Evil

[Rinnhart]

But I was answering one question, you on the other hand are are dealing with a different question.
I answered whether or nor evil exists.

You on the other hand are addressing the question of "what is evil", which is actually predicated on choosing my secondd case.

Your issue of defining evil is valid too, but it is a very different question.
The original poster had mixed the 2 question it seemed to me.
Indeed its all philosophical. But philosophical questions can only be dealt with if you first apply rigerous reduction initially.

On a side note I think that is the great fault of most post modernist people. They often forget and deal slackly with the basic tools that helped them originally define their world.
[right][snapback]60661[/snapback][/right]

And the questions go hand in hand!

You cannot argue whether or not something exists without defining it!

[Zarathustra]

Abramelin, there is no law forbidding anyone to gather or form any sort of a society they wish. There ARE laws against lyncing, etc. Think of gangs. No one says they can't congregate. What they're targetted for is not the existence of the gang but rather the illegal activities in which it is involved.

[Rinnhart]

There are several meanings for 'BEAUTIFUL' ,that doesn't mean that there is a truth behind each meaning;for instance,the word "unicorn" is in your dictionnary,still there is no 'unicorn' in the real world;what I meant is what meaning of BEAUTIFUL is true in our real world;the meanings of words are just there to express our thoughts and in no account they can express what is true or untrue.
But in reading some of you other responses on this thread I beleive your response to me was diengenuous.
[right][snapback]60666[/snapback][/right]

"Consider this":

A word has whatever meaning we apply to it. This is the evolution of language. Uses are created by culture and shed or retained over time. The word, the sound itself doesn't matter, only the meanings (emotions/sensations/concepts) related to it do.

A language is something crafted over thousands of generations; you can't rework this #$%& because you don't like it.

[Guest]

Abramelin, there is no law forbidding anyone to gather or form any sort of a society they wish.  There ARE laws against lyncing, etc.  Think of gangs.  No one says they can't congregate.  What they're targetted for is not the existence of the gang but rather the illegal activities in which it is involved.
[right][snapback]60676[/snapback][/right]

How come racist organizations are forbidden in the European Union,and they are not in the USA ? Maybe there is a different conception of what is freedom betwen the USA an EU.
Racism is a crime in EU,so any racist organization is declared illegal,and any kind of racism is punished by laws.Is that hard to apply over there?

[Minionman]

Damn, here I go invoking Godwin's Law.

From Europe? How quickly do people forget. Europe had something worse then the KKK.

Hitler.

Egads. Speaking of evil... I suddenly feel dirty bringing him into this.

I lose eh?
[right][snapback]60674[/snapback][/right]

You could always use Stalin and/or Yugoslavia to technically duck goodwins law, although they would be used in the same way.

[Minionman]

How come racist organizations are forbidden in the European Union,and they are not in the USA ? Maybe there is a different conception of what is freedom betwen the USA an UE;
Racism is a crime in UE,so any racist organization is declared illegal,and any kind of racism is punished by laws.Is that hard to apply over there?
[right][snapback]60678[/snapback][/right]

It's probably an attitude difference. In the U.S. the idea is that if you outlaw one type organization, someone else could try to use that attitude to outlaw other types. This is how the U.S. in general works with free speech in a different way I guess.

Related to this in a way, in the 1800's there were laws or resolutions, not sure which, related to how congress did it's business that said that any antislavery views were not to be talked about. They called it the gag rule. A bunch of people were way to on edge about any slavery criticism. Fortunately some people finally got rid of it.

[Guest]

Damn, here I go invoking Godwin's Law.

From Europe? How quickly do people forget. Europe had something worse then the KKK.

Hitler.

Egads. Speaking of evil... I suddenly feel dirty bringing him into this.

I lose eh?
[right][snapback]60674[/snapback][/right]

Who told you that people have forgotten? Nobody has forgotten what happened.However,if you want peace,it is better not to speak about it,or at least too much about it.Nazism is over,it's erased,and it's time to turn the page of history,still without forgetting.Almost all the nazis who were involved in war,are dead,and their descendants have completely changed,so it's time to start a new era of peace in the European Union.

