4 ms·

>So you can be objectively 'ill' but not 'evil'? Yes. Mental illness is something that can be objectively examined and testified by medical experts. "Evil" is

>So you can be objectively 'ill' but not 'evil'? Yes. Mental illness is something that can be objectively examined and testified by medical experts. "Evil" is a BS non medical pulp journalism term that takes us back to the witch-hunting days... >'severe psychological problems' that cause people to deeply hurt others for their own happiness is within spitting distance of a definition of evil. Only one is a SPECIFIC case of an actual mental evaluation by a professional and the other is a word that can used to mean anything. >Also I'm not going to get deep into your halfassed retelling of history but (per capita) genocide is worse than murder is worse than bombing cities is worse than bombing armies is worse than enslaving people is worse than exploiting people. So stop trying to fucking godwin with incomparable numbers. Really? Do you want to go tell the victims of slavery that they were better off than the victims of German's genocide? Including the tens of millions of people that died under slavery? And that their suffering is somewhat "not comparable" to Germany's victims. Let's see how they'll take your fair and balanced ordering of what's better and what's worse. Oh, and that "per capita genocide"? Plenty of it in the hands of European powers too. Check this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history

Dylan16807 14y ago
I meant that everything was per capita, sorry for being unclear there. As in: kill two million people as part of genocide and it's worse than having two million slaves. And yes I'll tell standard slaves they have it better than far worse treatment combined with starvation and followed by execution. You really think they'll disagree? Slavery may kill you early but it's no death camp. Also I don't know why you're acting like giving more examples of evil acts is going to make me decide the word evil is useless.
- pretoriusB 14y ago
  >I meant that everything was per capita, sorry for being unclear there. As in: kill two million people as part of genocide and it's worse than having two million slaves. OK, got it now. In that case, European colonialism has killed far more people than Hitler's camps. Heck, the death toll for the native populations of the Americas alone is in the tens of millions. And execution, mass killins, genocide and starvation was not at all of the table for colonial powers either. Here's an example: http://www.thehobgoblin.co.uk/journal/h32002_RC_Leopold.htm http://www.thehobgoblin.co.uk/journal/h32002_RC_Leopold.htm >Also I don't know why you're acting like giving more examples of evil acts is going to make me decide the word evil is useless. What I said is that "evil" is useless in the sense that it doesn't have any explanatory power. That is, "Why did he do that? Because he was evil" is BS. Perhaps this book might convince you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_in_Jerusalem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_in_Jerusalem In it Hannah Arendt describes how what we perceive as "the great evils in history" like the Holocaust, were not executed by "evil" people (fanatics, etc), but by ordinary folks who "accepted the premises of their state and therefore participated with the view that their actions were normal". So, even some of the greatest of evils, like the Holocaust, can be explained by observing their underlying mechanisms, the societal pressure, ideology and such, and not by some mystical "evil" quality in people. In the same vein there is the Milgram experiment, which showed how anyone can be a torturer without having any "evil" quality in them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
  - neumann_alfred 14y ago
    What I said is that "evil" is useless in the sense that it doesn't have any explanatory power. That is, "Why did he do that? Because he was evil" is BS. Yeah, here we go with the strawmen again. I never said "someone did X because they were evil". I said they were evil, implying what they did is evil in my books. But then you wouldn't have anything to whine about, would you. In it Hannah Arendt describes how what we perceive as "the great evils in history" like the Holocaust, were not executed by "evil" people (fanatics, etc), but by ordinary folks who "accepted the premises of their state and therefore participated with the view that their actions were normal". What makes you think that not questioning enough isn't already enough to be considered evil by me? Someone asked ME if I consider Mao evil, I said yes. Which wasn't even to say "as opposed to me or anybody else". Oh, and I saw videos of the Eichmann process and I saw no love in that man, no awareness, no nothing. And to me lack of love is already evil enough. Someone who mindlessly, coldly carries out orders is evil in my opinion, yes; that is, they are to be fought and not remembered once overcome. I DON'T CARE ABOUT THEIR MOTIVATIONS. I only care for how cancer grows in so far as it helps to excise it more efficiently better.

Dylan16807 14y ago

I meant that everything was per capita, sorry for being unclear there. As in: kill two million people as part of genocide and it's worse than having two million slaves. And yes I'll tell standard slaves they have it better than far worse treatment combined with starvation and followed by execution. You really think they'll disagree? Slavery may kill you early but it's no death camp. Also I don't know why you're acting like giving more examples of evil acts is going to make me decide the word evil is useless.

pretoriusB 14y ago
>I meant that everything was per capita, sorry for being unclear there. As in: kill two million people as part of genocide and it's worse than having two million slaves. OK, got it now. In that case, European colonialism has killed far more people than Hitler's camps. Heck, the death toll for the native populations of the Americas alone is in the tens of millions. And execution, mass killins, genocide and starvation was not at all of the table for colonial powers either. Here's an example: http://www.thehobgoblin.co.uk/journal/h32002_RC_Leopold.htm http://www.thehobgoblin.co.uk/journal/h32002_RC_Leopold.htm >Also I don't know why you're acting like giving more examples of evil acts is going to make me decide the word evil is useless. What I said is that "evil" is useless in the sense that it doesn't have any explanatory power. That is, "Why did he do that? Because he was evil" is BS. Perhaps this book might convince you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_in_Jerusalem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_in_Jerusalem In it Hannah Arendt describes how what we perceive as "the great evils in history" like the Holocaust, were not executed by "evil" people (fanatics, etc), but by ordinary folks who "accepted the premises of their state and therefore participated with the view that their actions were normal". So, even some of the greatest of evils, like the Holocaust, can be explained by observing their underlying mechanisms, the societal pressure, ideology and such, and not by some mystical "evil" quality in people. In the same vein there is the Milgram experiment, which showed how anyone can be a torturer without having any "evil" quality in them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
- neumann_alfred 14y ago
  What I said is that "evil" is useless in the sense that it doesn't have any explanatory power. That is, "Why did he do that? Because he was evil" is BS. Yeah, here we go with the strawmen again. I never said "someone did X because they were evil". I said they were evil, implying what they did is evil in my books. But then you wouldn't have anything to whine about, would you. In it Hannah Arendt describes how what we perceive as "the great evils in history" like the Holocaust, were not executed by "evil" people (fanatics, etc), but by ordinary folks who "accepted the premises of their state and therefore participated with the view that their actions were normal". What makes you think that not questioning enough isn't already enough to be considered evil by me? Someone asked ME if I consider Mao evil, I said yes. Which wasn't even to say "as opposed to me or anybody else". Oh, and I saw videos of the Eichmann process and I saw no love in that man, no awareness, no nothing. And to me lack of love is already evil enough. Someone who mindlessly, coldly carries out orders is evil in my opinion, yes; that is, they are to be fought and not remembered once overcome. I DON'T CARE ABOUT THEIR MOTIVATIONS. I only care for how cancer grows in so far as it helps to excise it more efficiently better.