What does the upside down star(pentagram) mean to you?

Setanta wrote:

I don't deny that many things which are commonly considered to be bad can be argued to be nearly universally bad, in that those who do not agree are a- or antisocial. Nevertheless, the natural order of the cosmos does not dictate that these things are bad--human judgment dictates that. To that extent, good and bad, or good and evil, are always subjective judgments, which is the point i've been trying to make. I'm not saying you are wrong to condemn child torture, i'm simply pointing out that it is a subjective judgment. It is a subjective judgment functions as a good foundation in a successful society which intends to promote equity and decency.

If I have somehow given you the impression that I don't understand your point about judgements of good and bad being subjective, let me clarify -I understand.

I don't know how someone would (for instance)teach a child right from wrong with this mindset.

0 Replies

I have to side with Snood on this. Are any of you prepared to argue that genocide -- just to name one thing -- is not demonstrably and universally evil? This is not a matter of individual judgement. This is a universally accepted truth. Certainly, many of the things which we tend to label "good" or "evil" reflect nothing more than our individual or cultural preferences. But that's not the same as saying that evil, pure evil, does not exist.

0 Replies

Whew! Someone! Finally!

0 Replies

Well it can hardly be a universally accepted truth. If it were, we would not have had the Holocaust, the Cambodian killing fields, or Rwanda, Darfur, just to mention a few.

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

Well it can hardly be a universally accepted truth. If it were, we would not have had the Holocaust, the Cambodian killing fields, or Rwanda, Darfur, just to mention a few.

How's that? So, if there is a universally understood evil, man wouldn't allow it to take place?

0 Replies

I mean that it is very unlikely that the ones responsible for those atrocities most likely did not or do not not see it as evil as we do.

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

I mean that it is very unlikely that the ones responsible for those atrocities most likely did not or do not not see it as evil as we do.

I think it's a very big stretch to say that those who commit genocide don't know it's wrong.

It just seems like a lot of fancy tap dancing to avoid what seems to be plain - some things are evil. Why is that so hard for you to accept?

0 Replies

Merry Andrew wrote:

Are any of you prepared to argue that genocide -- just to name one thing -- is not demonstrably and universally evil?

Sure no problem Marry Andrew, none of my three examples of genocide are total evil.

Example #1 (Words & music by Chumly)
Mankind invents faster than light travel and starts exploring the nearer stars.

One of the planets orbiting one of the nearer stars is home to a race of called the Spiders, whom it is discovered have no interest in Man beyond expand and conquer. And in fact it is discovered they consider Mankind a clear and present danger to the Spider's very survival, irrational as that may appear to Mankind.

In fact all contact with the Spiders has ended in complete disaster and 1/5 of the Earth's population has been wiped out as result.

Mankind rallies itself and with a massive effort exterminates the entire Spider home world with a series of toxins and radioactive weapons.

Example #2 (Words & music by Chumly)
An incredibly virulent and deadly and airborne virus has been observed. All that is known about this virus is that it is unstoppable and at this point it has limited itself to one unique racial-ethnic African tribe the Ju-Jubes. For the Ju-Jubes that are not killed outright by the virus, it has been observed they become superlative carriers of the disease. It has further been confirmed that the virus, at the moment, is fully confined in a 10,000 square mile area and that in the lab the virus, for reasons unknown, attacks only the peoples of pure Ju-Jubes ancestry.

However further disturbing study has revealed that the virus has the potential to mutate so that it's deadly target becomes all people of dark skin. The African Nation as a whole decide that the risk to all African populace is too high to take the chance that a cure will be found before the virus has the chance to mutate into its deadlier form and despite the fact the some Ju-Jubes are only carriers at this pint and have not dies from the disease the African Nation sterilizes the entire 10,000 square mile area with fire bombs and toxins lethal to both the virus and to the Ju-Jubes

Example #3 (Words & music by Chumly)
World war II ends with Germany the victor controlling a goodly portion of Europe. Hitler did not start a two front war, did not attack England and did not allay itself with Italy and Japan. Further Japan did not bomb Pearl Harbor.

Despite the rule of Nazism, Hitler's New European Germany is economically successful. However most of the Jews worldwide have been eliminated and Israel was unsurprisingly never created.

