Talk:Bad


 * By a scientific standard, there is no such thing as a bad person, in the context of evil. Science more often studies human flaws as pathology, psychopathology or sociopathology. As a term of art, bad refers to those believed to be bad or otherwise classified as bad by the subjective standard of a group or an individual. 


 * Individuals and cultures tend to describe events in terms of good or bad, but there is no factual basis for the concepts except in comparison to a subjective standard. In nature, a "bad apple" fertilizes the soil while planting a seed. In a fruit basket, one bad apple can spoil the bunch. Bad describes events that do not meet a person's preferences. But what one person does not prefer, another does. Events or actions that may be seen as very bad by one group might be evidence of a great good to others.


 * Some spiritual traditions advise against codifying human preferences, though warnings prescribed in religous documents are not always incorporated in the doctrines of religous sects. Christianity and Judaism, for example, feature in their leading texts explicit warnings against dualistic moral codes.


 * ''"You may eat the fruit of any tree in the garden except the

Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. You must not touch that tree". From "Genisis, Chapter 3," in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible.''

By whose "scientific standard"? This kind of pop relativism is intrinically POV, and hardly a matter of "science" in any case. Smerdis of Tlön 15:06, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why?
There should not be an article on the concept of bad. Because the term bad is so highly subjective and familiar, an article about it could never be informative.

Oh God I don't know what bad means! I better go on Wikipedia and search for it to see what it is! Come on, seriously the only person searching for the word 'bad' on wikipedia would be an absolute retard. This is so irrelevant.Debaser23 10:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Congratulations, you offended someone, this has to be a joke, you come to freaking Wikipedia and call someone r*t4rd, isn't it disrespectful? Yeah! I agree that the concept of bad is kind of subjective, but still, man, one thing doesn't justify the other, I know you just wanted to help, but damn, brother, that was completely disproportionate. 177.105.90.10 (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Without wanting offend, but I cannot understand why the heck someone would call the another "r3t4rd", just because he disagree the fact having a "Bad" article-about Wikipedia.
 * It cross all the freaking lines, so, for God's sake, and understand that you aren't nobody to call someone like that, be polite, it isn't difficult. 177.105.90.74 (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Ditto! Je pense donc je suis 21:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Debaser23 crossed the line, and Idk why the heck there's so insults in this little fella's words.

Deletion?
"Bad" should be in the dictionary not the encyclopedia. If it is going to be in the encyclopedia, wouldn't the title "Badness" really describe what this article is about. Well anyway the concept of "bad" or "badness" is so broad that an article on it is not appropriate.

German language city name element?
What does "bad" mean in German city names? Like Bad Harzburg? 4.255.51.216 (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It means "bath", and refers to a city's status as a spa town. I've added something to the article about it. Recury (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Redirect to evil
There are several popular articles entitled Bad. Also evil is not synonymous with bad, e.g "I had a bad meal". For these reasons I have restored Bad (disambiguation) to here. Tassedethe (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Please delete
It’s a waste. We don’t need an article on the word “bad”. I don’t understand why this is here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:5281:AD00:4CA8:825F:BB1A:A15B (talk) 23:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually, we need, yeah 177.105.90.10 (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)