Sacred Haven of Debauchery Auto-translated

What is the point of this phrase? Will it make their actions any better?

I don't understand; where do you see me justifying or defending them?

I understand your "point," although there's nothing to understand; it's obvious. I don't know why you always write this; it's silly... and everyone already knows it. I'm talking about the fact that you need to take a side, not stand in the middle like a coward and mumble nonsense that everyone already understands. I'm going to come to your house now and kill your parents. It's good for me, but bad for you. What will you do? Will you stand over the corpses and insist that everyone has their own truth?

Ar, their actions won't become better because of you. But for them, it will be better. Do you see the possibility of opinions existing that differ from your own?

doesn't this make their actions better?

overall, it still leads to something bad.

It might be good for you, but you're not the center of the universe, so accept it.

If a person does something that seems terrible to most people, there is nothing wrong with that (no one should be blamed for being "different" - that's absurd), but only if it doesn't affect other people.
A rapist commits violence against a person and their personality (and can also cause psychological trauma), which is simply unacceptable.

For you, their death will be a good deed, but for Azi and his parents, it will be a bad one. It's simple.

I'm going to come to your house now, and I'll kill your parents. It's good for me, but bad for you. What will you do?

You won't kill your parents simply because they aren't home right now.

Wolf, are you even reading my posts? I wrote: people who consistently commit certain actions consider those actions to be good (therefore, I acknowledge the existence of his opinion. You're incredibly slow), but I believe that his opinion is wrong, because... Rheven explained everything.

An aggressor doesn't really care about the trauma of the victim. For them, it's not evil. But for the victim, it certainly is evil, and a very significant one at that.

For him, it's not evil. But for the victim, it certainly is, and a very significant evil at that.

Well, there you have it. Now, whose side will you take?

yes, Ar, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Do you understand? Then why are you resisting? I? Am I the perpetrator or the victim in this case? There are many nuances. Or is there a third party involved, and if so, who is the perpetrator and who is the victim for me? Acquaintances, family, friends, enemies, strangers?

1. I always knew that. Or rather, I didn't even need to know it; it's just obvious. That for each person, their actions are good (although, of course, it depends on the person; I sometimes consider some of my actions to be bad, even though I haven't killed anyone or caused any injuries). 2. I didn't deny this. 3. I was talking about something slightly different... about our perception, and not the perception of the person in question. Added after 39 seconds Wolf, you are a third person, and neither of these people is familiar to you.

but I think

You did everything right! :cool:

Reven described it correctly, in part.

it would be better if you answered two questions:

1. Whose side will you take?
2. Who do you think is right in this case?

Well, you're discussing obvious things here, comrades. It's clear that all people, in general and in specific situations, have their own goals and interests, and they simply cannot help but contradict each other. Contradictions even occur in nature everywhere, devoid of the flawed human mind, so this is quite natural.

The division into good and evil is almost the same as the division into bad and good, and that, excuse me, is a primitive way of thinking.