknowledge or just appreciate them. No excuses. Or just treating them as just neutral is the least you can do. They only see the bad side in them and that's a problem with society.

[Anonymous]

Except that if you're not against oppression you're on the side of the oppressor. If you were getting shot and somebody just stood there watching, you would likely feel the they were wrong for not helping you. They weren't shooting, but they didn't help you afterwards. If you're not against oppression, you're on the side of the oppressor for letting the oppression happen.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

I would "feel" like it but in reality what i feel is not objective. I can also view it as they also helped me by not making it worse. They helped me by not giving that person a hiding spot or they helped me by not stopping the cops who is eventually going to find out. There are also people who are going to support but i am also letting it happen. Then what? Like what i said it's all in your interpretation. You just like to be one-sided in situations like this

[Aiko_E_Lara]

That was a pretend but really you didn't read the last part.

[goaded]

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

That would also mean the only thing necessary for the triumph of good is for bad men to do nothing. I can still say that my mytake is talking about being one sided and that includes that quote. If you're not only appealing to authority like just appealing to that quote, can you even give a valid explanation how that quote works? Let's here your one sided explaination.

[goaded]

"the only thing necessary for the triumph of good is for bad men to do nothing"
Wouldn't that be nice?

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Then that contradicts everything you said. A bad man doing nothing is also an act of neutrality. Now tell me where does it say neutral is bad? www.google.com/search

[Aiko_E_Lara]

www.google.com/search here's more

[goaded]

If you consider the absence of evil to be a good thing, then the two things aren't equivalent. Being neutral in the presence of evil is bad, being neutral in its absence is simply neutral.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Because you can also be neutral in the presence of goodness which is also good. Being neutral in the absence of both good and bad and is neutral. This isn't one sided thing.

[Bromeister]

Let's say you're sitting by a lake and you see a person whom you don't know drown. You do nothing but watch. Later, you report it to the police. Of course, they will ask you why you didn't help. If you say you can't swim, understandable. If you say "didn't wanna", of course, they will have some very bad opinions of you.

There is always some expectation of responsibility and goodwill placed on any person expecting to be regarded as a normal or exceptional member of society. A frail grandma wouldn't be blamed for letting a person drown, but an able-bodied 18 yo swimming champion would. At it's simplest, people don't like it when bad things happen, and there comes a very existential sense of anger and disappointment when they feel that that it could have been prevented, and sometimes those feelings are directed at bystanders they feel are culpable.

Emphasis on "feel". At its worst, some people just have an agenda and feel the need to make it known. To make it known that they are good and have benevolent thoughts, whilst the other party is only capable of wrongthink.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Because that just became a societal standard that people look down on anyone for not doing anything. But yeah you said bad opinion but sure that's just an opinion not a fact. Because of just how people interpret it. As a reason behind it is because of the study showing that people reacts more to negative thoughts more than the positive ones so that's why it's also hard for people to think about the bright side of it. So of course they would say he is bad because he didn't know anything. No one would say he is good because he didn't make the situation worse by putting snakes on it. But in objective reality, he's just lettindoing nothing. How about in situations where there is someone helping someone out for someone is doing a good deed but i'm just there watching doing nothing? Aren't you gonna praise me for just doing nothing and not making the situation bad for them? Of course not unless it's a bad situation i'm not doing anything

[DaisyM23]

I don’t think it’s so black and white, good and bad aren’t objective anymore. I think most people are a mix of both or neutral you know? Most people don’t go around murdering others which is good but maybe some of these people are assholes and treat people with disrespect. Or maybe someone’s a murderer but in a vigilante way in which they go after bad people but it’s still murder. I think people should care about oppression though and I’ll use Niemoller’s ‘first they came for the...’

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Sure you can encourage anyone to do good deeds and care about oppression but that doesn't really mean the neutral ones should be demonized. Most people also don't go around donating stuff, trying to bring world peace and doing good deeds but instead most are just neutral.

[NathanDavis]

There has to be a serious lack of empathy to be this kind of careless... there are good things about being impartial, but what you described in here is being careless. and this kind of carelesness is not "humane" which prompts people to describe it as "evil" but a better word is negligence.

This is exactly what has caused Mexico to fail onto the grip of the cartels and bad governors... - not my problem, I am "neutral" -

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Neutral is neutral like what i said there. And while a neutral person may lack empathy, they also lack psychopathy.

The cause of Mexico to fail onto the grip of the cartels and bad governors is the bad governor itself. But what if that "bad governor" is actually good and people are neutral to it? Sure I can say mexico won't fail because the governor is good, supporting peace and equality for everyone whole no body is trying to oppose that because they're neutral. So it has nothing to do with the neutral people. It has something to do with the governors which is even considered "bad" in the beginning.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Just a simple question tho. What is the opposite of good?

