- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 56,981
- Reaction score
- 27,029
- Location
- Chicago Illinois
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Private
I wouldn't go so far as to broadly categorize a large swatch of the population as “evil”, just because of matters of ideology.
But I would say that to the degree which political ideology aligns with good and evil, liberalism can easily and clearly be seen as tending to align more with my own warped sense of evil.
Wow, who wrote the do-diddy stuff with the ring? And please don't say "logicman".... :lol: I'm personally hoping you'll say J. R. R. Tolkien.
That is one groovy outfit. That makes me wanna go out and stud myself up. But I do suspect that my wife would most likely de-stud me.
I somewhat,to a whole lot, agree -depending on the individual. I just read where Stephen Hawkin said that his wish for humanity is that they trade in their violent nature for empathy. Noooot gooonnnna happen.
Evil is what it is, but I usually associate with the word "control". Whether it be to control one's (or everybody's) mind, body, or the time of death.
I kinda think of evil as a metaphor for an intense raw emotion of hate/jealously/rage that can consume and manifest itself into physical action or deed. It's how we control those evil emotions that differentiates us from the primitive savage to civilized thinking beings, imo.
I dunno, does empathy have to be taught or does it come naturally? It seems like it has to be taught.
Yes, of course, but the point is that fear of randomly being mowed down for your car is a generalized fear shared by EVERYONE in your community. But if he's killed because he's Jewish, the crime victim isn't random at all - the victim was chosen because he's Jewish, and the only people who will fear similar violence are other Jews. Your Christian neighbors don't need to worry about it because they're not Jews.
We personally know a victim of a hate crime, and there is a difference. He is a friend of my wife's and has dark skin. He was attacked by a crazed knife wielding maniac as he sat in a waiting area of a train station, and the motive was that he looked foreign - "This is my (expletive) country. I will kill you." It's changed him and his family in ways that a random crime of violence doesn't because the motive was NOT a random one - he was targeted because of the color of his skin, which is shared by his wife and children. They have a (perceived at least) target on their backs that others who aren't dark skinned simply don't have. AND they have the more generalized fear of random violence.
And you also need to at least recognize lynching of blacks in the South had as part of the motive the goal of terrorizing blacks. Whites in Alabama simply didn't need to fear being lynched - they were white and the KKK and other white supremacists didn't target whites, or if they did target whites, it was ONLY those whites who sympathized with blacks - e.g. the civil rights workers killed in Mississippi. Those crimes were simply different than random attacks or even random murders - the purpose was to terrorize a segment of the population. They would be obvious 'hate crimes' in the current era.
Fixed that. What you think is evil is not what the rest of the world thinks is evil, Bob.
Which of these do you deny are evil?
- Slavery and racism
- The needless killing of innocent children.
- Sexual immorality
- The abuse of harmful drugs
- Taking the side of violent criminals, against that of honest citizens
- Taking the side of foreign invaders, against that of the rightful citizens of the nation
- Encouraging and rewarding idleness and parasitism, while punishing and discouraging productivity and self-reliance
Evil has no objective meaning. Those things are typically found unacceptable within a certain society, but certainly not all societies. You're just giving an opinion, based on emotion, that you have yet to justify objectively.
Do the voting results not seem a little odd to anyone?
People who knowingly and deliberately promote programs or policies that they know will specifically benefit themselves while harming others in unconscionable and indefensible ways are evil.
Which of these do you deny are evil?
- Slavery and racism
- The needless killing of innocent children.
- Sexual immorality
- The abuse of harmful drugs
- Taking the side of violent criminals, against that of honest citizens
- Taking the side of foreign invaders, against that of the rightful citizens of the nation
- Encouraging and rewarding idleness and parasitism, while punishing and discouraging productivity and self-reliance
AlbqOwl said:I can't see the voting results because I didn't vote.
I do no0t agree with the conservative vision of America, but at least they are trying to improve the country as they see it. I can accept that, even when disagreeing with the vision they have of what is best for the country. When we lose sight of the fact that those who disagree with us still want what is best for the country we lose the ability to hold meaningful dialogs and find common ground, and therefore lose the ability to make this a better country.
That's an interesting definition of "evil."
Justice - laws has always been part of what you call moralityTrue you did #1.
]
[*]Hate being a moral issue, now criminal justice is legislating morality]
Recall the days of people targeting and hunting down gays for a beating[*]The only difference between a particular crime and the hate version of that crime is alleged motivation, an indeterminate judgement conclusion and not factual (at least in most cases)
Motivation has and is part of the justice system, sometime for leniency, sometime not.[*]The only difference between a particular crime and the hate version of that crime is the amount of violence and damage
[*]The level of punishment of the non-hate crime version can easily handle pushing those that inflict greater violenceHow, links, expand upon this please??
Protected classes, or protecting classes that need it.[*]Hate crimes denote protected classes, which in itself is discriminatory at the conceptual level
No protecting those that are and can be targets due to a variety of reasons, that the crime was based upon hate. specific hatred.*]The creation and designation of some crimes to be hate crimes is little more than playing to psychological appeasement of some
[/list]
I don't think you missed any(Did I miss any?)
Have not read the complete thread.The position being argued is that the definition and existence of hate crimes currently remains unjustified, at least based on the posting in this forum to date.
Which only goes to show the futility of moral relativism. If good and evil is subject to the whims of individual or even cultural tastes, then the distinction becomes meaningless.
Was the Nazi extermination of Jews and other “undesirables” evil? I think most today universally recognize it as one of the greatest examples of pure evil in recent history, but by the [lack of any meaningful] standard that you seem to advocate, it couldn't be evil, because it was approved by the society in which it occurred, and allowed by the laws thereof.
I can't see the voting results because I didn't vote.