Does anyone else feel like people are garbage?

I think people in general are a **** mess.

I feel like "people" is too big of a group to be "this" or "that".

Some people are interesting, full of life, energy, and ideas, warm and kind, and pleasant to talk to and be around.

Others really are rotten to the core, and they make you feel like these people must have come out of the womb bad. It makes you wonder, what is wrong with them that causes them to be such an *******.

I can't control anyone but myself, so I try to avoid the garbage ones, if at all possible.

TheSkaFish said:

I feel like "people" is too big of a group to be "this" or "that".

Some people are interesting, full of life, energy, and ideas, warm and kind, and pleasant to talk to and be around.

Others really are rotten to the core, and they make you feel like these people must have come out of the womb bad. It makes you wonder, what is wrong with them that causes them to be such an *******.

I can't control anyone but myself, so I try to avoid the garbage ones, if at all possible.

Click to expand...

Harsh way to look at things. "Garbage ones". People aren't born bad. That's a stupid concept. There's no bad babies. People are a product of their environment. If they're ********, it's cuz that's how they're raised to be.

That said, obviously there are the odd exceptions; such as those born with a severe mental disorder, or politicians, but for the most part, ******** were rejected, treated like garbage, and therefore came to resemble that which they are treated like.

There's also separating factors, such as; is the person actually an *******, or merely perceived that way because you fail to understand the intended meaning in their words. I am often demonized due to the latter.

xephier102 said:

Harsh way to look at things. "Garbage ones". People aren't born bad. That's a stupid concept. There's no bad babies. People are a product of their environment. If they're ********, it's cuz that's how they're raised to be.

That said, obviously there are the odd exceptions; such as those born with a severe mental disorder, or politicians, but for the most part, ******** were rejected, treated like garbage, and therefore came to resemble that which they are treated like.

There's also separating factors, such as; is the person actually an *******, or merely perceived that way because you fail to understand the intended meaning in their words. I am often demonized due to the latter.

Click to expand...

1.5-4.5% of the population are psychopaths which is in large part inherited. The 'bullies were bullied idea' has also been debunked. Psychopaths and bullies report higher self-esteem and have higher serotonin than average. It's simple: They do what they do because they enjoy it. If everyone had a perfect childhood these people would still be around.

ardour said:

1.5-4.5% of the population are psychopaths which is in large part inherited. The 'bullies were bullied idea' has also been debunked. Psychopaths and bullies report higher self-esteem and have higher serotonin than average. It's simple: They do what they do because they enjoy it. If everyone had a perfect childhood these people would still be around.

Click to expand...

I always get the psychopaths mixed up with the sociopaths.. either way, those percentages look about accurate. That would account for the "upper 1%" in society. It's much easier to get into such positions when you are unphased by what others think of you.

But the bullies were bullied thing is not a myth to be "debunked". Just because it's not true 100% of the time, does but mean that it lacks truth.

People are a product of their environment, and that's a straight fact. Obviously there will always be exceptions to the rule, but in such cases it is statistics that should be taken into account, not simplistic binary testing, that yields definitive binary answers, dealing purely in absolutes.

xephier102 said:

If they're ********, it's cuz that's how they're raised to be.

Click to expand...

Yeah, sorry, no. There are plenty of ******** that were raised very well. People can change....

People are responsible for what they make themselves to be.....they choose how to respond to the way they were raised.

constant stranger said:

People are responsible for what they make themselves to be.....they choose how to respond to the way they were raised.

Click to expand...

Yes exactly. You make a choice every day on what kind of person you will be. How you were raised is just a very weak excuse.

xephier102 said:

Harsh way to look at things. "Garbage ones". People aren't born bad. That's a stupid concept. There's no bad babies. People are a product of their environment. If they're ********, it's cuz that's how they're raised to be.

That said, obviously there are the odd exceptions; such as those born with a severe mental disorder, or politicians, but for the most part, ******** were rejected, treated like garbage, and therefore came to resemble that which they are treated like.

