Why [evil] will never prevail...because...

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

There is no such thing as an evil deed. When a soldier fights a war, he believes the cause is just. When the Devil tempts Eve with knowledge, he believes that sharing knowledge is charitable. When God creates a universe full of misery, He believes that only through misery can his creations feel the contrast of pleasure. When a fool parrots something mindlessly, he believes that what he parrots is the truth. When someone hurts someone else, they do it for their own pleasure. When someone does something nonsensical, they do it for their own entertainment. When a liar tells a lie, they believe it for the greater good or the good of their amusement. When someone causes suffering to themselves or someone else they feel pleasure. If they do not feel pleasure, they do it to feel the satisfaction of doing what they set out to do. When someone eats a tortured animal, they believe they are feeding themselves and their family.

When someone sets out to destroy the universe, it would put an end to such deeds...most would call such an act evil, r when someone rebels against Creation itself, they call it Sin... even though such a Deed is the Greatest form of good of all.

[David Handeye]

Then you should set out to destroy someones' beliefs. Not the universe itself.

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

Then you should set out to destroy someones' beliefs. Not the universe itself.

Seems destroying the universe is easier than destroying the beliefs of a human.

[David Handeye]

Have to agree.

[tbieter]

[quote="GreatandWiseTrixie"]There is no such thing as an evil deed. When a soldier fights a war, he believes the cause is just. When the Devil tempts Eve with knowledge, he believes that sharing knowledge is charitable. When God creates a universe full of misery, He believes that only through misery can his creations feel the contrast of pleasure. When a fool parrots something mindlessly, he believes that what he parrots is the truth. When someone hurts someone else, they do it for their own pleasure. When someone does something nonsensical, they do it for their own entertainment. When a liar tells a lie, they believe it for the greater good or the good of their amusement. When someone causes suffering to themselves or someone else they feel pleasure. If they do not feel pleasure, they do it to feel the satisfaction of doing what they set out to do. When someone eats a tortured animal, they believe they are feeding themselves and their family.

When someone sets out to destroy the universe, it would put an end to such deeds...most would call such an act evil, r when someone rebels against Creation itself, they call it Sin... even though such a Deed is the Greatest form of good of all.[/quote
"There is no such thing as an evil deed."
Rapists are cheering your denial of intrinsic evil.

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

There is no such thing as an evil deed. When a soldier fights a war, he believes the cause is just. When the Devil tempts Eve with knowledge, he believes that sharing knowledge is charitable. When God creates a universe full of misery, He believes that only through misery can his creations feel the contrast of pleasure. When a fool parrots something mindlessly, he believes that what he parrots is the truth. When someone hurts someone else, they do it for their own pleasure. When someone does something nonsensical, they do it for their own entertainment. When a liar tells a lie, they believe it for the greater good or the good of their amusement. When someone causes suffering to themselves or someone else they feel pleasure. If they do not feel pleasure, they do it to feel the satisfaction of doing what they set out to do. When someone eats a tortured animal, they believe they are feeding themselves and their family.

When someone sets out to destroy the universe, it would put an end to such deeds...most would call such an act evil, r when someone rebels against Creation itself, they call it Sin... even though such a Deed is the Greatest form of good of all.[/quote
"There is no such thing as an evil deed."
Rapists are cheering your denial of intrinsic evil.

I was gonna mention rape but I already covered it. I believe it is right here "When someone hurts someone else, they do it for their own pleasure. "

[Ginkgo]

There is no such thing as an evil deed. When a soldier fights a war, he believes the cause is just. When the Devil tempts Eve with knowledge, he believes that sharing knowledge is charitable. When God creates a universe full of misery, He believes that only through misery can his creations feel the contrast of pleasure. When a fool parrots something mindlessly, he believes that what he parrots is the truth. When someone hurts someone else, they do it for their own pleasure. When someone does something nonsensical, they do it for their own entertainment. When a liar tells a lie, they believe it for the greater good or the good of their amusement. When someone causes suffering to themselves or someone else they feel pleasure. If they do not feel pleasure, they do it to feel the satisfaction of doing what they set out to do. When someone eats a tortured animal, they believe they are feeding themselves and their family.

