/b/ - Random

No, they are not redeemable. They could be redeemed by doing the right thing, but never will be because they are simply wired differently and dont see a reason to do good.
For them doing something bad is the same as any other task, and if doing that bad thing means getting or receiving something, they will do it without thinking about the consequences or ever regretting it.
So yes, they could be redeemed, but with 100% certainty never will be. Expect for very little cases of following religion and fearing of going to hell (so they do good because it means they wont suffer themselves) which again makes it selfish.

>>126674

Also, my comments keep getting deleted, but i have no idea why ;(

A person who does evil may be reformed to stop it and start doing better. This is true even for the most mentally sick. What is also true is that they still are going to hell, an luckly to prison.
One must pay, redemption isnt enough.
Obviously, most people won't be ok with changing even with apropiate help, those shall be hunted down by police and jailed for their lifetime, if not executed.

>>126682

Lets just say hypothetically, if heaven and hell exists, who is to say that anyone who does something bad will go to hell? What if they did something bad, but are good inside? Saying that anyone who did anything evil will go to hell is kind of subjective. Are you religious or atheist?

>>126684
NTA, but there's really no such thing as "good on the inside".
People claim otherwise because it's a mechanism to make one feel less accountable/responsible for their own actions. I notice it often being used to apologize for people that repeatedly do shitty things…alternatively, used by such people in order to keep people around (the ones in which that fall for it already usually being more sensitive/gullible/prosocial). Usually, the baggage disportionately falls on too-trusting women.

I don't really care about the heaven/hell stuff.

>>126689

But just because some "people" use that as a trick to get away with evil doings, that doesnt mean that anyone who did something bad is inherently evil. When i was a young kid i had a really nice girl who was my baby sitter that i said bad things to and mightve somewhat emotionally hurt. Yes that was a bad thing to do, but i felt helpless and discontent with my life and was acting out. But other then that i try to be there for people and help them. So, am i a bad person if i did something bad once?

>>126695
My point is that it isn't really about being inherently evil either tho–moreover, what you did was pretty baby tier.

>>126684
Atheist, I just use hell and heaven to show how I feel about the topic, what is fair and more convinient.
I don't believe that good and evil are inherent to people since I belive humans have free will, they DO evil and good stuff.
My point is simple, you can do more good than harm and "earn heaven" (to be good), or do the opposite and "earn hell". Is up to you and what you do.
You will have countless reasons to harm others: desires, lack of empathy, convinience, lack of sanity, shity background.
Even those who harm accidentaly can, and should try to compensate.

>>126673
Yes and there are a lot of them. This question has been made overly complicated by leftist progressive mumbo jumbo designed to undermine functioning society.

Yes there are defective people that must be removed or made to be isolated from the rest of us. I'll even go further and say that even for those on the edge of the line (theoretically redeemable), it is extremely questionable whether we should spend any time or resources on them.

>>126673
Depends on your theological backing.
>Particularly referring to those who had something wrong happen inside their brains during childhood.
Are we talking literally structural defect ala schizophrenia or personality disorder?
>Are they redeemable?
In what way? Like, be taught to not be horrible people? Be taught to have good emotions about others?
>Or is there a point when it becomes way too late to interfere?
Again in what way?

Your language is laden with a Christian sense of the problem, so assuming that's the case, there are very few sins one can not be redeemed from. If you're talking from an athetist standpoint. I dunno, assuming you live in a deterministic universe whether or not someone is/will be a good person is pre-decided before birth in an unbreakable casual chain.

