Lots of humans are decent at heart.

How's that?

I've lived all over the world and it seem true to me. But even the good at heart can apparently become monsters. Rwanda, Nazi Germany, Cambodia, Bosnia/Serbia, etc.

But there's some real pond scum out there that unfortunately grabs all the attention and give the rest of us a bad name.

In the end, all I can say is that mankind has some fucked up priorities.

Humans are going to be a lot of things. Pretty much anyone you could think of, chances are there's probably at least one of them out there.

Maybe a little odd that this week, and these few examples, in the relatively long history of human society, is what will challenge your principles, but ok. Like I'm sure you could go back to last week and find a few stories around the world that could do the same. Or the week before that. Or the week before that. Or the week before that. Maybe not the week before that, but certainly the week before that.

It's easier to judge in black and white distinctions: Good person, bad person. We want to make our world easier to navigate.

What does it mean if one calls George bad. Does it mean that his desire to patrol his neighborhoods is bad. Is anyone donating time to patrol neighborhoods bad? Should people who are want-to-be cops not be allowed to donate patrolling time?

It's harder to come up with a place in our minds for persons like George and for George himself.

It is hard work, but, hard work is usually rewarded with luck.

Good luck.

Like killing Martin. Pulling guns on people and exploiting killing Martin.

And, if your it means bad, that makes it easier for you to place him for your way of thinking. Hope it works well for you.

Much like I think people like Dick Cheney and Donald Trump are very bad human beings.

I try to draw a subtle distinction between very bad human beings and someone being "pure evil" or a "monster." I don't think "pure evil" can be embodied in a person, but I do think they can be subsumed by evil in their motives and intents. And that's where I'd place people like Zimmerman or Trump or Cheney. Or the very worst of the worst, genocidal maniacs like Hitler and Stalin.

Occasionally--like this week--the line gets blurred, but I just have to try and distance myself objectively. It's not always easy.

History of the human species and that should clear up any lingering or future struggles you may have concerning that concept.

...

NRA board member Ted Nugent fantasizes about Hillary Clinton being gunned down on live TV

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/nra-board-member-ted-nugent-fantasizes-about-hillary-clinton-being-gunned-down-on-live-tv/

We the potential to suppress the worst of ourselves by a thin veneer of civilization, education, and conditioning.

Humans never disappoint me, they do sometimes surprise me with their ability to overcome a selfish animal nature though.

I look at the good as hope that, if the species survives, it could get better.

We would not have survived.

Viciousness, selfishness, and domination are inherently destructive.

Personally, I subscribe to the notion that humans are inherently cooperative, not competitive. The trick is how wide the circle of cooperation is. The wider it is, the healthier the society.

And the more damage we can do to anything non-human.

The only thing inherent in humans is adaptability. Well, can't even really go that far. Some people don't adapt well to anything, while other might adapt to this, but not that, or maybe that but not this. We can be competitive, or cooperative, depending on the context of a situation. Or, some people are competitive, or cooperative, no matter the situation.

We're all over the place.

No way to sugar coat it. As much as I would have liked, I've never had any faith in humanity. I do what I can with what I got. I'm an atheist so no heaven or hell, just life. We are what we are. We can attempt to glorify ourselves, romanticize ourselves or fictionalize ourselves but we are no more or less than the brutal, nasty beast we have always been. We are no better or worse morally or ethically, than any other animal on this planet.

The part with the hurt dog was really sad, but its friend was so devoted and sweet. I don't know how some people think animals aren't sentient beings.

But don't misinterpret my point. Though some take may take it as "negative" or "sad" I really don't mean it that way. It's just realistic. It is not meant to be positive or negative.

At least human morals and ethics anyway.

Go out into the real world. You will find all of a sudden all of that garbage disappears and suddenly the vast majority of the people you deal with are decent.

As much as I wish it were true, it just is not. I told my teenager just yesterday, "deal with with ever stranger you meet as if they are trying to fuck you over or kill you because they are".

No matter how good or kind a person seems to be, if it comes down to them getting an advantage over you in something that benefits them, You will always lose.
From the pope and pedophile priests to Democrats and "free stuff" memes that work to their personal or political issues advantage.


I would like to make very clear that is not how I operate but that sense of morals and ethics has worked against me in life. I would not change my own actions and reactions to situations but it also does not change how the world works either. The vast majority of human beings on earth work on a "me first" principle and have since the the very second human beings came into existence.

Yeah, I'm just cowering in the corner here.

I think you totally missed the point of what I was saying.

Shaking one's head in disgust is not the same as being "fragile".

and at this time, there seems to be more tolerance for it. The supporters are there for it on the internet so it is constantly fed and rationalized.
Some are decent at heart and some are not.

It's beneath you.