[NathanDavis]

You obviously don't know one thing about the true Mexico, so I will ignore 90% of your reply.

and the first thing you said is just funny, practically... being a psychopath means to have a serious lack of empathy...

so again, your portrayal of the word neutral is very lousy

[NathanDavis]

not good

[Aiko_E_Lara]

I don't know about mexico but should I know? Also why are you even bringing up your own country as an example. You just explained and I'm going how you explained mexico as is. How you talked about the bad governors and 90% are neutral. But I can't blame the 90% of people being neutral but the bad thing itself which is the government you talked about.

And that would be the exact opposite of empaths I just gave. People who lack empathy doesn't mean they're psychopaths. They just lack empathy. And what bad does that even accomplish? Letting the bad happen? When a person lack of empathy can also let the good happen, why only look at it's negative aspects and call it "lousy" Anyone can do bad things for their gains and to be more lousy like how hitler just like to do something bad so that he can just be lousy and watch everyone die. Are neutral people as lousy as that? FYI no! They don't start anything.

if it's "not good" you say, why isn't the opposite of good "neutral"? You want to demonize neutral so much but why isn't neutral a synonym to bad or vice versa? www.google.com/search

[Aiko_E_Lara]

People who care so much about neutral people tend to not focus on the main issue but they focus on just not speaking for themselves.

[NathanDavis]

You were lousy with words

And you're also a lousy reader and thinker, you made up that 90% figure to set your own twisted argument, which is funny.

You also have lousy arguments, because you ask for simple answers to simple questions, and then you go on a long diatribe of nonsense.

Making sense is not your forte.

And since you asked, the opposite of good, is still "not good" which is quite the range.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

I'm using the most accurate example of how neutral people would act. And do you think it's not lousy to just simply use that word to try to dismiss everything? "You're lousy and argument is over" basically like what you wanna do. If you didn't know ad hominems are logical fallacies, im not surprised. If you can't finish an argument, why bother start it?

[Aiko_E_Lara]

It doesn't take a genius to understand what I said. I can also say not comprehending anything is not your forte. Go accuse me of "twisting your words". That is only when you realize your own logic is back fired.

[NathanDavis]

There is no argument to make here, because this a lousy take, as simple as that

You just like revolve around your lousy idea, which is also why, it is pointless to discuss

You can throw all the latin you want, but the fact remains, there's no such thing as "most accurate neutrality"

[NathanDavis]

Understanding is not a synonym or agreeing, but is no surprise that you might see it that way.

Perhaps, you should reach a dictionary properly.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Go learn the meaning of opposite www.google.com/search Something that is "not" doesn't always have to mean opposite. You know "Not good" can also mean virtuous. "Not good" but righteous. Not thesame word but synonym. Really I can compare your answer saying the opposite of black is not black. Not black can also mean blue which is not a perfect example of a "contrasting" which is what opposite is suppose to mean.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Then I can also tell you to go learn the meaning of non sense. The meaning of not making sense. As for you not even understanding what opposite means, you wouldn't comprehend anything. You just wanna say "It's lousy and it doesn't make any sense and there's no argument" thinking it actually validates you

[Aiko_E_Lara]

And there's "no such thing as an accurate neutrality" according to you. Just coming from someone who likes to see the negative aspects in them. Of course you won't see them as an accurate example also because you don't view them neutrally.

[NathanDavis]

This is a dumb example, because black is not as subjective as an idealization of one of the most subjective concepts in this realm.

[NathanDavis]

You can't beat a dead horse and make it go, you can try all you like but it won't happen.

This is a louse take, and that's it. That's why so far, nobody is agreeing with you.

You just like to beat dead horses, metaphorical ones, of course.

[NathanDavis]

Because I do not like lazy and louse approach to complicated subjecst, that is why.

And that's what you like to do " this is simple but I will make it complicated " that, is nonsense.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

And you don't think you're giving a dumb answer for whatever reason. That is still a good example because good has an opposite just like black does. Anyone can objectively see goodness. But let's pretend it's really subjective then, so what you're trying to say would be just your opinion is not a fact. So therefore if neutral is bad, you say you're not being truthful yourself.

You know you can take your own advice at this point because you're now making excuses to just leave. Making excuses just to call anyone lousy and i am not appealing to popularity here but i'm appealing to logic and nobody has to agree with that. If your logic is your agreeing to that person just because he has many likes than dislikes, that's argumentum ad populum for your information. I can also see there are only few people here commenting, anyone can also be agreeing with me without even saying anything. So like what i said ad hominems and excuses of course

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Oh and you're not better than the dictionary yourself

[NathanDavis]

Your concept of logic is the most lousy yet.

[NathanDavis]

I don't have to be better than a dictionary, I just have to pick it up and read it properly

[Aiko_E_Lara]

And the way you just want to say things is just really lousy. If you don't have to be better than a dictionary then why should i appeal to you? You are nowhere near being truthful like what the dictionary really has to offer

[NathanDavis]

I didn't say be better than a dictionary, that's just dumb.

