Liberals and Conservatives: Are adherents of the rival ideology evil?

MMC · Feb 26, 2015

Removable Mind said:
Ohhhh, you bad boy, MMC... :lol:

Removable Mind · Feb 26, 2015

MMC said:

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.

Nilly · Feb 26, 2015

Bob Blaylock said:
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.

Fixed that. What you think is evil is not what the rest of the world thinks is evil, Bob.

Moot · Feb 26, 2015

MMC said:

lol <evil hand rubbing> nyu nyu nyaaa.......

MMC · Feb 26, 2015

Removable Mind said:
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.

JR Who?

..... :2razz:

Yeah the good ole days.....now its about lounge pants and a swet shirt. Dammit!

Moot · Feb 26, 2015

Removable Mind said:
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 and requires more thought. So maybe you're right...."not gonna happen."

Removable Mind · Feb 26, 2015

Moot said:
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.

Well, not much to disagree with in your description. Seems as most of us do control our evil emotions or intents. But there seems like a hell of a lot more folks who can't.

Most are born with some degree of empathy, its really a nature/nurture thing. But sociopaths and in particular psychopaths don't have any elements of empathy at all...born or taught. Dunno, but whatever its origin, I agree with Hawkin. It would be a kinder, gentler world.

tres borrachos · Feb 26, 2015

JasperL said:
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.

Fascinating. And 5 years ago a good friend of mine was in her house one night alone with her 10 year old daughter asleep when some high school boys from a neighboring town broke into the house in the middle of the night, and hacked her to bits with a machete, and permanently maimed and scarred her daughter who they believed was dead. Her husband was away on business. She went to bed as any normal mother would, assuming that she and her daughter were safe in their own locked home. It was a thrill killing by former boy scouts in a house selected totally at random.

To this day I wake up at night when my husband is away on business and I so much as hear one of our cats move. And trust me, my friend didn't die any easier because she wasn't the victim of a hate crime but was instead the victim of - what was it Zinthaniel called it - opportunistic killers.

Spare me the bit on fear. It has nothing to do with whites during the period when blacks were getting lynched in the south. I'm talking 2015.

Bob Blaylock · Feb 26, 2015

Nilly said:
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

Cephus · Feb 26, 2015

Bob Blaylock said:
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.

ashurbanipal · Feb 26, 2015

Do the voting results not seem a little odd to anyone?

Bob Blaylock · Feb 26, 2015

Cephus said:
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.

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.

AlbqOwl · Feb 26, 2015

ashurbanipal said:
Do the voting results not seem a little odd to anyone?

I can't see the voting results because I didn't vote. There is no choice on the poll options that apply to me. I do believe there are aspects of liberalism that are evil in their effect. That, however, is not saying that most who promote liberalism are evil. But some are. I do not see any aspect of conservatism as I define it in modern day America as evil, but I do believe it is possible to use conservatism in a way that is evil and there are people who do that.

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. The programs and policies they push that accomplish that are also evil. There are people left and right of center who are capable of that.

Those who refuse to see, consider, or acknowledge that are not necessarily evil. They are simply ignorant and gullible ideologues.

Nilly · Feb 26, 2015

AlbqOwl said:
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.

Funny you say that, because I firmly believe that that is a better descriptor for more right policies than left ones.

I also don't think you can call that evil, more just selfish and that's just part and parcel of human behaviour. We are selfish creatures by nature.

Nilly · Feb 26, 2015

Bob Blaylock said:
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

Sexual 'immorality' and 'harmful' drug use. Neither of which I would consider evil.

The rest of the list is a strawman you've constructed as liberals don't really advocate for any of those. The way you've worded them is also a complete misrepresentation of the situations that you've constructed in your head

ashurbanipal · Feb 26, 2015

AlbqOwl said:
I can't see the voting results because I didn't vote.

Here are the results as they stand at 5:10 PM CST, 2-26-15:

158 professed liberals think conservatives are evil.

1 professed conservative thinks liberals are evil.

15 professed liberals think conservatives are not evil.

132 professed conservatives think liberals aren't evil.

There are also 12 votes to ban Morality Games.

Again: don't these results seem a little odd to anyone else?

TeleKat · Feb 26, 2015

These poll numbers are so bogus. Getting real tired of this happening to nearly every poll.

Brother AJ · Feb 26, 2015

Holy ****... This actually pretty fascinating. The majority of liberals on here see conservatives as evil, but the majority of conservatives DO NOT see liberals as evil? This might be indicative of something inherent in both ideologies.