[Rinnhart]

How come racist organizations are forbidden in the European Union,and they are not in the USA ? Maybe there is a different conception of what is freedom betwen the USA an UE;
Racism is a crime in UE,so any racist organization is declared illegal,and any kind of racism is punished by laws.Is that hard to apply over there?
[right][snapback]60678[/snapback][/right]

It comes down to "Freedom of Speech". You have the right to say virtually anything so long as you don't actually do something illegal. Obvious exceptions include comments, no matter how joking, about bombs/terrorists/drugs while in airports and threats against public servants.

You have the right to believe whatever you want, no matter how ignorant it may be. The KKK does exist, but it's a joke compared to what it used to be.

And racism is certainly not limited to caucasians. I've met a good number of african and native-Americans who are quite openly racist (though they tended to direct their rage more towards The White System than towards individuals). Plus the always helpful and friendly south/central american and russian immigrants. This doesn't mean we're all sitting over here preparing for a race war. Most people you encounter, anywhere, regardless of race/gender/religion, won't like you. That's just how we function.

And the damn Canadians with their #$%&ing public healthcare. "woooo, I get drugs for free!"

Bastards.

What was I saying? Oh yeah. Racism.

The obvious exception is that gaggle of hippies that took over New York. No riots during a black-out? What kind of crap were they pulling?

It is very difficult to enforce laws that prohibit what someone can say or think; don't assume that the UE is racism free because anti-racism laws exist. I believe that there's a fairly large neo-Nazi movement in Germany, at least, though someone more worldy than I should be able to support or dismiss that.

It's like a drug trade in which no physical items change hands, only hateful ideals. And just look how successful the world's governments have been at controling drugs.

[Doc]

Who told you that people have forgotten? Nobody has forgotten what happened.However,if you want peace,it is better not to speak about it,or at least too much about it.Nazism is over,it's erased,and it's time to turn the page of history,still without forgetting.Almost all the nazis who were involved in war,are dead,and their descendants have completely changed,so it's time to start a new era of peace in the European Union.
[right][snapback]60681[/snapback][/right]

Oh, so that guy, what's his name, that was elected in Austria, and is a self proclaimed member of the Nazi party... He doesn't mean anything. He is erased. Forgotten. What's his name again, shoot, can't use Google Fu powers if I can't remember... Oh! Joerg Haider. He's cooking up another boogeyman for the Europeans to hate, blaming it all on the Jews again. Here's a man that claims that the Halocaust never happened, claiming vehemently that it is all one big lie perpetuated by dominating Jewish Media and the greatest lie of all time. He proudly proclaims that "Hitler was innocent, a good man, and history has wrote lies to discredit him and the good things that he did for Germany and Europe."

Good to know. Yes, don't speak about him. Just ignore it, and it will go away, just like it did last time.

[Chaerophon]

edited;

I don't have the time to get properly involved :)

[Occhidiangela]

Emotional investment doesnt have a good track record for encouraging objectivity.
On the other hand it does have a great track record moving us forward from simple esoteric prattle to real action.
[right][snapback]60670[/snapback][/right]

*tips cap*

If you drink it, I will follow up on Zarathustra's suggestion and "buy you a Guinness." :D

Occhi

[Guest]

It comes down to "Freedom of Speech". You have the right to say virtually anything so long as you don't actually do something illegal. Obvious exceptions include comments, no matter how joking, about bombs/terrorists/drugs while in airports and threats against public servants.
[right][snapback]60683[/snapback][/right]

It's a wrong way to do.
Insulting,slandering or incitement to murder/racial hatred may do 'the victim' harm,which is against your principles of freedom;for instance,a racist group encourages murders against a category of people or encourages a riot ;then there are several riots,resulting with the destruction of private goods and/or a few murders;now,who would be responsible for this situation? are they only responsible those who 'did' or those who 'did' plus those of the racist group who spread the word? In the USA , I guess that only those who committed the crimes would be guilty whereas in the European Union,those who 'did' plus those who encouraged would be punished.You see,freedom should be limited not only for acts but also for speech;according to me,100 % freedom of speech is a major flaw of the US constitution.Too much freedom may kill freedom,and your freedom of speech could cause civil wars in America.
There is a proverb of Confucius about the limits of freedom between you and me,which sums up what I think about it,but I don't remember ...

