dimreepr

So, 5 isn't enough... 😉

Do you think there is an answer?

Any test that's limited to only 5 aspects of an infinate range, is more likely to exclude than include; it's almost like it was designed that way.

I think all the profits had problem's in life before they understood how to live; Mohamed for instance, was probably an alcoholic before he understood; why else would he ban alcohol entirely?

What if the bible is just trying to teach us to chill out and live a little? The sermon on the mount seems to fit with that.

AFAIK Hitler didn't, personally, kill anyone, he persuaded other's to do it for him; by falsely accusing people of being 'evil'. You may feel justified in doing the same (sleep better etc.), I just hope you're not as persuasive.

It's not off topic, but it is ironic.

(sigh) Do I really have to dig up the actual study, to show you the difference? So, a lion's freewill is limited to it being a lion, not it's intelligence. An anthill is intelligent, the ant's not so much. Intelligence doesn't divorce us from nature, it just makes us arrogantly assume that we know better. Do you really think Frankenstein's monster, wanted to be?

No one has suggested otherwise, even the video I posted "A world without prison's" included prison. Then why are there so many of them in prison? I'm ignoring you, not your anecdotes, when you present actual evidence of evil 'people', I will listen very carefully. That assumes that the playing field is level, he can rise above it why can't you. You're taking free will, way to literally, even your diet affects the range of freedom you have to make a decision. I study I heard on the radio said "the gut biome of an anxious rat, was given to a brave rat and it became anxious." I think you'll find you have a much tighter range of freedom than you think you have. I'm just asking you for a little more rigor in your thinking about what a fact is. Why is a Lion, "not evil" for brutally murdering and devouring children, but a Human is evil?

You must also accept, that your words can be misunderstood, if I try hard enough...

We could try writing a constitution that incorporates past failures, with a possible future success...

That's the god of the gaps argument in reverse...

I'm just a confused as you, but then we did vote for Boris...

Your emotions are an excuse, not a reason. All I've suggested is, criminal's are often victim's too... How does it help the victim in your case, if we ignore that fact?

Please explain: Why does it have to have a 100% success rate, to be better than what we have now? And why not? Please don't paraphrase what I said, quote what i said. But for the record, if he did what he did and can't be cured, maybe it's kinder to kill him; especially if he's in the type of prison your advocating... Many comedians have a philosophy too.

As Spike Milligan once said, "your facts are different from my facts"

I'm tempted to say God, but I know what a shit-storm that would create here. 😉

It's a human construct often used as an escuse do "evil". Besides it's not a very scientific answer to my demand, no evidence no counter argument, just gainsay and attempted ridicule. Is a lion evil bc he brutally murder's all the children of a pride he takes over? If the lionesses' use that as an excuse to brutally murder him, they're left with no chance of future children.

Why is it unrealistic, unobtainable and naive?

What error in thinking? " A reasonable justice system does three main things...punish, protect and rehabilitate." I'm saying, A good justice system only needs to protect and try to rehabilitate. By arguing otherwise you're implying I'm wrong, you've yet to explain why. That doesn't mean you have to think the same way as the majority, some call that noise, I prefer independent thinking. I'm not brushing over anything, I'm flat out demanding that evil doesn't exist. Of course their history matters, if you have any hope of improving THE future (if not the perps).

What happens when the "success verb" run's out?

It maybe fair to say, we have a different understanding; but more complete is a question for tomorrow.

Meh, I got insurance... 😉 But it's the definition you are using, ergo... I can only think of one reason you'd attempt dissociate yourself from that definition and hide behind the majority; because you know that definition contains an element of revenge. It also distracts from the fact that you have yet to answer, why my definition is wrong, or not applicable to our society... You do know Trump was a president, right? "so called moral values etc." Sure!!! turn the other cheek, be a good Samaritan, forgive etc. is much worse than, I could shoot someone..., separate children from parent's when they illegally enter the country etc. etc. etc. 🙄 Or as it relates to Australia, separate children from parent's when they're there when we got here... The difference is the base of your emotional rest state. Being content doesn't mean you never get angry or sad, it just means you let it happen and then forget it. Being discontent mean's you can't forget it.