If I had to guess, it is because of the liberal's passion to create change, striving for their perception of justice, and how they see conservatives as a force that is out to prevent it. Most conservatives had a strict religious upbringing, and are no doubt taught that even though humans are sinful they still can be saved. They may behave otherwise, but ultimately they can't bring themselves to call anyone "evil" because they supposedly "love" everyone. I wonder if poll results would be similar if a more official survey was done?

EDIT: Or the poll results were rigged somehow? Haha, that could be possible too.

Hard Truth · Feb 26, 2015

Bigotry is an evil and roughly half of all conservatives are somewhat bigoted. The other half are mostly tolerant of bigotry if allowing it can be justified by their other principals. They don't think they are evil, but many of them favor philosophical principals that are benign on the surface even though they cause genuine harm to others. A classic example is support of discrimination by businesses. Many conservatives consider the principal of allowing the business freedom of choice a priority over the need for everyone to access goods and services. They consider the business owner's mental anguish over having to serve a customer he hates more significant than the physical/practical inconvenience the victim experiences. I consider that evil, but they think they are protecting a virtue. They aren't choosing evil, but they are perpetuating and/or supporting it.

Montecresto · Feb 26, 2015

Redress said:
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.

I think you make a real good point here to polarization in America.

A pair of surveys asked Americans a concrete question: in 1960, whether they would be “displeased” if their child married someone outside their political party, and, in 2010, would be “upset” if their child married someone of the other party. In 1960, about 5 percent of Americans expressed a negative reaction to party intermarriage; in 2010, about 40 percent did (Republicans about 50 percent, Democrats about 30 percent).

Montecresto · Feb 26, 2015

Kobie said:
That's an interesting definition of "evil."

It's also interesting that every bit of that has been contributed to in some fashion by conservatives as well.

Grand Mal · Feb 26, 2015

Looking at the poll results, I'd say there's no point anymore in posting polls here. Anonymous polls, anyway.

JANFU · Feb 26, 2015

eohrnberger said:
True you did #1.
]
[*]Hate being a moral issue, now criminal justice is legislating morality]

Justice - laws has always been part of what you call morality

[*]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)

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 the amount of violence and damage

Motivation has and is part of the justice system, sometime for leniency, sometime not.

[*]The level of punishment of the non-hate crime version can easily handle pushing those that inflict greater violence

How, links, expand upon this please??

[*]Hate crimes denote protected classes, which in itself is discriminatory at the conceptual level

Click to expand...

Protected classes, or protecting classes that need it.

*]The creation and designation of some crimes to be hate crimes is little more than playing to psychological appeasement of some
[/list]

Click to expand...

No protecting those that are and can be targets due to a variety of reasons, that the crime was based upon hate. specific hatred.

(Did I miss any?)

Click to expand...

I don't think you missed any

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.

Click to expand...

Have not read the complete thread.

Click to expand...

Cephus · Feb 26, 2015

Bob Blaylock said:
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.

All morals are, by definition, relative. That doesn't mean that different societies cannot choose what morals to value and what morals to reject, in fact, that's really how morality works. Nobody can show that their individual moral views are factually accurate or true though, it's all opinion, even yours. In WWII, a lot of countries decided to fight against Hitler, more because of his expansionism than because of his views. In fact, one of the major reasons that the U.S. and Britain advocated giving Israel to the Jews is because they felt bad that they hadn't really paid much attention to the Holocaust early in the war. Two sides fought. One side won. The winners write the history. If Hitler had won and taken over any significant part of the world, there likely would be a very different story in the history books today.

This kind of "objective morality" arguing is really a bunch of "I'm right, so there!" without having to actually demonstrate that your views are true.

Cephus · Feb 26, 2015

AlbqOwl said:
I can't see the voting results because I didn't vote.

Just as a side note, you can see the results without voting, there is an option for "See Results". Just an FYI for anyone who didn't know.

Liberals and Conservatives: Are adherents of the rival ideology evil?

Well?

I'm a liberal: conservatives are evil

I'm a conservative: liberals are evil

I'm a liberal: conservatives aren't evil

I'm a conservative: liberals aren't evil

Ban Morality Games

Irremovable Intelligence

stb

Irremovable Intelligence

HoHoHo

Electrician

Electrician

stb

stb

Well-known member

Russian warship, go f*** yourself!

Land by the Gulf Stream