Few bad apples ruin the bunch?

So what do you think, do a few bad apples in a group ruin the entire group for you?

If a few cops were corrupt does that make you distrust the police?
If a few lunatics go shooting up a place does that make you want to ban guns for everybody else?
If a few immigrants turn out to be bad does that ruin it all for you?
If a few people abuse welfare should we scrap it all?


For me, i'm a strong believer that most people are inherently good and that a few idiots should not ruin it for the rest.

Yea, but if always few apples of the same sort are constantly being bad and ruin the others, then you'll just stop with those apples in future


Anyways, you cannot do that kind of comparison and it has 0 sense..... Apples and terrorists... Sounds so smarty...

There's no point in even trying, people constantly evade logic. We'd had better luck by avoiding serious topics

PS: just because some whites are violent white supremacists in charlestonville, not all white are too

Practiclly it takes time for apple to grow and if the rotten ones came at the bottom of the basket that means the farmer knew about it and scammed you. and if he keeps doing it and you buy the baskets time after time for 40 years you carry part of the fault for each family member that died.

Just seperate the few rotten apples from the still healthy apples before they get infected by the rotten apples.

But this whole subject is far beyond us, its all for the personal agendas of the politicians & elites of the world, whom use the media to spread it.

90% of people are good, 10% are bad, but 90% are passive and so 10% rule over 90% all the time.

There are different ideologies and approaches how to fix the issue; communism wants 90% to kill the 10%, nazism wants eugenics to eradicate the 10% and capitalism believes free market will make 90% strong enough to resist 10%

I don't know which approach is the solution, i just know everytime they try it, a child would do better.

Scritto da Witch-Doctor, 19.08.2017 at 03:33

So what do you think, do a few bad apples in a group ruin the entire group for you?

If a few cops were corrupt does that make you distrust the police?
If a few lunatics go shooting up a place does that make you want to ban guns for everybody else?
If a few immigrants turn out to be bad does that ruin it all for you?
If a few people abuse welfare should we scrap it all?


For me, i'm a strong believer that most people are inherently good and that a few idiots should not ruin it for the rest.

No
No
Yes
Yes
I'll explain If your butt hurt or confused.

Scritto da Helly, 22.08.2017 at 08:27

Scritto da Witch-Doctor, 19.08.2017 at 03:33

So what do you think, do a few bad apples in a group ruin the entire group for you?

If a few cops were corrupt does that make you distrust the police?
If a few lunatics go shooting up a place does that make you want to ban guns for everybody else?
If a few immigrants turn out to be bad does that ruin it all for you?
If a few people abuse welfare should we scrap it all?


For me, i'm a strong believer that most people are inherently good and that a few idiots should not ruin it for the rest.

No
No
Yes
Yes
I'll explain I'd your butt hurt or confused.

English do you speak it.

Scritto da Witch-Doctor, 22.08.2017 at 08:32

Scritto da Helly, 22.08.2017 at 08:27

Scritto da Witch-Doctor, 19.08.2017 at 03:33

So what do you think, do a few bad apples in a group ruin the entire group for you?

If a few cops were corrupt does that make you distrust the police?
If a few lunatics go shooting up a place does that make you want to ban guns for everybody else?
If a few immigrants turn out to be bad does that ruin it all for you?
If a few people abuse welfare should we scrap it all?


For me, i'm a strong believer that most people are inherently good and that a few idiots should not ruin it for the rest.

No
No
Yes
Yes
I'll explain If your butt hurt or confused.

English do you speak it.

Indeed I do.

Scritto da Helly, 22.08.2017 at 08:39

Scritto da Witch-Doctor, 22.08.2017 at 08:32

Scritto da Helly, 22.08.2017 at 08:27

Scritto da Witch-Doctor, 19.08.2017 at 03:33

So what do you think, do a few bad apples in a group ruin the entire group for you?

If a few cops were corrupt does that make you distrust the police?
If a few lunatics go shooting up a place does that make you want to ban guns for everybody else?
If a few immigrants turn out to be bad does that ruin it all for you?
If a few people abuse welfare should we scrap it all?


For me, i'm a strong believer that most people are inherently good and that a few idiots should not ruin it for the rest.

No
No
Yes
Yes
I'll explain If your butt hurt or confused.

English do you speak it.

Indeed I do.

Nice correcting "i'd" to "if" in your quoting so you dont look bad. Typical.

