FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Their intent wasn't evil, Damo. Their intent was good.
"Evil"
- Thread starter FUCK THE POLICE
- Start date
Their intent wasn't evil, Damo. Their intent was good.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
In the way we used them the two words are synomous anyway, Damo.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
"rry you said vengeance, not vengeful acts, going after the guy is a good thing to do, so is shooting him. I'm not denying that he wouldn't or shouldn't face legal justice but the act was a good one and not an evil one. It is sick that you think that way...honestly the one place in life where you deserve to use emotion over logic is in justice with the victim in consideration, yet Liberals do the reverse."
No, it isn't a good thing. No evil act, such as vengeance, is a good thing. Most "evil" is done in the name of either vengeance, or out of apathy. Both are forms of ignorance.
BTW, There is never an excuse to use emotion and apathy over logic.
"It's not childish at all, if the enormity of the evil act is such that it outweighs the good that person has done, then you can reasonably say they are an evil person."
What's an "evil" person, Damo? Can an evil person ever become good? Rehibilitation is the only acceptable purpose of a justice system, otherwise it's a vengeance system.
Do you really think a correctional justice system is going to scare a rapist into not reoffending? Sad, and no wonder reoffending rates are skyhigh in Liberal areas.
"
Moreover do you really think that rapists and sex offenders CAN be rehabilitated? You assume too much. I think you are out of your element here, you leftoids love to blame society and so on for any crime being borne out of economic need, yet there is clearly none here, so who do you try and blame? Conservatives.
Like being tough on them is the cause of their evil actions, moron."
Rapists and sex offenders actually have the lowest remmittance rates of any crime, Dano.
Some crime is out of economic need. Desperation often leads to lost oppurtunities, ignorance, and as such, crime.
No, it isn't a good thing. No evil act, such as vengeance, is a good thing. Most "evil" is done in the name of either vengeance, or out of apathy. Both are forms of ignorance.
BTW, There is never an excuse to use emotion and apathy over logic.
"It's not childish at all, if the enormity of the evil act is such that it outweighs the good that person has done, then you can reasonably say they are an evil person."
What's an "evil" person, Damo? Can an evil person ever become good? Rehibilitation is the only acceptable purpose of a justice system, otherwise it's a vengeance system.
Do you really think a correctional justice system is going to scare a rapist into not reoffending? Sad, and no wonder reoffending rates are skyhigh in Liberal areas.
"
Moreover do you really think that rapists and sex offenders CAN be rehabilitated? You assume too much. I think you are out of your element here, you leftoids love to blame society and so on for any crime being borne out of economic need, yet there is clearly none here, so who do you try and blame? Conservatives.
Like being tough on them is the cause of their evil actions, moron."
Rapists and sex offenders actually have the lowest remmittance rates of any crime, Dano.
Some crime is out of economic need. Desperation often leads to lost oppurtunities, ignorance, and as such, crime.
No, it wasn't. By any stretch. They even knew it, it is the reason they tried to hide it from their own nation as well as the rest of the world. They knew there would be repercussions if the word got out before it was "over".
Their intent was in no way good.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
I have to agree with Watermark: I believe that many of the Nazi theorists honestly believed they were doing the right thing by murdering Jews. They did indeed hide it from their own people, as you point out, but I think that was more pandering to political necessity than it was shame. In some cases, at least, I believe that their intent really was good. It was their values themselves that were corrupted to the point of inhumanity.
Intent is not a good criterion by which to discriminate "evil" actions from merely misguided ones. Human beings can convince themselves of the most grotesque and outrageous beliefs, given enough time and large enough numbers.
To put it another way, I think we're stuck with judging some beliefs as being evil and unacceptable, in and of themselves. Whether one honestly believes they are "good" is immaterial.
Once again, as evidenced by their action they knew what they were doing was "wrong". Their intent was clearly to do something wrong. Their "motive" is what you were talking about, and those are two different things. What they intended to do was an evil, their intent was evil regardless of their motivation for the action.