[Chaerophon]

Emotional investment doesnt have a good track record for encouraging objectivity.
On the other hand it does have a great track record moving us forward from simple esoteric prattle to real action.
[right][snapback]60670[/snapback][/right]

True enough :)

[Occhidiangela]

Hello ,
I have often wondered what is really Evil and what causes Evil.[right][snapback]60624[/snapback][/right]

Sometimes, I have found that it is useful to look at a word and let your mind mess around with it, bend it, shape it, and re arrange it. Golf is spelt backwards "flog" and oy vey, aint that the truth??? <_<

Evil is Live bacwards. If you live forwards, you may be less prone to evil.

What the hell does that mean? I can't say, however, I do know that those who look more to themselves, and their own wants and needs, and consider less everyone else, are more likely to be motivated by greed and selfishness than those who understand sacrifice, or selfless behaviour. They tend to be less prone to acts we classify as evil, but that is a gross generalization.

What is evil? I am no philosopher, but I'd suggest that it is a compound, or a mixture, of social/spiritual ills whose root is selfishness, self-centeredness, and a combination of greed, jealousy, sobriety, fear, and hate. ;)

Live one's life forward, in a positive direction, working to make the world a slightly better place, and I think one can cut down on the aggregate amount of Evil, with her sisters Hate and Discontent, in the world.

Does Evil exist? I'd offer a yes. Ghostiger points out how semantics can be a trap. That caveat understood, there is "something" that is identified across a number of cultures as a primarily negative social/spiritual force, which has been named Evil. Caelessness in usage, however, seems to be the modern trend. :P

"Love" has also been given a name. Can you tell it's nature any more clearly than you can Evil's?

Who cares! I love Guinness, so I will go have one on Zarathustra's excellent suggestion! :lol:

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

It's a wrong way to do.
Insulting,slandering or incitement to murder/racial hatred may do 'the victim' harm,which is against your principles of freedom;for instance,a racist group encourages murders against a category of people or&nbsp; encourages a riot ;then there are several riots,resulting with the destruction of private goods and/or a few murders;now,who would be responsible for this situation? are they only responsible those who 'did' or those who 'did' plus those of the racist group who spread the word? In the USA , I guess that only those who committed the crimes would be guilty whereas in the European Union,those who 'did' plus those who encouraged would be punished.You see,freedom should be limited not only for acts but also for speech;according to me,100 % freedom of speech is a major flaw of the US constitution.Too much freedom may kill freedom,and your freedom of speech could cause civil wars in America.
There is a proverb of Confucius about the limits of freedom between you and me,which sums up what I think about it,but I don't remember ...
[right][snapback]60689[/snapback][/right]

I personally find that American Libel and Slander laws could use a bit of tuning. I was under the imperssion that freedom of speech assumed (maybe I am off base here) that what was protected was speaking The Truth.

Falsehood should not, I suggest, be defended as free speech, hance libel and slander laws. I think the Brits are a bit better than us on that detail.

Why should a lie be protected speech? A lie is a seed of Evil, hell, it has three letters in common with it!!! :unsure:

Occhi

[Guest]

Oh, so that guy, what's his name, that was elected in Austria, and is a self proclaimed member of the Nazi party... He doesn't mean anything. He is erased. Forgotten. What's his name again, shoot, can't use Google Fu powers if I can't remember... Oh! Joerg Haider. He's cooking up another boogeyman for the Europeans to hate, blaming it all on the Jews again. Here's a man that claims that the Halocaust never happened, claiming vehemently that it is all one big lie perpetuated by dominating Jewish Media and the greatest lie of all time. He proudly proclaims that "Hitler was innocent, a good man, and history has wrote lies to discredit him and the good things that he did for Germany and Europe."

Good to know. Yes, don't speak about him. Just ignore it, and it will go away, just like it did last time.
[right][snapback]60684[/snapback][/right]

He is not a member of the nazi party;he is the leader of an extreme rightist party,which is rather different.His party is nationalist,but it doesn't encourage the people to do illegal acts against foreign people.If he had been a member of a nazi party,trust me that this party would have been illegal and it would have quickly ended up.
Concerning his statements about nazism/Hitler:all extreme rightist leaders of Europe have sympathies for fascism because fascism fits their ideas,that is getting rid of foreign people by any means.And their sympathy for it is also a message for nationalists of their country in order to get their votes and be elected.They deny the holocaust and all what is about nazism,but deep inside,they know that it has happened,and they are not stupid at all:the concentration camps are still open as museums, add the pictures and the witnesses of the holocaust...there are so many proofs that denial is impossible for sensible people;It is just a way to hurt the people they hate,esp the Jews.
By the way,back to the topic,please.

