I'm having trouble with the distinction between good vs bad and good vs evil. Can you help me out?

I'm having trouble with the distinction between good vs bad and good vs evil. Can you help me out?

It's subjective to your culture and upbringing, excluding outliers such as psychological maniacs or edge lords on the world wide web.

You can have a bad sammich, but not an evil sammich.

I don't follow. Are the judgements of people on the internet what determine moral things such as "evil"?

Bad means that something is not as good as something else. Evil is something that actively and intentionally removes or prevents the growth of good.

Maybe this can help.
I speak portuguese, and we use two distinct words for "good" in this case.

Good as opposite to bad is "bem".
Good as opposite do evil is "bom".

In the first case, good means good actions or a good judgement. It's the same as "well".
In the second one, good is a trace of character, personality, nature, etc...

Interesting. I like that Portuguese has that distinction.

This is probably latin, but I don't know, so I'm speaking on behalf of my language.

I also think "bem vs mal" are much more effects and "bom vs mau" are the sources of these effects, the "forces" behind the good or bad consequences.

Nietszche thinks that since slaves could not have the good stuff like their masters (wine, women and wealth) they redefine "good" as "evil" and make "bad" stuff good (abstaining from wine, women, and wealth).

Is that it?

Good = anything I like
Evil = anything I don't like (ex. Jews)

Yeah all Latin languages have that disctinction.

Not that other Portuguese user but:

We also have the distinction between the quality of fundamental being ("ser") and conditional being, being in some transitory state ("estar"). Like, "ser bom" and "estar bom/bem" have different meanings.

Yes. Defining enjoyable things as evil is the story of the fox and the sour grapes. Nietzsche hated this hate of the good things in life as evil just because one couldn't have it. In his biography you'll see how Nietzsche tried to enjoy all the good stuff in life to the fullest and didn't think bragging was evil.

As far as I understand:
good is objectively beneficial and bad is objectively detrimental
As opposed to
Good is subjectively morally right and Evil is subjectively morally wrong

Like pushing an old lady down a flight of stairs is Evil while being pushed down a flight of stairs is bad

Or I might be retarded

Good is a point of view Anakin.

if you are good and someone is bad you just feel good that you're not them
if you are good and someone is evil you fucking hate them and wish that they would stop

I interpreted Nietzsche as implying the opposite.

When he uses good vs. bad, he admits that these things are part of his perspective. A thing can be good — beneficial and agreeable, or bad — harmful and disagreeable.

Meanwhile, the usage of good and evil implies an intrinsic quality that transcends perspective into the realm of objectivity. A thing is good — morally perfect, or evil — immoral. Doctrines of good and evil can be found in all cultures, and are the stone tablets that hover over the heads of the members of those cultures that serve as the "universal law" those cultures MUST follow, without reason, simply because one thing is considered morally perfect and the other immoral, concepts that are drilled into people's heads by priests.

Nietzsche's adoption of good vs. bad is the same as him flipping the bird to religion and the culture of priests thousands of years old.

Don't think about it too much.

One general undertone and foundation/fundamental qualities of evil is lust. A thirst that ones refuse to tame, that's satisfied at the expense of others. A general lack of self control. Lust of money at the expense of others, lust for revenge could be murder etc etc

No one will ever admit it, but the path of the one who absolutely chases after sex, is the exact same path as the murderer and the thief. It's the over all general practice of chasing after the general evil while putting up no resistance. It's all the same.

If you spread the message that you don't need to be careful of what is in control of you, the individual, who is different from you, may see this, adopt that message, but be a type of individual who's tolerance level may be less. He may susceptible to committing other evils, like murder.

Now fear feasts on this, by convincing the individual that he has to chase whatever the evil is, by creating the illusion of fear that the individual may only have one life to live and therefore must consume and do as much as possible cause "you only live once"...etc etc

An example used in the bible is dishonest scales. Meaning the scale is rigged, to create more weight, which translates to the consumer being forced to pay more by weight.

Now why create a dishonest scale? Lust for money, a fear of not having enough money when things get slow, not being content with the current state of your situation...so fear is used to make you take advantage.

The lusts, all of them though, is the practice of not exercising content or control or temperance. It bleeds into every facet of life and it acts like a virus. It spreads through the spoken work, the written word, and perception. Seeing a nation, or a group who don't exercise control can be contaminating to the point, a nation that did not steal prior, may now steal, or do other evils.

Now I don't find it a coincidence that the Creator of all things, opposes this. But given how hard it is for man to discover the truth, that's why forgiveness is important. God forgives so he commands us to forgive as well. Other wise how could anyone ever repent? Or change, or discover Him?

Bad means it has a harmful effect. Evil is someone deliberately being an asshole. So you can do bad things without being evil. The word good has multiple meanings that allow it to be the direct opposite of bad or evil.