>>126717
>Are we talking literally structural defect ala schizophrenia or personality disorder?
Yes this sort of shit. Like for example there are people who werent loved as children and they grew up being incapable of true love and commitment.
>In what way? Like, be taught to not be horrible people? Be taught to have good emotions about others?
Be taught to not be like that. Consider the aforementioned example I gave: can such a person be taught to be capable of true love again? Or is this defect way too deep to be fixable?
>Again in what way?
There are problems that are like physical illnesses - can be cured only when they stay at a specific stage, ie there is a point when it becomes too late to interfere and they become incurable.
>Your language is laden with a Christian sense of the problem
Not really. I am asking from a practical point of view: I have met many people who were like that - the reason for their wrongdoings/defects wasnt conscious since they genuinely were incapable of behaving in any other way due to some abnormal upbringing. Are they curable or the problem is way too deep for it to be possible (like feral children who infamously cant be rehabilitated)?

>>126710
>it is extremely questionable whether we should spend any time or resources on them
Yeah, I also was thinking from their standpoint. But what if I want to spend my time and resources on them due to some irrational reason (like I like/love them)? Will it eventually payoff or is it even theoretically worthless?

Most people are fucked. It's no secret what men will stoop to but honestly, most women can be just as bad or even worse.

The worst are the religious or extremist type that lives in a especially deep state of denial or haze for their own benefit or to benefit a relationship, with someone abusive. To uphold toxic illusions of "morals"

Anyone who embraces toxic or "predatory" arrangements to benefit themselves, or their egos. That is quite a lot of people now. Serial killers. Corporate scum. There are these obvious ones, and then there are the petty bourgeoise.

I think mundane evil is much worse because it props itself up with an "attainable illusion" and bulldozes everything in its path to uphold it.

The thing is mundane evil adds up, the result of it is a thing like Facebook, and all the fake news and privacy violating ads on Facebook.

I don't think most people who have the capacity to be petty are truly redeemable realy. Actually they're some of the worst if they actually have the audacity to preach morality. Any of these, who lean on morality for clarity, in THAT way are phony. It's never going to be a secret what morality amounts to for someone like that.

These are the kind of people that need a constant hit of feel good illusion, or a love illusion to keep seeing what they want while things burn around them. Playing it safe for a fleeting, phony or miniscule illusion does not mesh well with "morality".

I think everyone's pretty much equally screwed up but the suburbs have some of the most fucked up people on earth.

>>126673
>Do truly irredeemable people exist?
Yeah, they're called "men". Though not sure about "people" part

Most people I've known in my life with narcissistic personalities / traits are usually pieces of shit that are virtually irredeemable people, they're more or less just wired differently and the way they get gratification and self fulfillment is through (usually) harmful means.

Almost all of them have dealt with childhood trauma, and there's a whole spiel I could go on in relation to that and how it influences certain individuals to be that way but I'm sure you get the gist.

>>126833
In my experience, people who think like this do so because they have the luxury, comfort, and safety to do so. You might live an an area where you don't have to rub shoulders with people commit crimes.

The fact is there are bad people out there who do bad things. Read some stats about the number of violent crimes, look at bodycam footage on Police Activity youtube channel (I'm not a fan of police btw, but I seriously recommend this). Look at some of these people and incidents and tell me sincerely you believe these people can be "redeemed". I don't think a serious and honest person can make that statement. There are too many of these incidents for this to simply be a circumstance of poverty or "lack of opportunity" or lack of empathy, or whatever.

If somebody is a murderer, or rapist, hurts people, is a domestic abuser, I really don't care about them and don't care to waste time or resources on them. It's less punitive and more of a "is this person worth it" and the answer is no. Not wroth spinning your gears trying to "help" people who very often cannot be helped. We aren't hurting for people will have millions of them, if there is some chaff to exclude from society we should, they are not my problem.

yeah. Rapists

Yes, they are called chechens.

>>127649
Don.

Albanians

Environmental terrorists, and the people who make it impossible to switch to sustainable energy options. These are the truly irredeemable fuckers. Its global genocide if they get their way. They're worst than hitler, worst than stalin. They're blacker than anything. I think even rapists and cartel lords take the back seat, compared to these ratfuckers

>>127653
And anyone who just doesn't automatically get it has head damage or is in denial. There is no lower scum, they are at the very bottom of all the rings in hell.

>>127649
based opinion. fuck chechens.