Scritto da Witch-Doctor, 22.08.2017 at 10:05

Scritto da Helly, 22.08.2017 at 08:39

Scritto da Witch-Doctor, 22.08.2017 at 08:32

Scritto da Helly, 22.08.2017 at 08:27

Scritto da Witch-Doctor, 19.08.2017 at 03:33

So what do you think, do a few bad apples in a group ruin the entire group for you?

If a few cops were corrupt does that make you distrust the police?
If a few lunatics go shooting up a place does that make you want to ban guns for everybody else?
If a few immigrants turn out to be bad does that ruin it all for you?
If a few people abuse welfare should we scrap it all?


For me, i'm a strong believer that most people are inherently good and that a few idiots should not ruin it for the rest.

No
No
Yes
Yes
I'll explain If your butt hurt or confused.

English do you speak it.

Indeed I do.

Nice correcting "i'd" to "if" in your quoting so you dont look bad. Typical.

Maybe people make typos hmmm?

The first two are neccassary in order to have a stable society, one of them is an uninfringed right protect by the United states constitution. The other is a civil work group required to enforce laws. The other two are in no way neccassary or protected in any way by the United states. So like I said no, no, yes, yes.

Scritto da Witch-Doctor, 19.08.2017 at 03:33

So what do you think, do a few bad apples in a group ruin the entire group for you?

If a few cops were corrupt does that make you distrust the police?
If a few lunatics go shooting up a place does that make you want to ban guns for everybody else?
If a few immigrants turn out to be bad does that ruin it all for you?
If a few people abuse welfare should we scrap it all?


For me, i'm a strong believer that most people are inherently good and that a few idiots should not ruin it for the rest.

Bad apples test the 'inherent goodness' of the bushel. If everyone thought it was ok to w/f, would you w/f? If everyone thought it was ok to collect government benefits, would you? If all thought it was ok to murder, would you?

There are some things that even if the whole world did them, you would not. This is your inviolability... it is the ultimate expression of your free will - to choose something else, even if all around you are doing that which is rotten. It is our test - and some might say our purpose ♥

Scritto da brianwl, 25.08.2017 at 17:38

Scritto da Witch-Doctor, 19.08.2017 at 03:33

So what do you think, do a few bad apples in a group ruin the entire group for you?

If a few cops were corrupt does that make you distrust the police?
If a few lunatics go shooting up a place does that make you want to ban guns for everybody else?
If a few immigrants turn out to be bad does that ruin it all for you?
If a few people abuse welfare should we scrap it all?


For me, i'm a strong believer that most people are inherently good and that a few idiots should not ruin it for the rest.

Bad apples test the 'inherent goodness' of the bushel. If everyone thought it was ok to w/f, would you w/f? If everyone thought it was ok to collect government benefits, would you? If all thought it was ok to murder, would you?

There are some things that even if the whole world did them, you would not. This is your inviolability... it is the ultimate expression of your free will - to choose something else, even if all around you are doing that which is rotten. It is our test - and some might say our purpose ♥

Yea I would because morality is a false construct. Our morality is simply evolution of behaviors that enhance our species's survival. Of course certain behaviors would have to evolve over time to keep up with changing environments.
Imagine if I was a lion, it would be okay for me to kill a family's patriarch and the offspring and take over the family.

Scritto da Witch-Doctor, 25.08.2017 at 19:09

...

Yea I would because morality is a false construct. Our morality is simply evolution of behaviors that enhance our species's survival. Of course certain behaviors would have to evolve over time to keep up with changing environments.
Imagine if I was a lion, it would be okay for me to kill a family's patriarch and the offspring and take over the family.

There's no evidence our morality is a result of evolution... sex drive, sure... hunger drive, makes sense. But to choose to return a person's wallet anonymously or to care for the sick or weak... these acts have no evolutionary advantage, and yet most of us have experienced them - either directly or indirectly.

If we are in a simulation, then it is our 'avatar/character' that has the evolutionary behaviours of which you speak. But the consciousness which allows you to decide between one of two available choices... this is not a false choice. Anyone who makes such a choice, particularly against a drive (for instance would you rape a girl if you were all alone with her, even if your sex drive was compelling you to rape her?) knows at some level that we are more than a product of predetermined evolutionary drives.

Numbers and context or gtfo.