There's also separating factors, such as; is the person actually an *******, or merely perceived that way because you fail to understand the intended meaning in their words. I am often demonized due to the latter.

Click to expand...

Well, in my experiences, the biggest ******** I've met offline, had comfortable upbringings for the most part. They were spoiled rotten. They knew right from wrong, but chose wrong anyway. They were born with muscles and money, and felt that it must mean that they were naturally, inherently superior.

And there are others who have this naturally cunning, manipulative, sociopathic personality. These are the ones that I especially think were born with this personality, and it was not a product of their environment.

Then there's been some people online, that I've just thought, wow, how can someone be this spiteful, what's wrong with this person, what happened in their lives to make them such an *******. My guess is that maybe they were rejected and treated like garbage as you said, and rather than learning from it that bullying was bad and being against it, instead they felt like, "monkey see, monkey do" - they see others acting like ******** and getting ahead in life, so they figured they would act like ******** too. But there's been some people that give me the impression that whether they were bullied or not, their personalities would have turned out the same anyway.

Either way. There was definitely nothing to misinterpret about these people's words and actions, they made it crystal clear what kind of person they were. Their attitude of superiority was explicitly stated. So separating factors, was not the issue.

I see two types of people. Those that would give you the shirt off their back, and those that would force yours from you.

This could be about character. Or it might just be the current situation. There is right and wrong, but there is a perspective to whether or not your right is right. Who is to say?

Evolutionarily humans evolved to take their best advantage. Was a time it meant survival. The take-what-you-want sorts lived to pass on their genes while others, you might say the less ambitious, starved from their inability to suppress others... or was the one to sacrifice their self so others could live, like stepping in front of a speeding sabretooth tiger.

Given that, right is what is right for you. The advent of societies has removed the survival element of needing aggression. Now it's about hierarchy.

So I think the question is, who has evolved, and who is still throwing the weak at the volcano gods.

JesseC said:

I see two types of people. Those that would give you the shirt off their back, and those that would force yours from you.

This could be about character. Or it might just be the current situation. There is right and wrong, but there is a perspective to whether or not your right is right. Who is to say?

Evolutionarily humans evolved to take their best advantage. Was a time it meant survival. The take-what-you-want sorts lived to pass on their genes while others, you might say the less ambitious, starved from their inability to suppress others... or was the one to sacrifice their self so others could live, like stepping in front of a speeding sabretooth tiger.

Given that, right is what is right for you. The advent of societies has removed the survival element of needing aggression. Now it's about hierarchy.

So I think the question is, who has evolved, and who is still throwing the weak at the volcano gods.

Click to expand...

There's another option: teamwork. I'm referring to the type of person who will give something of themself for the good of the tribe. It might be an extreme 'taking a hit for the team' and cost the person a lot....maybe everything.....and it might be something less, like just carrying someone else's burden for the day.

It's been said that the first indication in the archaeological record of civilized behavior is the incidence of broken bones that healed.........such an outcome indicates that other people in the tribe fed and cared for the injured person when they were unable to pull their own weight in the tribe's struggle for survival. That kind of scenario yields a benefit for the entire group......the guy with the broken leg that healed lived on to contribute his skills, abilities, enthusiasms, jokes, storytelling etc. etc. With a bit of luck he might even have been fit enough to assist in the hunt.

JesseC said:

The advent of societies has removed the survival element of needing aggression. Now it's about hierarchy.

So I think the question is, who has evolved, and who is still throwing the weak at the volcano gods.

Click to expand...

"Unevolved" is exactly how I always saw those people. I never understood it, because I always felt like there was no need to act like that in the modern world. In fact, part of the point of living in the modern world, was to not have to act like that anymore, and enjoy a higher, and happier, quality of life because of it.

I just can't wait until we outgrow hierarchies too. Unfortunately I think we're still a long way off from there.

constant stranger said:

There's another option: teamwork. I'm referring to the type of person who will give something of themself for the good of the tribe. It might be an extreme 'taking a hit for the team' and cost the person a lot....maybe everything.....and it might be something less, like just carrying someone else's burden for the day.