It was more the case of 'right result' from an action that they knew would have repercussions, that was not "right" by any other measure but their own motivation.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
The ends justifying the means? Damo, there have been literally uncountable instances of human beings convincing themselves of just that throughout history.
Whether they did or did not "honestly" believe their actions were for the greater good can be argued ad infinitum. My point is, simply, that even if they did honestly believe it, their actions and beliefs were still "evil" . . . to whatever extent the word "evil" has any meaning.
In almost every case when an evil is done one is convinced they are doing the 'right' thing that their motivation is pure. It does not change that their intent was to do harm.
CIA TOTALITARIANISM
Verified User
Interesting. That's what "bad" people always say.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
If they thought they were doing the "right" thing then, by definition, they thought whatever harm they did was justified and offset by the benefit accrued.
It's clearly "wrong" to drop bombs on people in their homes while they're sleeping. Yet, we did that very thing to the people of Tokyo, Dresden, Hiroshima, Berlin, etc. etc. ad nauseum. Are you suggesting that dropping bombs on people is not wrong? Or is your position that "wrong" actions can, sometimes, be legitimately justified? If the latter then you've laid yourself wide open to some hypothetical, future Nuremberg.
There's no fundamental difference between deciding that Jews can and should be exterminated, on the one hand, and deciding that it's justified -- this one time -- to murder thousands of men, women and children in their beds, on the other. Same logic, same result. The only distinction lies in who's "right" and who's "wrong."
In the other case the intent was not directly to kill those children.
Yes, even the leaders at the time thought that is was a "necessary evil". People often justify unethical action because they believe their motivation to be pure, or that if the action is not taken an even "worse evil" will come to pass.
What "worse evil" would come to pass when the actual intent of the action is to kill Jewish children? The intent of the other is not the same intent, tell me when did they sit at a secret meeting and begin the final solution to end all Japanese life and eradicate their entire race from the planet?
They know that it will unfortunately happen, that some children and other innocents will die, but believe that if they do not, far more people will die over time in more horrible ways, and in the end, after those deaths, the exact same action may still need to be taken in order to end what had become a terrible war and a tragedy to many.
The goal was never to end an entire "race" of people. There is a difference in intent. The action was not 'hidden' other than it must come as a surprise. They didn't try to place it on another, nor have they attempted to cover it up later with idiotic conspiracy theories about the actual activity taking place.
In war many unethical actions are taken, yet some are more eggregious than others.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
I've honestly never heard anyone who committed mass murders say something rational like that. But you praise those kinds of people people, so what am I supposed to say.
Last edited:
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Everyone justifies to themselves that their actions are good, right, and acceptable, Damo.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
My point is not that there is no action a person can do that can be harmful to society, but that "evil" isn't really a useful term to describe it. "Evil" is used to describe all kinds of things. Masturbation, for instance. It's a loaded term, and in any case, it's harmful to degrade society into thinking in the boolean logic of "good" and "evil", and therefore, by your definition, evil in itself.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
With all due respect, horseshit. Taking the firebombing of Tokyo as the specific case, the intent was most certainly to burn children to death in their beds. That was the goal: to kill as many helpless Japanese civilians as possible. That's why they chose to use incendiary munitions on the almost entirely wooden city of Tokyo. That's why they chose to hit the single most populace city of Japan in the first place. The motive for this intention was, perhaps, a bit less clear, since there were several motives. The primary motive was to spread terror, horror and despair amongst the Japanese populace, undermining their war effort, however.
Surely, some unethical actions are worse than others. You'll get no argument from me on that point. I'll further stipulate that herding Jewish people -- or any people -- into gas chambers simply in order to exterminate them is far worse than any bombing campaign. I submit that the distinction between trying to exterminate a "race", on the one hand, and trying to overthrow or destroy a nation, on the other, is a distinction of degree only, not of kind.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
It is certainly a loaded term. All questions of "good" and "evil" are intrinsically emotional, too, and using such terms only makes things worse.