>>127653
They're called environmental accelerationists and they're based, bootlicker.

Makes me lmao me arse off knowing that droves of worthless Rapemoid Chechens are being cut down in droves and reduced to charred crispy toast on the roadside of somewhere in Kherson right now

>>127668
By the same rapemoid Azovs, so it's just rapemoids killing eachother.

>>127662
Or just admit you are a filthy bottom of the barrel-worthless degenerate moid who hates children and wants them to suffer.

Come out with it and be honest at least.

>>127668
Are they really rapemoids?

>>127669
Based. Imagine being a woman and thinking any of them are better than each other.

>>127724
>anyone I disagree with is a moid
Btw, you’re the one who hates children and wants to see them suffer. As long as the world is inhabitable, children will be abused. It is not something that will be stopped unless they are never born. You want them to continue to be hurt, I don’t.

>>126673
Oh absolutely. There are humans who are just born broken, and through parental ignorance or abuse (this is why reproduction should be taken more seriously, no more just fucking and creating a new soul with no oversight) these people are never able to interact with society in a healthy way. Maybe in the future we can jettison them towards the asteroid belt and they can send their entire lives being unable to hurt others as they mine rare earth metals, but until then we should just euthanize them.

>>127653
Cranky because we're smarter than you, aren't you coward? We told you growth for the sake of growth had to stop, but you are a cancer and anything that gets in your way causes you melt down and lash out. Oh well, it no longer matters. It is too late to gather enough power to do the only thing that can save the most people and so now all of us will die a more horrible death than what was needed. This could have been prevented if not for the likes of you.

I'd say around age 20 is where the brain hardens and you become a permanent, irredeemable piece of shit.

I don't know what environmental accelerationism is or whatever but I have a solar panel array and I make my own pickles and ferment my own mead/wine. What does it make me and why? and why should I care?

>>127761
>and you become a permanent, irredeemable piece of shit.
No doubt the brains ability to change patterns reduces but holy shit do you think all the neurons just permanently lock into place and stops there?

>>127743
Lol I don't know why you're lashing out at me, I'm basically in agreement with you.

>>127738
So they should all die for your sick twisted idea of justice? Since when is justice killing them all to prevent the suffering of some? Especially when there is so much good as well? How are you not worse than the abuser again? This is definitely a moid talking, because he hates the idea of a kind of paradise where he's no longer a parasite with these kind of beliefs

>>127793
No, they will die regardless because life necessitates death. The only way to prevent people from dying is to prevent them from being born. Whether they die at 59 of a heart attack or at 72 of a stroke is irrelevant. Once someone is alive, they cannot be saved in any meaningful sense. At best, the pain they will experience can be reduced periodically until their demise. As for the supposed good, there is none that justifies the suffering of the remainder. You are focusing on the children without realizing that they become old and pained like everyone does. So you cannot prevent the outcome of death for people who exist; you can only prevent some of the exorbitant suffering, which is necessitated by the systems you would try to [make others] defend. As for distinguishing between different kinds of harms: an abuser creates suffering that would not have otherwise occurred. Someone who takes actions which merely end lives early has not created unnecessary suffering as I have pointed out. You could say that the people who cause the most unnecessary suffering are in fact not solely the abusers, but those who create children, as they create all of the suffering that follows that life and all that it will cause to others. Accelerationists seek to end this cycle.
>you are a moid
Still no. But I have a feeling you are a deeply selfish person to be pointing fingers at the only ones trying to do any good in the world.

>>127825
What about the people who are genuinely happy and enjoy being alive ? You're saying we pick them off, because why? Maybe you're jealous of the fact that they do! If there is a class of people who wants to die, then they should have the right to chose, sure I'd agree… But moid you're describing everyone whether they're suffering or not. Denmark has one of the highest happiness ratings of any. In your mind it's fine to delete it for your backwards fantasy? Moid you juat sound sick in the head and completely fucked up :l

See a shrink