The New European Germany's military is unparalleled anywhere in the world by a huge margin, and they are the only nation to have a stockpile of nuclear weaponry, and the ability to deliver it anywhere in the world and devastate any country.

The New European Germany makes the demand that the last remain Jews be rounded up and delivered to them or they will terrorize the world with the nuclear weaponry. They back up their demands with a show of nuclear force devastating certain areas of the world.

After discussion, the world's countries agree that a third world war with nuclear weaponry on one side only is not worth it, and the remaining Jews are rounded up and sent to New European Germany to meet their untimely end.

0 Replies

Why, if your contention is true that all evil is relative, did you have to invent scenarios? Surely there has been enough catastrophe and tragedy in reality to supply you with countless useful examples.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Why, if your contention is true that all evil is relative, did you have to invent scenarios? Surely there has been enough catastrophe and tragedy in reality to supply you with countless useful examples.

You can't be that dull can you?

You keep inferring I have provided an "opinion" on the matter at hand, and that this presumed "opinion" of mine is contrary to your "opinion". Yet I have most definitively neither accepted nor denied your claims, nor provided any of my own as per evil. All of this is wholly in your imagination.

I have simply and quite reasonably called your claims to task. I will also add it's wholly irrelative what other posters do or do not substantiate, and it's
wholly at my discretion as to how I might take other posters to task, or not, but rest assured I have and will; otherwise one might as well read opinion polls on such claims as you have made here about evil.

Go ahead I challenge you to Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. your claim that "there is well defined evil in this world".

Well defined by whom?
What is evil?

I'll bet you dodge it yet again.

0 Replies

One cannot ignore the condition of the person. It requires high energy for the human mind/brain to behave in a civilized manner. If for whatever reason that energy level is reduced the person does not behaves to par physically and morally - a drunked professor will still behave like a drunk. Same with social conditioning. A civilized person would be able abstract ideas and seek universalities in thought but an uncivilized person would only see his narrow view. Up until the development of nuclear weapons, nationsthought it was okay to war on weaker nations. But nuclear weapons brought a change in attitude of warmongering in that the aggressor too could be annihilated thus a universality was unexpectedly brought to light.

Evil is a human-centric idea. We give no thought to the cows we slaughter for our steaks. Imagine if troodons, the dinosaur with the biggest brain, managed to dominate the earth and left the apes still in the trees. The apes would be great trophies for the 'civilized' troodons.

0 Replies

The upside down pentagram is a symbol to me of defiance. It's not overly weighty, and I could pin it off and on like a piece of costume jewellry.
However, I don't and I wouldn't as things stand.

I don't need it, and I know for some it means a hell of a lot. I don't want to mess with it right now.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Why, if your contention is true that all evil is relative, did you have to invent scenarios? Surely there has been enough catastrophe and tragedy in reality to supply you with countless useful examples.

So how about a scenario? As long as it's plausible it makes no difference whatsoever if it did or didn't happen. All you do is dodge my challenges and counter with your pedestrian critique because you are incapable of making your case.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

snood wrote:
Why, if your contention is true that all evil is relative, did you have to invent scenarios? Surely there has been enough catastrophe and tragedy in reality to supply you with countless useful examples.
So how about a scenario? As long as it's plausible it makes no difference whatsoever if it did or didn't happen. All you do is dodge my challenges and counter with your pedestrian critique because you are incapable of making your case.

I avoid replying to you because you are unpleasant and needlessly abrasive, not because, as you seem to think, your arguments are so brilliant and insurmountable. You see it as a dodge, I see it as avoiding a pain in the ass. It's all relative - hey, you understand subjectivity, so surely you can understand that.

0 Replies

You have in fact responded to all my posts. Your claim that you "avoid replying" to me is wholly empty of fact as any reader can quickly discern.

Your claim of my posts being "unpleasant and needlessly abrasive" and your claim "you seem to think, your arguments are so brilliant and insurmountable" are examples of the logical fallacy argumentum ad hominem and are unsupported by my text. You have also in fact responded to my posts not addressed to you, nor in response to you, such as my post to Merry Andrew.

Given that you are now fraudulently claiming you "avoid replying" I should note you have further demonstrated your disingenuousness by sending me unsolicited PM's, the last of which I found incomprehensible and therefore unmerited of a reply.

