3 ms·

>There is no "objective evil" any human could declare, it boils down to opinions; so I make up my own mind. Deal with that, not with strawmen. People don't hav

>There is no "objective evil" any human could declare, it boils down to opinions; so I make up my own mind. Deal with that, not with strawmen. People don't have to stand for anybody "making up his own mind", the same way that people don't have to respect your opinion if you believe in creationism for example. Even if you are in the majority, there is one correct way to look at the thing, and there are no two ways about it. Especially since the words and notions we opt to use has consequences to what we perceive and how we treat other people. It's important to choose the correct ones, or the less wrong ones. The notion of harm (and the common-sense ethical notion of good) are well understood. The notion of evil, OTOH, is theological bullshit, and only helps to obscure the matters at hand (by making it difficult to get to the actual reasoning and motivations of the person, for example). >No, because that was in response to a huge campaign to conquer Europe And Hitler's rise to power and actions was a response to the "treaty of Versailles", which was considered unfair, humiliating and suffocating the Germans. See how it works both ways? And who said that killing civillians with nuclear bombs is an acceptable "response to a huge campaign to conquer Europe"? >I am German, and I would laugh into the face of any German crying about Dresden. You might, but millions of other people, German or not German, would not. Civillians are civillians and people killed by bombs are still people, whether German or not. And I'm talking as a citizen of a country that suffered much under German rule in WWII. >You haven't been to a whole lot of historical museums dealing with the topic, have you? Or seen movies, that kind of thing? Well, you guys have bombed my city, destroyed some of it's more important monuments, --and killed my grandmother's brother. I don't have to visit "a lot of historical museums". Which I have, plus read tons of books on the matter. >No, that's just a strawman. Fact is, they didn't mind. In my books that's enough. Well, fact is Truman didn't mind dropping two big bombs on civillians either. Or France didn't mind slaughtering 50.000 Algerians protesting to get their freedom back. Just two examples...

neumann_alfred 14y ago
Even if you are in the majority, there is one correct way to look at the thing Where did I claim otherwise? Nowhere! I actually said "seeing how it's subjective". Yet you just won't stop with your strawmen. Consider yourself ignored, this is useless, especially your "oh yeah? X was bad too!" stuff, which I never denied either.
pretoriusB 14y ago
>Where did I claim otherwise? Nowhere! I actually said "seeing how it's subjective". Wait what? All your reply is based on the notion that it's ok to have this subjective use of "evil". I say the opposite: it's not OK, and we are better to use more objective ways to describe reality.
- neumann_alfred 14y ago
  You can delude yourself into being more objective, but you can't actually be so. I therefore submit it's best to be aware of it being subjective. Objectively, the heat death of the universe trumps any and all considerations, ever. Also you are now claiming the exact opposite of what you said earlier: Evil is a BS theological notion. ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4982366 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4982366 ) But now you want to tell me what is objectively wrong? I dare you go ahead and try, haha..
- pretoriusB 14y ago
  >Also you are now claiming the exact opposite of what you said earlier: "Evil is a BS theological notion". But now you want to tell me what is objectively wrong? I dare you go ahead and try, haha.. For one, I fail to see where I claim the "exact opposite". Throughout the discourse I maintain that "evil is a theological notion" and one that doesn't describe reality (the two go hand in hand). I also fail to see the "dare" in wanting me to say what is "objectively wrong". That the Earth is flat is "objectively wrong" for example. That Cleopatra was in fact a guy from Bronx is "objectively wrong". And that theological terms such as "evil" explain what people are in objective reality is "objectively wrong".
  - neumann_alfred 14y ago
    Throughout the discourse I maintain that "evil is a theological notion" and one that doesn't describe reality (the two go hand in hand). You cannot tell me what I mean by the word "evil". You can tell me how you interpret it, and I can tell you, and did so a lot of times, that you got it wrong. But then the ball just kinda flops around in your half of the court, repeating the same initial false claim about what I said. That the Earth is flat is "objectively wrong" for example. Wow? I was obviously talking about moral judgement, not factual correctness. I asked for an apple, you gave me an orange. And that theological terms such as "evil" explain what people are in objective reality is "objectively wrong". You must be some kind of masochist, because you STILL keep going on about that strawman. I told you, over and over again, I have my own compass for what I consider "good" or "evil", and anyone who isn't trying to be dense would know what that means. I never used to explain behaviour, but to describe.

neumann_alfred 14y ago

Even if you are in the majority, there is one correct way to look at the thing Where did I claim otherwise? Nowhere! I actually said "seeing how it's subjective". Yet you just won't stop with your strawmen. Consider yourself ignored, this is useless, especially your "oh yeah? X was bad too!" stuff, which I never denied either.

pretoriusB 14y ago

>Where did I claim otherwise? Nowhere! I actually said "seeing how it's subjective". Wait what? All your reply is based on the notion that it's ok to have this subjective use of "evil". I say the opposite: it's not OK, and we are better to use more objective ways to describe reality.

neumann_alfred 14y ago
You can delude yourself into being more objective, but you can't actually be so. I therefore submit it's best to be aware of it being subjective. Objectively, the heat death of the universe trumps any and all considerations, ever. Also you are now claiming the exact opposite of what you said earlier: Evil is a BS theological notion. ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4982366 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4982366 ) But now you want to tell me what is objectively wrong? I dare you go ahead and try, haha..
pretoriusB 14y ago
>Also you are now claiming the exact opposite of what you said earlier: "Evil is a BS theological notion". But now you want to tell me what is objectively wrong? I dare you go ahead and try, haha.. For one, I fail to see where I claim the "exact opposite". Throughout the discourse I maintain that "evil is a theological notion" and one that doesn't describe reality (the two go hand in hand). I also fail to see the "dare" in wanting me to say what is "objectively wrong". That the Earth is flat is "objectively wrong" for example. That Cleopatra was in fact a guy from Bronx is "objectively wrong". And that theological terms such as "evil" explain what people are in objective reality is "objectively wrong".
- neumann_alfred 14y ago
  Throughout the discourse I maintain that "evil is a theological notion" and one that doesn't describe reality (the two go hand in hand). You cannot tell me what I mean by the word "evil". You can tell me how you interpret it, and I can tell you, and did so a lot of times, that you got it wrong. But then the ball just kinda flops around in your half of the court, repeating the same initial false claim about what I said. That the Earth is flat is "objectively wrong" for example. Wow? I was obviously talking about moral judgement, not factual correctness. I asked for an apple, you gave me an orange. And that theological terms such as "evil" explain what people are in objective reality is "objectively wrong". You must be some kind of masochist, because you STILL keep going on about that strawman. I told you, over and over again, I have my own compass for what I consider "good" or "evil", and anyone who isn't trying to be dense would know what that means. I never used to explain behaviour, but to describe.