I said, pick up one, and practice comprehensive reading.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Then you are just dumb. I'm just going to say it as if name callings are just going to prove me anything. And how about you practice comprehending things instead of just accusing anyone of being nonsense and dumb?

[NathanDavis]

It is an observation, not an accusation.
so I just pointed out the first, didn't claim the second

[Aiko_E_Lara]

And in observation you are also dumb. Dodging the main topic and just wanting to call anyone lousy just to try to dismiss everything.

[NathanDavis]

It is a lousy topic, and you're also very lousy when it comes to engaging in discussions, so it would be, and it is futile to try anything further

[Aiko_E_Lara]

And that is a lousy response and you are also very lousy when it comes to actually explaining things. I'm going to continue exactly what you're doing. You're not the only one who can just say things just because you said so

[NathanDavis]

it doesn't require a longer response, it is simple to explain, so concise it is.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Yet you still cannot comprehend anything. Fine if it doesn't require longer respond, you don't have to reply either. You're not required to do it

[NathanDavis]

My first point still stands by itself

there's no need ot go around it and keep beating a dead horse, so I just didn't do it like you like do do it more often than not

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Then my first point also stands and there is no need for you to continue being irrelevant. There is also no need for you to continue your excuses to just give ad hominems all you want

[NathanDavis]

It does stands, as a lousy take, yes

[Aiko_E_Lara]

And mine also stands that it doesn't prove you anything which is just what makes you lousy yes

[NathanDavis]

*ad hominem*

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Describes your whole argument

[NathanDavis]

observation, not argument

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Argument not observation *shrugs*

[NathanDavis]

just in the first 100 words of your original post, you contradict yourself at least three times

that is very lousy, this is an observation, not an argument

and then, if you decide to take it as a personal attack, well that's no surprise, but it doesn't change the facts, it is not about your feelings but your wording, which, is lousy

[Aiko_E_Lara]

The if that's what you see then i can say that your observation is lousy. I can also say that this is an observation of you not making any observation but making an argument. What attack? You cannot differentiate responses and reactions can you? If you want to accuse me on that based on your "observation" then i can also say you are personally attacked by my my take which is lousy

[NathanDavis]

You can argue all you want, but it is still nonsense, and from a louse premise, there is hardly, any valuable argument you could elaborate on, which you have not.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

You can argue all you want but it still doesn't take a genius. You haven't even elaborated anything ironically

[NathanDavis]

There's no need to elaborate, unlike you... I can be precise and concise, and I was, in my first, original comment.

If you're not willing to accept nor realize that, that's about you, not me.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

My whole mytake is precise and concise, and I was even in the replies here. You’re not even realizing anything. If you're not willing to accept nor realize that, that's about you, not me

[NathanDavis]

Please take a couple of minutes, to google up the words precise, and also concise, honestly... do yourself a favor.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

I did and I'm well aware I was unlike you. Not even comprehending anything.

[NathanDavis]

For the first time I am actually curious, tell me, how is this "precise"

" ... The world is pretty imbalanced actually and there's no surprise in that and also I doubt anyone can be completely neutral and balanced. But still neutral people exist. Not completely neutral but just neutral... "

[Aiko_E_Lara]

I know what i said. And i really mean that one. But i guess you don't understand what scales are. Nobody is perfect but something can be almost perfect or just perfect how anyone can just say it even if it has a little imperfections. The grass is green but they are not completely green but why are they called green regardless?

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Also you cannot even tell me how it's not precise

[NathanDavis]

It's hysterical that you used :"scaling", and then the concept of "perfection" to try to make any sense about what precise is... lol

would you like to try again? but this time address your actual argument, own your words, don't make it about a yard.

here it is again...

" ... The world is pretty imbalanced actually and there's no surprise in that and also I doubt anyone can be completely neutral and balanced. But still neutral people exist. Not completely neutral but just neutral... "

[Aiko_E_Lara]

And you also don't understand what contexts are. Anyone can say "that is the most perfect thing i have seen" you cannot even address your argument but you just want to keep repeating what you said. You want to keep repeat my statement again which i am aware of what i just said. And yes that is also another thing you like to focus on instead of the main topic itself

[NathanDavis]

So you can't event start to explain yourself, got it... not surprised, that was expected.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

I just explained something you can't even understand. I'm not surprised.

[NathanDavis]

"something"

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Which makes sense and it doesn't take a genius

[NathanDavis]

"makes sense" to you, which is exactly why it is lousy, the reader will just seen nonsense, which it is

[Aiko_E_Lara]

And it doesn't make sense to you who cannot even understand anything which is exactly why it's lousy

[NathanDavis]

"cannot even understand anything" is that scaling as well? lol.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

I was talking about the quote you copy pasted. I'm still not surprised you didn't get what im referring to.