When someone sets out to destroy the universe, it would put an end to such deeds...most would call such an act evil, r when someone rebels against Creation itself, they call it Sin... even though such a Deed is the Greatest form of good of all.

As Kant says, we have a duty to be morally good. Unfortunately, good things to bad people and bad things happen to good people.

The only sin is to inflict misery upon any living thing for self-gratification. Oh, Kant didn't say this bit.

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

The only sin is to inflict misery upon any living thing for self-gratification. Oh, Kant didn't say this bit.

It's not so simple.

When two tribes fight at the watering hole, who is right who is wrong? There is only one watering hole. There is only a tiny amount of water they cannot share. One tribe will die either way.

For example, if a girl humiliates a guy who falls in love and gets rejected, and he becomes suicidal, but instead of committing suicide then rapes her, who is more wrong? The girl decided he disgusted her, and wished to reject him for her own self-gratification at the cost of his mental and emotional stability. The guy due to his own mental and emotionally instability, then decided to self-gratify himself at the cost of the woman's mental and emotional stability. It's a fight over a watering hole, there are winners, and there are losers.

For example, if two gays kiss in public it disgusts and disturbs phobic and religious tards. Should the gays still kiss? Who is more wrong and who is more right? If a transgender walks down the street it disturbs phobic and religious tards. But if the transgender does not do so, the transgender feels disturbed and disgusted. But if the transgender does so, the phobic people feel disturbed, and disturbs the transgender back with hateful slurs. So who is more right? No matter what action the transgender takes, they always suffer. Yet the phobic tard has a the possibility of an outcome with no suffering. There is no evil other than the weakness of humans themself. For the weak human DNA makes them into unproductive, uncreative mindless sheep. Their weak bodies cause them to lust after meat and hurt animals. Their weak minds cause them to have racist and phobic feelings. The uberhuman is the absolute good.

[Ginkgo]

double post

[Ginkgo]

It's not so simple.

When two tribes fight at the watering hole, who is right who is wrong? There is only one watering hole. There is only a tiny amount of water they cannot share. One tribe will die either way.

I am suggesting it is not a question of right and wrong. One can throw a spear and kill someone out of necessity and not enjoy it. It is simply a case of killing or be killed over the rights to a waterhole. However, there might be one individual who will enjoy the experience of making the final twist of the spear just to see their opponent suffer.

For example, if a girl humiliates a guy who falls in love and gets rejected, and he becomes suicidal, but instead of committing suicide then rapes her, who is more wrong? The girl decided he disgusted her, and wished to reject him for her own self-gratification at the cost of his mental and emotional stability. The guy due to his own mental and emotionally instability, then decided to self-gratify himself at the cost of the woman's mental and emotional stability. It's a fight over a watering hole, there are winners, and there are losers.

Sure, I take your point. It can be quite complicated if we are making a vale judgement from an outside perspective.

For example, if two gays kiss in public it disgusts and disturbs phobic and religious tards. Should the gays still kiss? Who is more wrong and who is more right? If a transgender walks down the street it disturbs phobic and religious tards. But if the transgender does not do so, the transgender feels disturbed and disgusted. But if the transgender does so, the phobic people feel disturbed, and disturbs the transgender back with hateful slurs. So who is more right? No matter what action the transgender takes, they always suffer. Yet the phobic tard has a the possibility of an outcome with no suffering. There is no evil other than the weakness of humans themself. For the weak human DNA makes them into unproductive, uncreative mindless sheep. Their weak bodies cause them to lust after meat and hurt animals. Their weak minds cause them to have racist and phobic feelings. The uberhuman is the absolute good.

I don't disagree with what you are saying in this example. The only thing I can say is that it is not a question of right or wrong. Rather it is a case of who is getting self-gratification out of this exercise. Self-gratification is not a problem, it is a problem when we seek to self-gratify at the expense of someone or some other living thing.