[Guest]

edited;

I don't have the time to get properly involved :)
[right][snapback]60687[/snapback][/right]

Come back later,I am interested in what you would have liked to say.

Abramelin

[Doc]

He is not a member of the nazi party;he is the leader of an extreme rightist party,which is rather different.His party is nationalistic,but it doesn't encourage the people to do illegal acts against foreign people.If he had been a member of a nazi party,trust me that this party would have been illegal and it would have quickly ended up.
Concerning his statements about nazism/Hitler:all extrem rightist leaders of Europe have sympathies for fascism because fascism fits with their ideas,that is getting rid of foreign people by any means.And their sympathy for it is also a message for nationalistic people of their country in order to get their votes and be elected.They deny the holocaust and all what is about nazism,but deep inside,they know that it has happened,they are not stupid at all:the concentration are still open as museums,and add the pictures and the witnesses of the holocaust...;It is just a way to hurt the people they hate,esp the Jews.
By the way,back to the topic,please.
[right][snapback]60695[/snapback][/right]

Your media must be as censored as ours.

I have heard the words right out of his mouth "I am a proud Nazi, as was my father." Saw it on TV. Almost choked to death on my expresso. His dear old dad was a Nazi Stormtrooper. His loving mother was in the Nazi Leage of German Girls. He lives in a massive 30 thousand some odd acre estate that was taken by force from a Jewish family and can proudly point out where said family members were murdered in various rooms.

Facism is never good. Neither is being a Nazi.

I guess in Europe they call it the Socialist Democratic Freedom Party now.

[Rinnhart]

It's a wrong way to do.
Insulting,slandering or incitement to murder/racial hatred may do 'the victim' harm,which is against your principles of freedom;for instance,a racist group encourages murders against a category of people or&nbsp; encourages a riot ;then there are several riots,resulting with the destruction of private goods and/or a few murders;now,who would be responsible for this situation? are they only responsible those who 'did' or those who 'did' plus those of the racist group who spread the word? In the USA , I guess that only those who committed the crimes would be guilty whereas in the European Union,those who 'did' plus those who encouraged would be punished.You see,freedom should be limited not only for acts but also for speech;according to me,100 % freedom of speech is a major flaw of the US constitution.Too much freedom may kill freedom,and your freedom of speech could cause civil wars in America.
There is a proverb of Confucius about the limits of freedom between you and me,which sums up what I think about it,but I don't remember ...
[right][snapback]60689[/snapback][/right]

Know American Law before you start slamming it. I'm done with this thread.

[Zarathustra]

It's a wrong way to do.
Insulting,slandering or incitement to murder/racial hatred may do 'the victim' harm,which is against your principles of freedom;for instance,a racist group encourages murders against a category of people or&nbsp; encourages a riot ;then there are several riots,resulting with the destruction of private goods and/or a few murders;now,who would be responsible for this situation? are they only responsible those who 'did' or those who 'did' plus those of the racist group who spread the word? In the USA , I guess that only those who committed the crimes would be guilty whereas in the European Union,those who 'did' plus those who encouraged would be punished.You see,freedom should be limited not only for acts but also for speech;according to me,100 % freedom of speech is a major flaw of the US constitution.Too much freedom may kill freedom,and your freedom of speech could cause civil wars in America.
There is a proverb of Confucius about the limits of freedom between you and me,which sums up what I think about it,but I don't remember ...
[right][snapback]60689[/snapback][/right]

I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt and assume you're not trolling with this one.

Your claim that "racism" is illegal in Europe is only valid if you mean acting upon racism, which is equally punishable here. If you mean racism itself is illegal, I'd like to see you enforce that. Let's say I'm a terrible racist against Polish people (chosen for this example only because that's the bulk of my ancestry). Have I commited a crime in thinking less of them, and thus must be punished? Nope. I've done nothing wrong but hold my own personal opinion. If a personal opinion is a crime, then YES, I can be prosecuted.

These people are free to hold any opinions they wish, but inciting a riot or being party to a murder are crimes just as any.

I'm with Rinnhart on this one. Understand a supposed flaw before you bash it. Read the constitution and tell me where it guarantees 100% freedom of speech. While you're doing that, Google the FCC.