It's been said that the first indication in the archaeological record of civilized behavior is the incidence of broken bones that healed.........such an outcome indicates that other people in the tribe fed and cared for the injured person when they were unable to pull their own weight in the tribe's struggle for survival. That kind of scenario yields a benefit for the entire group......the guy with the broken leg that healed lived on to contribute his skills, abilities, enthusiasms, jokes, storytelling etc. etc. With a bit of luck he might even have been fit enough to assist in the hunt.

Click to expand...

This is true. However, was it empathy which would be the type I mention first, or was it about putting someone back into service for the good of the tribe, which would be the second type I mentioned. Does the good of the many out way the good of the one? In my experience it is inevitably one of the many making that decision. Self serving.

I think people are either concerned about others or they are concerned about themselves. There is a facet to it regarding prejudice. One might be empathetic toward those of their own tribe but be apathetic to those of another tribe.

Why do people commit murder? In an arbitrary 99% of murders it was the ultimate of selfishness. Get rid of someone that is in your way. But in the case of Adolph Hitler, at least 42 attempts were made on his life. Was it for the good of others or was it for the good of self? Is there any other logic behind murder?

People usually take their own best advantage. It is part of our innate character because it was those with that tendency to survive to genetically forwarded that trait.

We are innately a selfish species.

There are those that would run into a burning building to save a stranger. Is that selflessness, or unbridled optimism? How many would commit themselves to certain death for the sake of another? And what if the odds of success are low? Does someone reach a rationale where the risk is greater than the cause?

And then there is regret. Have you ever done something for someone out of the goodness of your heart, only to find you'd been taken advantage of? How does that effect your next opportunity to be selfless?

We might be type one. But we are a short step from becoming type two should the circumstances prevail. With regard to the thread title, that is usually the case, but we go there naturally.

@ JesseC - You're entitled to your opinions but I'm still gonna hold out for option three: The existence, virtues and advantages of altruism.

JesseC said:

And then there is regret. Have you ever done something for someone out of the goodness of your heart, only to find you'd been taken advantage of? How does that effect your next opportunity to be selfless?

Click to expand...

If it was really selfless and out of the goodness of your heart, doesn't that indicate that you did it with no motives at all? So how would regret fit into that...if you regret it, it wasn't selfless or anything else, you expected something in return.

TheRealCallie said:

If it was really selfless and out of the goodness of your heart, doesn't that indicate that you did it with no motives at all? So how would regret fit into that...if you regret it, it wasn't selfless or anything else, you expected something in return.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily.

I left a hardware store and was approached by a young man that said he needed money for a place to sleep. He claimed to be stranded and needed to wait for his family to come the next day.

I gave him $5.00.

I realized I'd forgotten something that I needed from the store and I returned to find him purchasing some superfluous merchandise that had nothing to do with sleeping. I realized I'd been lied to. From the look on his face when he saw me he'd realized that I knew he'd lied to me.

I felt taken. Due to him, I don't give panhandlers any help now. Is it selfish of me not to trust their stories? Maybe. From the other perspective, it was a sham, and much more selfish than me feeling put out for the deception.

I expected nothing more than to help someone in need. I suppose the satisfaction of that was robbed of me, so you are correct in me wanting something in return. But is it selfish to want to feel you did someone some good? If that's the case there are no worthy causes.

JesseC said:

Not necessarily.

I left a hardware store and was approached by a young man that said he needed money for a place to sleep. He claimed to be stranded and needed to wait for his family to come the next day.

I gave him $5.00.

I realized I'd forgotten something that I needed from the store and I returned to find him purchasing some superfluous merchandise that had nothing to do with sleeping. I realized I'd been lied to. From the look on his face when he saw me he'd realized that I knew he'd lied to me.

I felt taken. Due to him, I don't give panhandlers any help now. Is it selfish of me not to trust their stories? Maybe. From the other perspective, it was a sham, and much more selfish than me feeling put out for the deception.

I expected nothing more than to help someone in need. I suppose the satisfaction of that was robbed of me, so you are correct in me wanting something in return. But is it selfish to want to feel you did someone some good? If that's the case there are no worthy causes.

Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I get what you're saying, but I don't think I would call it "selfless." You were being extremely nice and sympathetic to his situation, of course. It's like giving a homeless person money. There's always a chance that they will blow it on alcohol or drugs or something else stupid, but there's also a chance that they won't. I think the risk comes with the territory. If it were me, I would have probably bought him some food or something instead of giving him money. Yes, he needs a place to sleep, but he also needs food, right? As for whatever he bought being superfluous. Could it be a situation where it might have been in your mind, but not in his? It could very well have been superfluous, but isn't there at least a small chance that it wasn't to him?

TheSkaFish said:

Well, in my experiences, the biggest ******** I've met offline, had comfortable upbringings for the most part. They were spoiled rotten. They knew right from wrong, but chose wrong anyway. They were born with muscles and money, and felt that it must mean that they were naturally, inherently superior.

And there are others who have this naturally cunning, manipulative, sociopathic personality. These are the ones that I especially think were born with this personality, and it was not a product of their environment.

Then there's been some people online, that I've just thought, wow, how can someone be this spiteful, what's wrong with this person, what happened in their lives to make them such an *******. My guess is that maybe they were rejected and treated like garbage as you said, and rather than learning from it that bullying was bad and being against it, instead they felt like, "monkey see, monkey do" - they see others acting like ******** and getting ahead in life, so they figured they would act like ******** too. But there's been some people that give me the impression that whether they were bullied or not, their personalities would have turned out the same anyway.

Either way. There was definitely nothing to misinterpret about these people's words and actions, they made it crystal clear what kind of person they were. Their attitude of superiority was explicitly stated. So separating factors, was not the issue.

Click to expand...

That's pretty much what I said.

xephier102 said:

or politicians

Click to expand...

The jocks, and the prats in other words. Muscles, money, good looks, and no reason to treat anyone with respect cuz they were likely raised by parents that were the same.

Short of mental disorders though, it all comes in the way we're raised.

It's a common myth that clean cut people that come from "nice" family's, and grow up to wear fancy suits, were never given a reason to be an *******.

For one, you have no idea what goes on behind the doors of that nice home with the "nice" parents. But even if the kid was spoiled rotten; that in itself will cause them to be an *******.

But that doesn't mean they were born an *******, as that is still a method of raising them.

Another thing, a lot of the time when kids are spoiled, it's because the parents don't have time to actually be parents. And therefore the child deals with constant neglect.

There's a lot more that goes into the psychology of a person than one can see on the surface from an outsider perspective.

There is a chance, but to my thoughts then, there was no way the purchase was as urgent as a need for shelter. Admittedly, I cannot recall what the alleged superfluous purchase was. Therefore I cannot appraise the soundness of my ascertainment.

There is always a chance of a scam. An alcoholic believes a drink will help him get straight. To him/her it isn't superfluous. It is a necessity. But should I objectively accept the truth of feeding someone's addiction when they asked me for money for a kiddie meal?

Are we not always at the mercy of another's cunning? It's a part of life. I'll elucidate the point of my remark was we are all inherently selfish, and how deception might make us more so.

JesseC said:

I see two types of people. Those that would give you the shirt off their back, and those that would force yours from you.

This could be about character. Or it might just be the current situation. There is right and wrong, but there is a perspective to whether or not your right is right. Who is to say?

Evolutionarily humans evolved to take their best advantage. Was a time it meant survival. The take-what-you-want sorts lived to pass on their genes while others, you might say the less ambitious, starved from their inability to suppress others... or was the one to sacrifice their self so others could live, like stepping in front of a speeding sabretooth tiger.

Given that, right is what is right for you. The advent of societies has removed the survival element of needing aggression. Now it's about hierarchy.

So I think the question is, who has evolved, and who is still throwing the weak at the volcano gods.

Click to expand...

Actually, it's more about how our technology has evolved, but our societies have failed to evolve with it, due to broken, useless education systems, and counter-progressive propaganda.