If Asian immigrants in Europe are responsible for 0,3 of the crimes, 0 of the rapes, are 95% employed and score high on education, well whats not to love get me those immigrants.

If muslim immigrants in Europe are responsible for 30% of the crimes, 50% of the rapes. 60% are unemployed and score low on education, then no thanks get them all the fuck out.

Scritto da brianwl, 25.08.2017 at 20:24

Scritto da Witch-Doctor, 25.08.2017 at 19:09

...

Yea I would because morality is a false construct. Our morality is simply evolution of behaviors that enhance our species's survival. Of course certain behaviors would have to evolve over time to keep up with changing environments.
Imagine if I was a lion, it would be okay for me to kill a family's patriarch and the offspring and take over the family.

There's no evidence our morality is a result of evolution... sex drive, sure... hunger drive, makes sense. But to choose to return a person's wallet anonymously or to care for the sick or weak... these acts have no evolutionary advantage, and yet most of us have experienced them - either directly or indirectly.

If we are in a simulation, then it is our 'avatar/character' that has the evolutionary behaviours of which you speak. But the consciousness which allows you to decide between one of two available choices... this is not a false choice. Anyone who makes such a choice, particularly against a drive (for instance would you rape a girl if you were all alone with her, even if your sex drive was compelling you to rape her?) knows at some level that we are more than a product of predetermined evolutionary drives.

We are moral because our brain evolved to be intelligent and social.
This was needed back in the days of hunter gatherer where group cooperation was required.

Sure some things such as "Do not kill your own species " is more primitive since it has appeared in many simpler animals than us.

Other things such as returning a wallet is a result of a complex combination of our hard wired social brain and how we've been raised in a society that praises such behavior. We analyzed the situation and some of us have determined the reward of feeling good or not having to feel guilty (emphathy) outweighs any gains from the wallet.

If everyone who posted......deleted.....this wouldn't be such a bad place......just saying.....

Muslim apples are all bad

Scritto da Witch-Doctor, 19.08.2017 at 03:33

If a few immigrants turn out to be bad does that ruin it all for you?

35% of french muslims believe suicide bombings were justified, 35% are a few bad apples

Generally speaking a few bad apples do ruin the bunch, but saying this alone is too vague. With what we have going on in Europe right now, as others said, its a lot more than a few bad apples. The ones that carry out the attacks are being preached hate. They aren't the only ones that support it, remember that.

Scritto da Witch-Doctor, 19.08.2017 at 03:33

So what do you think, do a few bad apples in a group ruin the entire group for you?

If a few cops were corrupt does that make you distrust the police?
If a few lunatics go shooting up a place does that make you want to ban guns for everybody else?
If a few immigrants turn out to be bad does that ruin it all for you?
If a few people abuse welfare should we scrap it all?


For me, i'm a strong believer that most people are inherently good and that a few idiots should not ruin it for the rest.

The question is that instead of giving solution to those bad apples, you believe that those apples are victims....
what an irony.

Scritto da Free_Warrior, 26.08.2017 at 09:41

Scritto da Witch-Doctor, 19.08.2017 at 03:33

So what do you think, do a few bad apples in a group ruin the entire group for you?

If a few cops were corrupt does that make you distrust the police?
If a few lunatics go shooting up a place does that make you want to ban guns for everybody else?
If a few immigrants turn out to be bad does that ruin it all for you?
If a few people abuse welfare should we scrap it all?


For me, i'm a strong believer that most people are inherently good and that a few idiots should not ruin it for the rest.

The question is that instead of giving solution to those bad apples, you believe that those apples are victims....
what an irony.

What? You're trying so hard to quote some shit you heard from some right winger that it doesn't even make sense in the context of this discussion. If you want to talk about victims, people like yourself play professional victim-hood whenever science goes against your religion. Did I mention a lot of you right wing tards are anti science?

Anyways back to the point, bad apples will exist no matter what we do and it is important not to ruin the rights of everybody by making ignorant policies in reaction to them.
If a huge amount of them are bad, then this is the point where it is no longer a few bad apples. It becomes a dangerous enemy of the state which should be eliminated, but I hardly see anything approaching this, even the alt right and all you nationalist retards are still only small and isolated.

Scritto da Khal.eesi, 25.08.2017 at 21:51

Numbers and context or gtfo.