It can be fun, though.
It was not, however, to kill every single Japanese person alive, nor was it ever the intent to do so. As I said, many unethical things are done in war, often in exchange for even less ethical action on a whole.
The intent of the "Final Solution" was to kill every living Jewish person. Genocide as an intent is definitely "more evil" in intent than to attempt to end a war sooner with an admittedly horrific act that they believed they would need to end the war regardless. Was it better sooner rather than later? I am sure they agonized over the decision. Do you think that Eichmann ever agonized over his decision, or only that he might get caught?
ahz
I would say that it predicates that evil cannot exist without good. They tend to be in balance in the world as a whole, but do not need to be balanced in an individual or even a society
Manichaeism or dualistic religions are hardly 'new age' as they preceded christianity
Moral dualism
Moral dualism is the belief of the coexistence (in eastern and naturalistic religions) or conflict (in western religions) between the "benevolent" and the "malignant". Most religious systems have some form of moral dualism - in western religions, for instance, a conflict between good and evil.
Like ditheism/bitheism (see below), moral dualism does not imply the absence of monist or monotheistic principles. Moral dualism simply implies that there are two moral opposites at work, independent of any interpretation of what might be "moral" and - unlike ditheism/bitheism - independent of how these may be represented.
Ditheism/Bitheism
In theology, 'dualism' may also refer to 'bitheism', 'duotheism' or 'ditheism'. Although ditheism/bitheism imply moral dualism, they are not equivalent: ditheism/bitheism implies (at least) two gods, while moral dualism does not imply any -theism (theos = god) whatsoever.
Both 'bitheism' and 'ditheism' imply a belief in two equally powerful gods with complementary properties. However, while bitheism implies harmony, ditheism implies rivality and opposition, such as between Good and Evil. For example, a ditheistic system would be one in which one god is creative, the other is destructive (cf. theodicy). In a bitheistic system, one god could be male and the other female (cf. duotheism). However, bitheistic and ditheistic principles are not always so easily contrastable, for instance in a system where one god is the representative of summer and drought and the other of winter and rain/fertility. (cf. the mythology of Persephone)
The 'di-'/'bi-' ('two') prefix in 'ditheism' and 'bitheism' does not imply that such a religious system cannot also be monist. Zurvanism (Zurvanite Zoroastrianism), Manichaeism and Mandaeanism, all three of which are representative of dualistic philosophies, are also monist religions since each has a supreme and transcendental First Principle from which the two equal-but-opposite entities then emanate. This is also true for the lesser-known Christian gnostic religions, such as Bogomils, Catharism, etc. These may then be contrasted with Marcionism, which held that the Old and New Testaments were the work of two opposing gods with neither having a superior instance (both were First Principles, but of different religions). More complex forms of monist dualism also exist, for instance in Hermeticism, where Nous "thought" - that is described to have created man - brings forth both good and evil, depending on whether it receives input from God or from the demons.
d
While their intent was to eradicate Jews, they also intended to eradicate the disabled, homosexual, gypsies, retarded (may be included in disabled, but disabled usually meant physically disabled to them), non-Aryans and people that did not agree with them. Their alliance with the Japanese was one of convenience and about as durable as their treaty with the soviets. They we out to create the master race and that did not include non-Aryans.
What is interesting is that Hitler would not have met their definition because he had a congenital defect (only one testicle).
ps to the best of my knowledge, every member of my ex-wife's family that did not leave europe was killed during the war
while i am not jewish, my wife and I keep our passports up to date and have weapons and know how to use them...
w
i oppose the death penalty as to lienient. i would prefer a sentence of incarceration until unable to recommit the crime to the death penalty
the death penalty should only be imposed if secure incarceration cannot be provided
ps people that commit crimes of passion rarely get the death penalty just because they are not likely to re-commit