Which do you think is more common? The potential for good or the potential for very ungood? Why?

Really?  Even the ones who are born without the ability to discern the difference?

 

Study sociopaths.  They have no conscience so I think the odds are stacked against people like that.

What about the abused, the sexually abused, the ones with no chance at any role models.  Those souls have obstacles that are not just met with some pat answer.

Some have no potential at all.  Some were born with no chance.  NONE.

Not all of us have the ability to even know what right is.

I pray you never are placed it that type of position.   I'm sure you are safe by now, but many never make it and do not have the luxury of a healthy brain.

Even those situations you give as examples, have equal potential for "good" or "bad".

EG: Sociopaths. 
Lack of empathy/sympathy to others does not mean you are going to go on a killing spree.

When it comes down to it, we all decide whether or not we will follow society's idea of "good" or "bad".
There were children of wealthy parents in the 1970's and 1980's who went to Lebanon, in order to kill people just for the "fun" of it.
These kids were not abused ... they were bored.

I cannot explain how the mind works to someone who insists on acting like this.

You have no clue.  NONE.  Saying sing-song recitations of what you want to be the answer?  That is spoken by a TRUE TRUMP lover.

He loves the uneducated. 

You are loved.  By your leader. Unless you pick up a book some day and actually read it. This post was edited by WM BARR . =ABSOLUTE TRASH at December 18, 2017 10:51 AM MST

Given that lack of education is evidenced by an inability to carry on an intelligent conversation, and resorting to personal attacks instead ... I think everyone here knows who the "uneducated" one is.

Actually, the jury is still out on that.

I totally disagree with thee Walt. It has everything to do with the quality of the DNA. Any damage to it? Anything missing? Any mutations? All of it matters and none of us are identical. So some people have more potential for good than others. In my opinion. Thank you for yours and Happy Monday to ya! :)  

Gven that "good" and "bad" are subjective and defined by society ... I stipulate that it has more to do with when and where a person is raised, than with any genetics.

A good example:
In the US, it used to be common for people to marry at much young ages.
We now marry at older ages, due to living longer and changing social attitudes.
Transplant a 30-year-old man and his 14-year-old wife from the 17th century into modern America, and their relationship is "bad".
Their DNA did not change ... only the judges.
>>Take that same couple to modern France, and their relationship is not "bad" (illegal) because there is no "age of consent" in France.

 

There is an undercurrent here Walt. It sounds as if you are normalizing the Roy Moore 32 year old man pig who sexually abused a 14-year-old child and dated teenagers exclusively and was banned from a mall for hitting on them. Now that's not your intention I hope BUT in reading what you wrote that is what I immediately thought of. Why would I care or ask about something that occurred in the 17th century when I am living NOW in 2017? Social mores change all the time. I realize that. I expect incest is normal in some cultures.  Also gang rapes are normal if the rapist pigs can get away with it. Also stoning a woman to death who was raped because it embarrasses the family and so it is matter of "honor". I think all of it is evil, immoral and disgusting. Social mores be dam*ed some things are never good or right. Right? Thank you for your reply and Happy Tuesday!  :)

I could use killing someone as an example, if people prefer that.
Even the Ten Commandments of the Bible don't forbid killing another person ... they forbid murder.
In fact, the Bible actually tells people when they are *supposed* to kill someone.

My point is that you can't judge a potential for "good" or "bad", unless you define exactly what constitutes those ideals.

Rape/torture/murder. BAD. Whether it is a child or an adult. Male or female. Now are you saying that it could be good under some circumstances somewhere at some time? Are you saying the BAD and GOOD are always conditional? If you are I disagree. Vehemently.  Unequivocally. Thank you for your reply Walt and Happy Thursday.

BTW - speaking of the Roy Moore accusations, did you hear the news out of France?
They are debating what age is appropriate to legislate as the "age of consent".
Seems they have had a number of cases recently of adults having "relations" with children ... but the judges' hands are tied, because France doesn't have an "age of consent".  So if the child says they are "in love" with the adult, or go with them voluntarily - the adult can't be charged with a crime.

Gosh no Walt. I hadn't heard that. No "age of consent" in France? What about driving or getting married or voting?. Do they have ages attached to those? That seems way odd, bizarre and a perfect country to attract pedophiles. Boy what a lousy thing to do to a kid. No protection at all? None? I don't get it. Thank you for the info. Not happy is it?

Yep.

The only protection for the child, is if the child says "no".

But they don't have "statutory rape", because they don't have an "age of consent".

It seems so odd to me that parents haven't protested and badgered their pols to change things. I mean if a parent doesn't protect his/her child there is no purpose for him/her in my opinion. Kids are better off not being born if they have parents who do their jobs. Thank you for your reply Walt and Happy Friday.

They are demanding change ... but the "sticking point" is the question: What age to set?
From what I heard on NPR, it seems the age of 15 has legislative support.

Personally, I think there should be a scale that relates to the age of both parties.
I mean, even though 21 and 40 is a legal consenting relationship in the US ... the individuals are at two completely different stages of their lives.  (or should be)  >  Okay, maybe not make those illegal - just "officially" questionable.  lol

Geez Walt 15? Seems awfully young to me. Thank you for the informative update. A 40-year old bedding a 15-year old? Dam* near great grampaw age fer goodness sakes! I know a gal whose son was a dad at 15. So if his kid had a kid at 15 he'd be a 30-year-old grandpa and then if that kid had a kid at 15? Which means 32-year-old pedophile Roy Moore bedding a 15-year-old could be her grandpa! I know. Stretches it kinda to an extreme but seriously how gross is that?  I realize that there is no age limit for "true" love but  a 15 year who "loves" a 40 years old? What the heck does she know about love? It ain't sex for sure. It's that PLUS a lot of other things combined with that but love can't  be based on just one thing. How can that be love? Thank you for your reply Walt!  :)

Consider that the age of consent in over 1/2 of the US is just 16.

Stupid, I think.
You are "grown up" enough to make a potentially life-altering choice at 16 ... but you're not responsible enough to enlist in the military for another 2 years, or legally drink for another 5 years.

I agree with thee Walt. Sounds stupid to me as well.  Who makes these rules anyway? Thank you for your reply and Happy Friday! :)

Nope. It's in the DNA in my opinion. At conception everything we will ever be or never be is there. I'm gonna ask  that question. Thank you for your reply Sharon and Happy Monday! :)

If that is "why we have religion" ... then why do most of them teach that their religion is the ONLY way?  And encourage followers to disrespect others, even to the point of killing them?  And even oppress (women) within the religion?

Sorry.  It just seems to me that religion is more about giving people an excuse to disrespect others who are different.