Sunday, 28 January 2018


Here's an interesting article about a moral dilemma:


Should good deeds be rewarded?

Should the perpetrator of a good deed expect some sort of reward?

Does being on the 'moral high ground' condone other forms of bad behaviour?

This is interesting because we are increasingly being made aware of horrible behaviour from religious people, politicians. business leaders, famous entertainers and people of power, position and influence. It's only the rise of social media and immediacy o other forms of media and communication that is making this so overt - the implication is that things have always been this way.

Why do people behave in this way? Is it because they feel that they have a 'god given right' because they have attained fame, prosperity or position?

I think bad bastards are bad bastards no matter what 'good deeds' they do to disguise it.

I'm black and white and am an unforgiving bastard.

Turn the other cheek?

No way.


  1. Your post is flawed by the false assumption that bad is the opposite of good. In truth there is only good and then lesser levels.

  2. Crap.
    So a paedophile raping a child is then just a lesser good person?
    The bastard who raped and then set fire to the woman in Mangere some years ago is a good person but just not as good as others?

    Wake up!

  3. What's wrong with that?
    Was Hitler more evil than Stallin?
    It's qualitative.
    God is the epitamy of perfection; to say the devil is the opposite of God is giving Hitler credit!

  4. "to say the devil is the opposite of God is giving Hitler credit!"

    There is no 'God' neither is there a 'devil.

    Hitler was an evil cunt and so was Stalin.

    There are lots of evil cunts in the world. That's just the way it is.