[ SECRET POST #3434 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3434 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.

__________________________________________________



03. [tb]


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 48 secrets from Secret Submission Post #491.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[diet_poison]

Agreed to an extent.

I might call someone a "good person" but if I do it's because I think that's defined by their actions, though I think some people have more of a natural tendency to do good or bad things (as I'd define them, or as you might define them by being positive or negative/destructive to society/the people in their lives) we all make choices about what we do and even if some of those choices become habit or feel like easy choices to make, they are still choices. But choices also help to define people, so it can be accurate to call someone a good/bad person based on that. Not that that's set in stone - you could make choices later that change that definition.

[(Anonymous)]

Eh. I mean, in common parlance, of course people use language in all kinds of ways, and I'm not trying to close off anyone's right to moral condemnation. But I think talking about it in that way is always going to be inaccurate.