[NathanDavis]

and that was just the premise, lol

[Aiko_E_Lara]

And I also did prove my premise "lol"

[NathanDavis]

repeating it to yourself is not what proving it means, is just beating that ghost horse.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Ironically coming from someone who keeps repeating that phrase and your claims

[NathanDavis]

Indeed, but I don't need to convince myself otherwise.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

You don't have to. That's kinda like you can't even understand what you're saying. But by "indeed" glad you admit you're not proving anything at all.

[NathanDavis]

I don't have anything to prove, I just pointed the evident

so don't take it personal, maybe you just can be "neutral" about it

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Then I just proved my evidence. I don't have to point out something I've already proven. Nothing personal. The last part of my mytake says im not neutral. So that means the only thing you just read is the first part then jump to that lousy conclusion.

[NathanDavis]

I said maybe, didn't state that you were

and I know well you're not neutral, because is not actual thing... lol

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Now you're just going to contradict it i see. You say it's not an actual thing but you say it is bad. How can it be bad if it's not a thing? You can't even make up your mind.

[NathanDavis]

it was a sarcastic remark, don't strain yourself

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Saying "sarcastic" when you just want to take anything back. I know that tactic of yours

[NathanDavis]

it's still there, and it was, that's why I put the quotes on "neutral" I am sure you didn't miss those

[Aiko_E_Lara]

You also missed the parts where you got so contradictory with everything. Its still there.

[NathanDavis]

point them out

[Aiko_E_Lara]

"I said maybe, didn't state that you were

and I know well you're not neutral, because is not actual thing... lol"

You just did it recently and you haven't even pointed out anything

[NathanDavis]

Where's the contradiction though

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Everything and again you still haven't pointed out anything

[Aiko_E_Lara]

You have a strong opinion about something but you say it doesn't exist after all. Like really you just can't simply say it doesn't exist. You can say its inhumane but that doesn't make it neutral

[NathanDavis]

Well, again you're, you're a lousy reader... my opinion was based on the perception of being careless, and not on your lousy premise of "neutral"

"humane" was in quotes as well, that was for a reason, and I did elaborate on my point, not yours.

since you had a lousy point to make, I did elaborate on a more realistic concept and perception that actually exists.

are you able to understand this though, I don't know at this point

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Then again you are a lousy explainer who just likes to contradict everything.

And by elaborating your point which is what actually proved my point that how you explain that makes you lousy.

And since you have a lousy response, i made an elaboration in the replies that explains the perception of my my take.

And i'm not even sure if you're going to understand this.

[NathanDavis]

and you made even less sense all through it, if it starts lousy and wrong, it usually ends that way

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Then you also made lessons all through it. And you just explained your whole comment here

[NathanDavis]

There's no lesson to learn here, there was just a very lousy take, and I pointed it out, that's all

it's not personal, just an observation, and we'll call it opinion if that suits you better

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Then nothing you have ever pointed out in here. That was just a really lousy claim that's all.

And it is not personal and this is just my observation of your comment

[NathanDavis]

had you not been so invested on replying, it would have been funny.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

It is also funny that you have also been investing on replying as well. If it starts lousy and wrong, it usually ends that way you say? Of course your trend would end that way because other comments here are not lousy.

[NathanDavis]

indeed

[Aiko_E_Lara]

So i'm glad you admit your whole comment is lousy and you're just being ironic all this time

[NathanDavis]

I wish that were true

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Well your wish is granted. And i have to admit i'm right

[NathanDavis]

I am sure you have to, that's a sign of a lousy confidence

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Just like saying things just because you said so is also a sign of lousy confidence.

[NathanDavis]

kick, kick, kick...

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Oh now you are back here because you know he doesn't care. He is just simply neutral about this situation. Now are you going to demonize him? Hope you wouldn't because your salt would show up.

[NathanDavis]

I am here because in a way he said "get out of my notifications" and so that I did... lol

you're stil wrong, though, that horse has been gone for a while too

[Aiko_E_Lara]

And that's what you get for being so desperate. You are also wrong

[NathanDavis]

it's funny that you settle for "you're also wrong" as to not accept that you had a silly take... lol

[Aiko_E_Lara]

And the funny thing is you just want to say im wrong and this is silly just because you said so.

[NathanDavis]

well, you are, and so far, four people have pointed it out their disagreement with your premise

[Aiko_E_Lara]

And you are also wrong and just appealing to populum. That's not proving anything. There are people who can disagree but there are also people who stop arguing with me and they don't have to tell me the agree

[NathanDavis]

that is also four different ways to disagree, that's kind of remarkable, as to how lousy your take was, from that many and probably more angles

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Anyone can disagree but it doesn't necessarily make me wrong. The law of nature is not wrong and so is the dictionary itself. Anyone can have different opinions and interpretation it doesn't have to be the same as my views

[NathanDavis]

But you do have a wrong interpreation, and also a lousy explanation for it.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Then you also have a wrong interpretation. If good is good and bad is bad, why is neutral bad? Why not neutral? You also give a lousy explanation to how the my take is lousy