If Asian immigrants in Europe are responsible for 0,3 of the crimes, 0 of the rapes, are 95% employed and score high on education, well whats not to love get me those immigrants.

If muslim immigrants in Europe are responsible for 30% of the crimes, 50% of the rapes. 60% are unemployed and score low on education, then no thanks get them all the fuck out.

England put muslims and indians under 'Asian' category, so your stats go down when you calculate the average. When you read their statistics, and read about british asian, you mean chinese/japanese and they mean all asians. I wonder why they did that

Go google about english girl being raped in UK, then she searched for help and the guy which she asked, raped her, so twice in same night. And police reported they were 'asians'.

Scritto da Witch-Doctor, 26.08.2017 at 12:33

Scritto da Free_Warrior, 26.08.2017 at 09:41

Scritto da Witch-Doctor, 19.08.2017 at 03:33

So what do you think, do a few bad apples in a group ruin the entire group for you?

If a few cops were corrupt does that make you distrust the police?
If a few lunatics go shooting up a place does that make you want to ban guns for everybody else?
If a few immigrants turn out to be bad does that ruin it all for you?
If a few people abuse welfare should we scrap it all?


For me, i'm a strong believer that most people are inherently good and that a few idiots should not ruin it for the rest.

The question is that instead of giving solution to those bad apples, you believe that those apples are victims....
what an irony.

What? You're trying so hard to quote some shit you heard from some right winger that it doesn't even make sense in the context of this discussion. If you want to talk about victims, people like yourself play professional victim-hood whenever science goes against your religion. Did I mention a lot of you right wing tards are anti science?

Anyways back to the point, bad apples will exist no matter what we do and it is important not to ruin the rights of everybody by making ignorant policies in reaction to them.
If a huge amount of them are bad, then this is the point where it is no longer a few bad apples. It becomes a dangerous enemy of the state which should be eliminated, but I hardly see anything approaching this, even the alt right and all you nationalist retards are still only small and isolated.

op ignore of the ss hating on a whole group of countries....

Quota:

Scritto da Witch-Doctor, 25.08.2017 at 22:53

...

We are moral because our brain evolved to be intelligent and social.
This was needed back in the days of hunter gatherer where group cooperation was required.

Sure some things such as "Do not kill your own species " is more primitive since it has appeared in many simpler animals than us.

Other things such as returning a wallet is a result of a complex combination of our hard wired social brain and how we've been raised in a society that praises such behavior. We analyzed the situation and some of us have determined the reward of feeling good or not having to feel guilty (emphathy) outweighs any gains from the wallet.

You may be moral for the above reasons. If so, you are nothing more than a conscious entity forcefully bound to watch a rather impressive IMAX movie for a few decades before your light is forever extinguished.

For me, i have an awareness of the choice. i have a rudimentary understanding of the interpretation of the double slit experiment, which demonstrates the physical/material is not fundamental, but consciousness is. (and given your logical nature, i think if you spent some time on this, you'd come to change your view... the science is well documented, and undisputed - and the physical/material interpretations have been refuted through more recent experiments in the past decade or two.)

So if consciousness is fundamental, as the evidence supports, then returning a wallet (and i made the distinction 'without no one knowing' for a reason) then a true choice exists.

If choice exists and if we are in a 'game', then yes, there are rules to any 'game' and i would not deny the evolutionary pressures which shape our social, intellectual and spiritual development, but i would maintain that within this fog of 'evolution' 'social' 'emotional' influences, our consciousness can still rise above them, defy what these influences have 'programmed' or 'predisposed' in us, and provide us the means to make a different choice.

Another way to ask the relevant question is which is more fundamental: the brain or consciousness? As your statement "We are moral because our brain evolved to be intelligent and social" reveals your view that the brain somehow creates consciousness, then you would be obligated to see ourselves as predetermined, predestined entities, without any 'true' morality. However, this is not the case... it is neither supported by science, nor our intuitive sense of consciousness to exist (even if it can't be weighed, photographed, or captured). Yet the belief persists in the same way geocentric theories persisted in mainstream cultures long after the scientific evidence showed otherwise.

Once you explore this question, you may challenge your beliefs with conflicting data.

Quota:

Scritto da brianwl, 26.08.2017 at 17:24

Scritto da Witch-Doctor, 25.08.2017 at 22:53

...

We are moral because our brain evolved to be intelligent and social.
This was needed back in the days of hunter gatherer where group cooperation was required.

