I don’t know what you mean.
Being vulnerable to manipulation and deception is bad.
Being a manipulator and deceiver is bad.
And the people who are are very weak hiding behind a mask of strength
Discussion
Bad people can be strong and good people can be weak. Obviously that's not always the case; very often the opposite is true. Do you know what I mean now? Is there anything stopping an already strong and capable person from learning a new capability? If a strong person was suddenly willing and able to deceive and manipulate others, would they be any less competent at achieving their goals than they were moments before?
Bad people can't be strong because the root of evil is self-deception, and a lack of general reason and fairness which are mental faculties required for intelligent thought and behavior.
The only reason why people think bad people are strong is because they don't understand them. They deceive you into thinking they're strong by patronizing, belittling, and lying about their true capabilities but evil people have to take advantage of weak individuals because a strong person wouldn't fall for their nonsense. You aren't strong if the only people who submit to you are low self-esteem delusional idiots.
And no, strong and capable people have infinite potential. All spirits possess infinite capabilities. Only fully righteous or good people are truly strong and are never willing to deceive and manipulate because you would have to deceive yourself and degrade your own mind and being to do so. Hypothetically if a good strong individual decided to become evil one day, it would require ignoring basic intelligence and they would become less competent in achieving their goals. Largely due to the fact that manipulation and deceit are dependent on people believing in it and falling for it. So they're relying on the incompetence of others to achieve their goals, and they also need to take advantage of them and use their vessels as well.
This also proves that they lack the self-sufficiency, competence, and skills to achieve their goals the right way on their own without trying to use others.
Bad people try to instil the illusion of fear, and if you're scared of them then you think they're powerful. If you're not scared then you think they're powerless. So an evil person being powerful is only relative to the fear of the individual, not evil itself, as evilness in all forms is a sign of weakness and insecurity.
With everything you are saying about bad people, it sounds like you are setting a REALLY high bar for someone to be evil. If I understand you correctly then, is doing something bad not in itself enough to make someone a bad person? Can someone still be a good person even if they sometimes do bad things? What is required at minimum for someone to be a bad person?
The source of behavior is belief. So a bad person has selfish or sinister beliefs which makes them consciously do bad. Law of non-contradiction means nothing can be true or false at the same time. A bad person can’t be good at the same time. Bad people do good things sometimes but overall they’re bad. Truly good ppl never do bad things because bad behavior is never an accident and good ppl take full responsibility over their being and fix their beliefs and behaviors. Minimum requirement for a bad person is simply having any will do wrong or do anything malicious. Simply being unwilling to do what’s right even if you’re scared will lead to wrongdoing. Bad ppl like to make excuses for doing wrong but in reality there are none. It’s this programmed way of thinking especially from religion, teaching people as if they are natural born sinners, but all sin is intentional, therefore all of it is fully acknowledged and can simply be stopped. But bad ppl build bad habits and that’s their fault, never makes it okay.
Is it possible that a person could at one point believe that an action is good and then change their beliefs later to believe that it was wrong?
No. It’s usually heavy delusion and self-deception telling themselves that what they’re doing is good whilst their own conscience tells them it’s not.
What’s wrong is always wrong regardless of how a person interprets it. We do not change the morality of an act, but we can lie to ourselves about what’s good and bad to cope with doing wrong things.
Not only that but most people refuse to even think about what they’re doing which is willful ignorance. They don’t want to understand how bad the things they do really are but they know of a basic level which is all that matters.
In your view, is it ever right to accept an apology? Is there even such a thing as a sincere apology?
If you meant to do something then your not sorry.
The only true apology is to not repeat the same hurtful act again or stop doing whatever you were doing.
Cuz if you do it again then it proves the sorry meant nothing
Why do you sound so hesitant? Didn't you say that people only do bad things when they have selfish or sinister beliefs? Can someone act on selfish or sinister beliefs without "meaning to"? Is it ever right to accept an apology from someone for an action they took based on a selfish or sinister belief?
You said that the root of all hurtful actions is immoral beliefs, but you also said that a person can never change their beliefs about what is moral. How can a person ever stop repeating the same hurtful acts if the root of those actions can never change?
Why aren't you saying that forgiveness is always wrong? If everyone already knows what is moral and immoral then how could forgiveness ever be justified?
The source of all actions are beliefs. Morality is absolute and exists within the conscience. Immorality is moral inversion. You know what's right by knowing what's wrong an vise versa. Bad people have to know what's right in order to go against it or invert it. They know that they're bad and they try to protect their own ego by creating delusions to cope with it and then project those lies to others so they can believe in a false reality.
Yes, selfish, or distorted morality (sinister), false beliefs.
NO. Nobody can act on selfish beliefs without meaning to because every action is first consciously acknowledged. You don't do anything without consciously thinking it through unless you're an actual retarded robot.
And if someone is generally selfish it becomes a subconscious habit. And they mean to do what they do. You don't accidentally do something selfish. You intentionally disregard and ignore the rights, feelings, and dignity of another person but would be upset if that action was done to you.
You're patronizing me right now asking me questions knowing I make sense and learning from me and then start pretending like the shit I'm saying doesn't make sense when it clearly does to protect your arrogance. You started off asking valid questions just to start being disingenuous.
I asked you a simple yes or no question: "Is it ever right to accept an apology?" You didn't answer that question with a yes or a no. Regardless of if I'm being genuine, shouldn't you be able to explain why you chose not to answer with a yes or a no?
If people always mean to do everything they do, (because people aren't actually retarded robots) and if people never change their beliefs about what is moral, then is there ever such a thing as a sincere apology?
If you can't answer these, can you at least give me an example of a selfish or sinister belief that a bad person might use to guide their immoral behavior?
It's fine if you see me as a scoundrel, but can you please articulate what part of my questions strike you as disengenuous?
Because I don't go back and forth with disingenuousness. I'm not answering a question that's self-evident. I believe you're just asking me questions waiting for me to say something that doesn't make sense just so you can point it out and undermine me. You're just going to keep going and going and going as if i have to answer to you to be right. Simply by the questions you ask i can tell you're being condescending and disingenuous. Yes going back and forth with someone acting in bad faith is meaningless.
A meaningless back and forth im not going to do. I can answer the questions but i choose not to and Whether or not i answer to you doesn't mean i don't have one nor do i have anything to prove to you.
Because I don't go back and forth with disingenuousness. I'm not answering a question that's self-evident. I believe you're just asking me questions waiting for me to say something that doesn't make sense just so you can point it out and undermine me. You're just going to keep going and going and going as if i have to answer to you to be right. Simply by the questions you ask i can tell you're being condescending and disingenuous. Yes going back and forth with someone acting in bad faith is meaningless.
A meaningless back and forth im not going to do. I can answer the questions but i choose not to and Whether or not i answer to you doesn't mean i don't have one nor do i care about your opinion or have to prove myself to u
You said I was being hesitant. Maybe it's my wording, but clearly accidents and mistakes happen and when you apologize for those it's sincere. But there's no such thing as accidental selfishness or evilness because those are deliberate states of being.
When a selfish person does something malicious, they meant to do it, and they can only sincerely apologize when they regret it and is followed by not doing it again.
Deep psychological deception and half truths allow people make-believe in incomplete knowledge creating an illusion or acting as if those beliefs or ideals were true.
So it would be true that they are pretending as if they believe in something when they truly don't.
A selfish and delusional person will lie to themselves and make-believe that life is about survival and if hurting or disregarding others ensures survival then they will do so. Or that if they lie, steal, or sabotage their way to success, they won't face any consequences if they ignore their own wrongdoings.