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Also they are not calling me lousy but you are. out of desperation because i will never agree with you

[NathanDavis]

I did not say neutral is bad, I said it's unreal from the perspective you intended to portray, in a very lousy way

[NathanDavis]

I did not say they called you lousy, I pointed out that they all disagree, and the reason for that is that you wrote a very lousy interpretation of "neutrality"

and you never had to agree with me, that has nothing to do with with the fact that you didn't make ense, they're not conditional to one another

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Your original comment clearly said it just without saying the actual word. And while calling me lousy for it because you feel like it just makes you lousy your self. And that is another example of what i just said like basically just taking it back. If you really like to interpret things the wrong way then i can do the same thing too. And whether you agree or not, it does make sense it doesn't take a genius in fact. Those other people answer me relevantly unlike you just calling things out nonsense just because whatever reason you have.

[MysteriousDarkness]

A lot of times by doing nothing can cause a bad situation to get worse or at the least keep tge suffering going. If you are the only witness to so. eon feting stabbed and they end up dying would you feel better know you tried to help them physically and by calling 911 or by doing absolutely nothing to try and help out to try to save them?

[Aiko_E_Lara]

The truth is the bad situation doesn't get worse. The bad situation is just going to happen like how it's supposed to happen and it doesn't make a difference if you are not there. You're in your room right now but somewhere, a kid is about to get killed. You don't know what's going to happen whether someone is going to help that good or not. The result will always be unpredictable. If someone's dyin, someone will call 911 and i'm not there to stop that someone trying to call 911.

[MysteriousDarkness]

@Aiko_E_Lara
I find it ridiculous that you think if a person witnesses a stabbing and doesn't help the perpetrator out physically is good and if they do not help the victim out physically or call 911 is bad is the same as if the so called witness was never around or new about the stabbing. By not calling 911 they would be helping the perpetrator and not helping the victim which makes the witness a bad person in that situation. Knowingly not tryingvto help stop the victim from bleeding is allowing it to get worse.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

You find it ridiculous but that is just your interpretation. The law of nature doesn't make it a bad thing or it doesn't make it a good thing but in reality is a neutral thing. It's just that our brains reacts more to negative thoughts than the positive. On the brightside he never did anything to help the one who is stabbing. He never gave him a hiding spot nor give him another weapon. Letting him go is not what the witness do also because the witness is not stopping any cops. It's ironic actually when people find documentaries about animals so interesting. Do the crew help a deer when they're about to get attacked by a lion? Do they help a dying sick giraffe? No. But people find interesting but at the same time, we are so against animal abuse. But i get it we're talking about animals not humans that's why we dont really add morality to that. The point is, what you consider bad is just your consideration but the law of nature doesn't care.

[MysteriousDarkness]

Animals kill other animals to eat tgem or because of defense. Humans kill other humans not for fokd and most tines otxs not our of defense either

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Actually no. Humans have different motivation for killing someone. Whether it's for self defense, desperation, boredom or any unknown reasons. Animals can also do the same thing not even just for food. It's even documented that animals also have their own society and rules. Of all possible reasons and motivations, you can't generalize what their motivation is. It's all different. So they don't kill people for no reason. There was a video of a giraffe that died because of ticks. Venomous snakes killing animals not for food. They just do. What still stands is the camera crew don't do anything yet no one is saying it's animal abuse. Not one is saying they're making the situation worse. Why? Because that's what is suppose to happen.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

And yeah people also kill people out of hunger FYI. Except they're not cannibals. They kill someone to get their money to buy food. Have you ever thought of that?

[MysteriousDarkness]

@Aiko_E_Lara
You are trying way too hard to get people agree with you. Let's say you get stabbed and are bleeding pretty bad. Which of two ways are you going to think?
1. Yhe witness is not good for not helping you and or for not calling 911 but is not bad because they did not help the perpetrator in any way. The witness is neutral and is letting things gappen as they should.
2. They are bad for not calling 911 and or not helping you and willingly allowing you to keep bleeding and possibly pass out.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

I don't care if anyone would disagree with me. The law of nature doesn't really care about that. If i get stabbed and there's someone who didn't help, i don't blame him because it's not his fault i'm getting stabbed. On the bright side at least he's not giving another weapon to the perpetrator. It only a good thing if someone helps me. People who just watch are not considered bad. They're just neutral unless they stop people from helping me.

1. By letting things happen as it should, like what i said the result wouldn't be any different if you are not there to witness it for doesn't necessarily make the situation worse.

2. They are also not bad for trying to hide the evidence also because it has never their fault someone got stabbed in the first place.