Sure some things such as "Do not kill your own species " is more primitive since it has appeared in many simpler animals than us.

Other things such as returning a wallet is a result of a complex combination of our hard wired social brain and how we've been raised in a society that praises such behavior. We analyzed the situation and some of us have determined the reward of feeling good or not having to feel guilty (emphathy) outweighs any gains from the wallet.

You may be moral for the above reasons. If so, you are nothing more than a conscious entity forcefully bound to watch a rather impressive IMAX movie for a few decades before your light is forever extinguished.

For me, i have an awareness of the choice. i have a rudimentary understanding of the interpretation of the double slit experiment, which demonstrates the physical/material is not fundamental, but consciousness is. (and given your logical nature, i think if you spent some time on this, you'd come to change your view... the science is well documented, and undisputed - and the physical/material interpretations have been refuted through more recent experiments in the past decade or two.)

So if consciousness is fundamental, as the evidence supports, then returning a wallet (and i made the distinction 'without no one knowing' for a reason) then a true choice exists.

If choice exists and if we are in a 'game', then yes, there are rules to any 'game' and i would not deny the evolutionary pressures which shape our social, intellectual and spiritual development, but i would maintain that within this fog of 'evolution' 'social' 'emotional' influences, our consciousness can still rise above them, defy what these influences have 'programmed' or 'predisposed' in us, and provide us the means to make a different choice.

Another way to ask the relevant question is which is more fundamental: the brain or consciousness? As your statement "We are moral because our brain evolved to be intelligent and social" reveals your view that the brain somehow creates consciousness, then you would be obligated to see ourselves as predetermined, predestined entities, without any 'true' morality. However, this is not the case... it is neither supported by science, nor our intuitive sense of consciousness to exist (even if it can't be weighed, photographed, or captured). Yet the belief persists in the same way geocentric theories persisted in mainstream cultures long after the scientific evidence showed otherwise.


Once you explore this question, you may challenge your beliefs with conflicting data.

I dont think you understand what the double slit experiment is. It's to show that electrons acts as both particles and a wave.

No im not watching a movie because at anytime due to any reason, I can influence the outcome. I can for example kill someone and end their existence.

What experiments brian? I need some sources.

Your entire post is random rambling about philosophical crap that is highly debatable in nature.

we are not moral because of a god or anything religious. We are moral as a result of that trait being benefifical to our survival.

I won't ramble anymore... pm me if you want.

however, let me just add, if you erase the slit detection data the diffraction pattern ALWAYS evidences waves, NEVER particles. As soon as a consciousness has access to the detection data, whatever was being fired at the slits ALWAYS act as particles. If you record the data, and after the fact, erase the data, the diffraction pattern is restored.

At any rate, i can't have a serious discussion if you wish to dismiss my entire post as 'philosophical crap'.

Clearly you would rather defend beliefs than do the research, so it's fine... it's what most of society does, has done, and will continue to do, so you are in good company♥

If you are serious though, a good starting point would be here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser
It's a mainstream source (wikipedia) but if you want, i can provide further links that go into more detail about it's implications regarding reality, materialism, and consciousness.

Scritto da Crow, 27.08.2017 at 03:45

I believe deep down we're all 'bad apples' as it's part of our human nature, the only reason why a majority of us act so civilised on a daily basis is due to our environment.

If you survived a plane crash and landed on an isolated island with a few other survivors (males and females of all ages), do you think you would all behave rational and normal as time goes by? The novel 'Lord of The Flies' explains it best.

Depends if they elect me as there king or not

Scritto da Crow, 27.08.2017 at 03:45

I believe deep down we're all 'bad apples' as it's part of our human nature, the only reason why a majority of us act so civilised on a daily basis is due to our environment.

If you survived a plane crash and landed on an isolated island with a few other survivors (males and females of all ages), do you think you would all behave rational and normal as time goes by? The novel 'Lord of The Flies' explains it best.

Lord of Flies is fictional.

In my experience, not everyone tends to turn on one another the moment the authority figures are out of influence. Any one who has spent extended periods in the wilderness with a group knows this... i think the people that would 'lose their minds' and not behave 'rational and normal as time goes by' know who they are, and always stay close to people they can exploit. This is why they never go into the wilderness alone... it scares the crap out of them because they know they can't survive on their own.