Your behavior is much in keeping with the logical fallacy argumentum ad hominem as well as one whose puerile attempts to discredit have failed.
It is not uncommon for some religionists, such as yourself, to fall back on such tactics.

0 Replies

Chumly:

Quote:

You have in fact responded to all my posts. Your claim that you "avoid replying" to me is wholly empty of fact as any reader can quickly discern.

Great - now you're going to use the fact that I answer you at all as validation of the significance of your mental masturbations. I won't be doing it anymore, genius.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

I don't know how someone would (for instance)teach a child right from wrong with this mindset.

Then either you have not been paying attention, or you do not wish to see. It is a simple matter to explain to a reasonably intelligent child above a certain age the difference between objective principles and subjective principles. Before they are old enough to distinguish such matters, "Because i said so, and i'm the Daddy (or Mommy)" would suffice. Do you contend that a two-year old comprehends the meaning or morality and contentions of absolute truths? If you do, i'll laugh at you. Before a certain age, children understand right and wrong only as what they are permitted and what they are denied. Time enough to teach them about ethics and socially-acceptable behavior when they are old enough to comprehend.

That statement reeks of self-righteousness.

And . . .

Merry Andrew wrote:

I have to side with Snood on this. Are any of you prepared to argue that genocide -- just to name one thing -- is not demonstrably and universally evil? This is not a matter of individual judgement. This is a universally accepted truth. Certainly, many of the things which we tend to label "good" or "evil" reflect nothing more than our individual or cultural preferences. But that's not the same as saying that evil, pure evil, does not exist.

Yes, it is exactly the same as saying the "evil, pure evil, does not exist." That's exactly what i'm saying.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

snood wrote:
I don't know how someone would (for instance)teach a child right from wrong with this mindset.

Then either you have not been paying attention, or you do not wish to see. It is a simple matter to explain to a reasonably intelligent child above a certain age the difference between objective principles and subjective principles. Before they are old enough to distinguish such matters, "Because i said so, and i'm the Daddy (or Mommy)" would suffice. Do you contend that a two-year old comprehends the meaning or morality and contentions of absolute truths? If you do, i'll laugh at you. Before a certain age, children understand right and wrong only as what they are permitted and what they are denied. Time enough to teach them about ethics and socially-acceptable behavior when they are old enough to comprehend.

That statement reeks of self-righteousness.

And . . .

Merry Andrew wrote:
I have to side with Snood on this. Are any of you prepared to argue that genocide -- just to name one thing -- is not demonstrably and universally evil? This is not a matter of individual judgement. This is a universally accepted truth. Certainly, many of the things which we tend to label "good" or "evil" reflect nothing more than our individual or cultural preferences. But that's not the same as saying that evil, pure evil, does not exist.

Yes, it is exactly the same as saying the "evil, pure evil, does not exist." That's exactly what i'm saying.

You got kids, Setanta? I think its germaine, because that's one of them things that's really different from theory to practice.

0 Replies

No Snood, i don't have children--if i did, at my age, i'd have grandchildren, as well. Now you can comfort yourself that you're entitled to dismiss my arguments. I have, however, had a big hand in caring for my nephews when they were small, and lived in a stair-step family, in which one was always responsible for siblings and cousins who were younger. Additionally, believe it or not, i remember my own upbringing. I know, whether or not you want to get snotty about it, that it is possible to teach children about ethics and social responsibility without an appeal to religious morality.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Great - now you're going to use the fact that I answer you at all as validation of the significance of your mental masturbations. I won't be doing it anymore, genius.

Your above claim is a disingenuous and deceitful twisting of my post to suit your fantasy. More examples of your logical fallacy argumentum ad hominem as as well as your failed puerile attempts to discredit.

It is not uncommon for some religionists, such as yourself, to fall back on such tactics.

You keep inferring I have provided an "opinion" on the matter at hand, and that this presumed "opinion" of mine is contrary to your "opinion". Yet I have most definitively neither accepted nor denied your claims, nor provided any of my own as per evil. All of this is wholly in your imagination.

I have simply and quite reasonably called your claims to task. Go ahead I challenge you to back up your claim that "there is well defined evil in this world".

Well defined by whom?
What is evil?

I'll bet you dodge it yet again.

0 Replies

What does the upside down star(pentagram) mean to you?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know