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

For example, if two gays kiss in public it disgusts and disturbs phobic and religious tards. Should the gays still kiss? Who is more wrong and who is more right? If a transgender walks down the street it disturbs phobic and religious tards. But if the transgender does not do so, the transgender feels disturbed and disgusted. But if the transgender does so, the phobic people feel disturbed, and disturbs the transgender back with hateful slurs. So who is more right? No matter what action the transgender takes, they always suffer. Yet the phobic tard has a the possibility of an outcome with no suffering. There is no evil other than the weakness of humans themself. For the weak human DNA makes them into unproductive, uncreative mindless sheep. Their weak bodies cause them to lust after meat and hurt animals. Their weak minds cause them to have racist and phobic feelings. The uberhuman is the absolute good.

I don't disagree with what you are saying in this example. The only thing I can say is that it is not a question of right or wrong. Rather it is a case of who is getting self-gratification out of this exercise. Self-gratification is not a problem, it is a problem when we seek to self-gratify at the expense of someone or some other living thing.

It's not such an easy case. Which one is doing the self-gratifying act at the cost of someone's pain?

Is the transgender person the selfish one, because she wants to alleviate her suffering, although doing so will cause pain to religious tards? Which in turn, will cause her pain, making it altogether pointless since her act will cause suffering to herself and the religious tards?

Or is the religious tard the selfish one, for being brainwashed to believe such things in the first place. Constantly selfgratifying themselves with imaginary concepts, and allowing themselves to be easily disturbed by trivial things.

[Hobbes' Choice]

There is no such thing as an evil deed. When a soldier fights a war, he believes the cause is just. When the Devil tempts Eve with knowledge, he believes that sharing knowledge is charitable. When God creates a universe full of misery, He believes that only through misery can his creations feel the contrast of pleasure. When a fool parrots something mindlessly, he believes that what he parrots is the truth. When someone hurts someone else, they do it for their own pleasure. When someone does something nonsensical, they do it for their own entertainment. When a liar tells a lie, they believe it for the greater good or the good of their amusement. When someone causes suffering to themselves or someone else they feel pleasure. If they do not feel pleasure, they do it to feel the satisfaction of doing what they set out to do. When someone eats a tortured animal, they believe they are feeding themselves and their family.

When someone sets out to destroy the universe, it would put an end to such deeds...most would call such an act evil, r when someone rebels against Creation itself, they call it Sin... even though such a Deed is the Greatest form of good of all.

I think you might want to start with some basic Moral Philosophy.
Try this.
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4320

As David Hume was writing over 200 years ago, his style can be a little difficult for the iphone generation, but once you get into the rhythm you will find it very rewarding.

You will find chapter Two addresses your point well.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Then you should set out to destroy someones' beliefs. Not the universe itself.

Seems destroying the universe is easier than destroying the beliefs of a human.

That is absurd.
I can destroy every belief you have or are likely to consider, with one bullet. I have not the slightest idea how to begin to destroy the universe.

There are also less violent means to overcome a belief with reason and knowledge. If the subject is unreasonable then their belief will be of no importance; if they are reasonable then they will have to overcome their belief and replace it with knowledge.

[HexHammer]

/FACEPALM!!!

When some psycho hit you so much and so hard in your face that you not only are smashed to pulp, but also suffers brain damage so you are a veggie the rest of your natural life, but goes to a coma for years, isn't that evil?

When soldiers kills your husband, and forces the devastated wife to eat his flesh, else they kill your son, isn't that evil?!

Are you on any medication or are you just having skitzo attacks?

[Hobbes' Choice]

/FACEPALM!!!

When some psycho hit you so much and so hard in your face that you not only are smashed to pulp, but also suffers brain damage so you are a veggie the rest of your natural life, but goes to a coma for years, isn't that evil?

When soldiers kills your husband, and forces the devastated wife to eat his flesh, else they kill your son, isn't that evil?!

Are you on any medication or are you just having skitzo attacks?

To whom is this odd outburst directed?
It's a good idea to quote the person you are attacking, else the last poster might get offended.