I just start going in everyone's ask boxes and start interrogating their opinions on at what point does someone no longer have the right to attempt to become a less harmful individual and then when they answer I ask if their answer changes if some of their harmful traits can never in fact be changed
D --> One always has the right to attempt to grow better, so long as they draw breath D --> But they do not have the right to be seen as better D --> E%pecting or even desiring as much is f001ishness D --> Actions are more important than perception D --> But I think the only things that cannot grow better are those which are incapable of doing so D --> The monsters
Okay I know you mean philosophically but it's an objectively interesting thing to say to a vampire (er. rainbow drinker?) re: a monster As someone who will always be a parasite/predator it's an interesting question to wonder if being unable to scrub the harm entirely from my person makes the point moot, philosophically
D --> You are capable of self reflection D --> Ergo not a monster D --> The same cannot be said for all vampires D --> Though I e%pect the ones from your world are like you, so do not take that to heart in regards to anyone you personally know D --> Monstrous deeds do not necessarily make a true monster D --> As I said, it is solely the lack of ability to grow better that defines them in my eyes
Lack of ability or lack of willingness? IDK I think if someone is genuinely mentally or physically incapable it might be one thing because that might suggest cognitive problems and you get into a scorpion sitch Willingness however if you totally could improve but actively choose not to that might be the problem
D --> Lack of ability D --> Lack of willingness makes you a bad person perhaps, an evil person D --> But there are things that simply cannot change D --> Beings formed of pure malevolence, whose very nature and e%istence predicates itself upon being and doing evil D --> I am not referring to cognitive problems when I say this D --> That might make it more difficult to do better, even insurmountably more difficult D --> But to be a monster, to me, requires a 100% fundamental inability to be anything but evil D --> It is a strict requirement D --> No one you would call a person would fit it
Interesting interesting How are we defining evil in this conversation by the way because it feels like a stronger word than just "harm" which is where I started As noted I am incapable of existing in a way which does not cause harm and certainly not able to thrive without causing even greater harm, but you don't seem to include such a state of being as doing evil
D --> Do you drink b100d from people who are willing to give that b100d to you, without any mental tampering that would take away their ability to consent D --> This is an act that causes harm, by hurting someone, that is not evil D --> Things can be done that you consider good that cause harm, and are therefore not evil D --> Killing something to save yourself or another is not necessarily evil D --> Killing something for fun or pleasure is D --> It's a bit hard to e%plain, sorry D --> A cat hunts and kills to survive, but it is not a monster D --> Its motive is not killing, it is surviving D --> But if I made a machine whose only purpose was to slaughter everything in sight, that machine is a monster, for it's purpose and sole ability is to do harm D --> Vampires are not monsters a lot of the time