Just a short question, if good is good and bad is bad, why is neutral not neutral? This is double standards really against nature's law.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

You're still dodging my question are those camera crews evil for letting a sick animal die? No? What about animal abuse? Yes? Then it's the same with witnesses not doing anything to make the situation worse or better. Letting the time flow like how it really is

[MysteriousDarkness]

@Aiko_E_Lara
A lot of animals have to kill other animals to eat to live. Himans do not have to kill another person to eat.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

I gave examples such as desperation. People can kill people to steal their money to get food. They have different motivations and of all motivations, it's impossible to say all kill for no reason. And speaking of other motivations, animals don't kill just for food. Competitions for mates also happens and it involves killings.

[MysteriousDarkness]

@Aiko_E_Lara
You will not change the way I think on this so just stop.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Who's even trying to change how you think? But now really you admit that's how you think. What im doing is just simply speaking the truth.

[MysteriousDarkness]

@Aiko_E_Lara
You keep on trying to convince yourself you are telling the truth if it makes you happy.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

And if you're not doing that exactly, why are you even here? I don't have to convince myself when objective reality is already proving my point. And even the questions i asked are something you kept dodging so yes that still stands. You haven't proved me wrong yet.

[MysteriousDarkness]

@Aiko_E_Lara
How about you get stabbed then are kayong on yhe ground in excruciating pain and are bleeding with the only witness just watching. The witness does not hrlp with the crime, doesn't help try yo save your life or call 912. If you do servive then cone back and lets see what you think.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

I already told you that. If that witness didn't do anything to stop the help on it's way. If that witness didn't do anything to physically encourage the perpetrator then I still don't consider that witness bad. It's not the witness fault im getting stabbed. Again not bad doesn't mean good ether. The bad person would be the one stabbing me not the witness. It's like a straw man argument really. If I call something "not good", you'll interpret it as "bad" even if i said nothing about "bad". All i said is not good which doesn't necessarily mean bad either. Now how about you answer my question?

[Aiko_E_Lara]

The witness don't call 911 but the witness also didn't stop if anyone who's trying to help. I'll make it simple for you.

Perpetrator = Bad
Witness = Neutral
Helper = Good

It's that simple. Can't you comprehend a thing?

[Aiko_E_Lara]

I can give you a counter argument to that. What if someone is doing a good deed and there's just someone watching not doing anything? Of course you wouldn't praise people like them for NOT ruining the moment. You'll only demonize them for not helping anyone in bad situations.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Here's an overused quote for you

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke."
That's one sided like you. And you would agree with that. But also the only thing necessary for the triumph of good is for bad men to do nothing which is also true. But you're just gonna ignore that aren't you?

[MysteriousDarkness]

@Aiko_E_Lara
Wrong. In this situation the witnesd is bad for not calling 911 to try and catch the perpetrator as soon as possible and to get ems to help the victim. The witness is also bad for not trying to help the victim physically.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

You're also wrong because interpretation is not a matter of right nor wrong just like how you admit it's what you "think" so yeah that's just your opinion which you just failed to not speak for yourself. I did explain to you how time and reality really works yet you still failed to prove me wrong. All you're basically saying is "It's wrong because i feel it's wrong"

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Here's the truth about the result.

Some people can do good deeds but not realizing that not all good deeds fix things. Some can worsen situations. Most people wouldn't care if the situation got worse as long as that person's intention was good. Vice versa, people doing something bad also doesn't always result in a bad situation. Something called blessings in disguise. Doing something neutral however just doesn't do anything if you're just really 100% involved. No good nor bad changes. The result is just as if you weren't there in the first place. Maybe a really slight change but you wouldn't notice it.

Lastly, do I have to give you a dictionary for you to really comprehend what neutral really means? Tell me where does it even say it's a synonym to bad? www.google.com/search

[Aiko_E_Lara]

I got a notification like 10 minutes ago but i don't see any reply. You can try again

[MysteriousDarkness]

@Aiko_E_Lara
Until you are the victim in excruciating pain and bleeding a lot with a witness doing nothing to call 911 or to help you what you say to me is irrelevant

[MysteriousDarkness]

Every yime you respond I will respond wity the message right before this one.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Yes anyone can say that but that doesn't mean it is reality. I can say those people are bad but that's not objective. Time, reality and nature's law is objective. Go ahead because i can also do the same thing. You still really dodged some of my question.

[MysteriousDarkness]

@Aiko_E_Lara
Until you are the victim in excruciating pain and bleeding a lot with a witness doing nothing to call 911 or to help you what you say to me is irrelevant.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Regardless how irrelevant you think what i said, the law of nature doesn't care about our interpretation. It's still double standards you're trying to prove.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

And here's what i will be responding to you if you keep repeating that.

Until you finally have the brain to understand how law nature works.

[pjf1958]

Don't look too deep into this line of thinking, or you'll wind up like Nietzsche and write a book. After very little thought, you'll call it "Beyond good and evil'.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

And what's the matter of being realistic about it? I don't even know who Nietzsche is but if he can write so many factual books that many people can disagree then i assume he/she is logical and i don't see what's the problem with that

[pjf1958]

There is nothing wrong with it. Only a minefield of long, relatively painless diatribe. That will inevitably lead to nothing being accomplished.

[AdithyaR]

But by being neutral in those situations, you're still enabling the bad ones to continue being bad.
Even neural actions have consequences, not doing anything may not worsen the situation but it's letting the bad situation continue.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

And by being neutral, i can also enable the act of goodness. The consequences of a neutral act is a result of what is suppose to happen and its not done by you. Just letting it happen doesn't mean you're the perpetrator and also doesn't mean you're making the situation worse. you're making the situation how its supposed to be just like not being there at all.

[AdithyaR]

I guess that's your belief but I'm a true believer of Ben Parker. When you have the ability to stop something bad from happening, it's your responsibility to stop it, cause if you can stop it and you do nothing, then you're responsible for the bad things.
Basically, with great power comes great responsibility.

But this is purely what I believe in, it's fine if you don't agree.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Yep ben parker would be a good exaple of what you're talking about. The in peter's situation, he lied saying he was gonna go to the library but he have gone to that arena instead. Thats when he let the rober escape but he didn't make the situation worse by stopping the guard like fighting the guards to help the robber escape even further potentially killing more people. But what if he was really at the library? Ben would still be dead. It's the same result

[AdithyaR]

If he were at the library, maybe Ben wouldn't be near the wrestling place, he wouldn't be around when the crook came out.
But if not Ben, someone else would have gotten hurt.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

It was not certain what ben was really doing there. I don't ben being there has something to do with peter lying and going to the arena. He never knew where peter went. But let's pretend he is at a different place. They are going to be multiple situations that could happen a good and an even worse situation. It's just really unknown and things happens is what reality just gives and has nothing to do with any consequences. Even an innocent people receive any consequence without doing anything wrong. A bad guy can be lucky as well. That's the reality and they did nothing to deserve those. it just comes randomly.

[AdithyaR]

That's true, in the end we can't always control things.
And yes it is possible to be not want to interfere, you have the right to that.
I personally would at least like to do something to try and change the outcome. I can't deal with the guilt of not trying

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Exactly we all have the rights to be neutral and not to be shamed for it. Because it may not be a good thing, it isn't a bad thing as well. Because of people's negative thinking, they don't see how wicked they are for guilt-tripping who didn't even do anything (right or wrong it doesn't matter) they just dont treat them neutrally. It's the very same thing people are more interested in the bad news than the good news which is what medias always broadcast just to get more views.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Our brains reacting more to negative thoughts is also a scientific fact by the way. But anyone can still control that with mind over matter.

[Curmudgeon]

Sometimes Bad is Bad...

https://www.youtube.com/embed/7CscPTI8fwA

[IraqLobster]

If critics never existed movies would have sucked, hope you get my point..

[Aiko_E_Lara]

If you want to talk about critics, they are certified critics and they're not supposed to be neutral. The very same thing with cops. If cops don't exist, crimes would be worse. I'm not talking about occupations here but i'm talking about an everyday civilian not on the job neutral about some situation that isn't even their job that they care

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Sure. A critic can be neutral about a movie as long as they are not on duty.

[IraqLobster]

As a human you should be critical of what's around you, life out side of a job is still a duty.

[IraqLobster]

I don't believe that there are neutral people to begin with..

[Aiko_E_Lara]

I said in my my take that no one is exactly neutral but anyone can still do neutral act. Not doing anything is a neutral act. If doing nothing can let bad things happen then doing nothing can also let good things happen

[IraqLobster]

Doing nothing means watching something wrong happen infront of you and you just ignore it.

I don't see the benefits of that!

[Aiko_E_Lara]

What difference would it make if the person is not there? Right now i am in my room and somewhere out there someone is about to get killed. You don't see the benefit but the doesn't mean you have the detriment. Like what i said, neutral.

[NathanDavis]

@Aiko_E_Lara see? your lousy concept of "neutral" just doesn't add up, it's not a thing...

[Aiko_E_Lara]

"Some people can do good deeds but not realizing that not all good deeds fix things. Some can worsen situations. Most people wouldn't care if the situation got worse as long as that person's intention was good. Vice versa, people doing something bad also doesn't always result in a bad situation. Something called blessings in disguise. Doing something neutral however just doesn't do anything if you're *not just really 100% involved. No good nor bad changes. The result is just as if you weren't there in the first place. Maybe a really slight change but you wouldn't notice it"

[Aiko_E_Lara]

@NathanDavis you're the one who saying that. he isn't the one. And i know there are people who just don't read the whole thing actually before the comment on it so i'm here give a proper understanding unlike what you're doing

[IraqLobster]

Akio, you are giving broad examples.

Person should care about what is in reach thus your example of someone getting kill some where is irrelevant

[IraqLobster]

Killed*

[NathanDavis]

@Aiko_E_Lara crystal clear... lol, now you're just a bit desperate

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Nobody is saying a person shouldn't care. You can give them encouragement to do good things. But what i am still saying is they are not necessarily bad.

@NathanDavis nothing he said is about lousiness but all his simply saying is he just disagree that neutral isn't bad. Also for coming here, to this thread aren't you being desperate yourself? You have your own broken thread you need to fix

[NathanDavis]

@Aiko_E_Lara "there are "no" neutral people to begin with" don't kick under the water, lol

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Didn't i say that on my my take? In certain situations people can be neutral about something but it doesn't mean they are completely neutral. I'm still not surprised you don't understand that thing. How about you stop taking the water and fix your own thread?

[Aiko_E_Lara]

*kicking under the water

[NathanDavis]

@Aiko_E_Lara it isn't neutrality, like you've been told repeatedly... there's other circumstances involved, convenience for example, but no neutrality.

neutrality would be more of impartiality during a conflict, and a lot less like inaction right in front of flagrant criminality

so again, a lousy concept in your take, and surely irrelevant examples to follow up

[Aiko_E_Lara]

I also talk about it's because you like to view it that way but objective reality and the law of nature says it is a neutral act. He's not making things worse you're not making things better. With interpretations like that just to give yourself an excuse to call someone lousy just makes you lousy yourself while you're not even being factual about your own interpretations

[IraqLobster]

I don't care what's going on between you two but i will reply on Aiko's last comment, you said law of nature says it and that you can't make things better or worse!
How you can't make things better when you got a tongue that could scare a theif robbing someone infront of you or a hand to stop a fight!

How did you ignore all of these things!

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Is that a question? I'll try to understand it but yes you could help make things better if you actually have a hand to stop the fight and a tongue to speak up. But by not doing so doesn't necessarily make things worse but it will just make things run like how it should run if your not here. Making things worse would be like helping the robber beat up the victim. Stopping the cops from arresting that person, giving him a hideout or something that can benefit the robber with your presence and that is not a neutral act. If you want to ask how anyone can ignore then not doing anything is ignoring

[IraqLobster]

Staying quite means you're helping the robber to steal but let's just agree to disagree because i'm sure if someone took a knife and put on your waist while someone watching amd left you would be thinking like how heartless that person is.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

There are going to be multiple realities on where the thief would end up. The thief would successfully steal without getting caught or the cops are going to arrest the person. You doing nothing just doesn't change those realities. If the cop successfully arrested him and you did nothing to stop the cops but if it's the other way, you did nothing to stop the thief. So the result could end up in a good or a bad situation. It doesn't always end up badly.

[IraqLobster]

Cops only come when they are called by someone which should be you in this situation.

[IraqLobster]

If someone had a heart attack would you watch them die or would you call an ambulance!

[Aiko_E_Lara]

They are called by someone which isn't stopped by the people who is watching. The people watching that guy suffering and not stopping the people who tries to help him is the least they can also do. Because in this world there are always people who will help and there are always people who are perpetrators. There are always people who are good and their people are bad and those people who just watch are just neither

[Aiko_E_Lara]

If i was in that situation and people were just watching, well i can just say that at least they're not making it worse as i also hope someone will actually help because there are always people who will

[Aiko_E_Lara]

It is all in the interpretation and what is a neutral act is just a nutral act in reality. It's only people making the interpretation and giving meaning to it. If it's really a bad thing then shouldn't it be against the law?

[IraqLobster]

I don't know what got you to ask this question in the first place, i got your point and you got mine.

That's what matters, even if we disagreed.

Adios.

[IraqLobster]

Law is the only neutral thing.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Because i do care if anyone get shamed for just being neutral about something. The cancel culture is real which is why i asked this question

[anylolone]

Neutral is neutral.
But inaction can come at a cost, same as action.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

The cost is the result that is suppose to happen and what is suppose to happen is not always predictable. A good person can have a consequence while a bad person can be lucky. Both something they don't deserve.

[anylolone]

Yes.

[NightHawk99]

All it takes for evil men to succeed is for good men to do nothing.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

And it also takes for good men to succeed if evil men do nothing. That's what is called being one sided.

[ilikefrogsalot]

I'm speechless. I literally don't know what to say except "what the fuck is wrong with this person?" Should've just kept this opinion in the drafts, bud.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

You're speechless and you have nothing else to say except ad hominems that doesn't even prove you anything. Go ahead and explain how being neutral is being bad. i can give you any counter arguments to that. Unless you just don't like the truth then yes you're just going to call me stupid and since that's how the world really works, sure the law of nature is stupid.

[zagor]

As a matter of fact the wheels have stopped.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Care to explain what's that supposed to mean?

[zagor]

LOL from "Idiot Wind", a classic Bob Dylan song. That line is preceded by "What's good is bad, what's bad is good". Your question just brought it to mind, along with the fact that he turns 80 Monday.

[Badkarmma]

you just blew my mind