4 ms·

Oh No! God forbid we call something for what it is. "Evil (n) - that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune" It isn't all abuse? Oh, well, fine, I'm s

by viggity 18y ago

Oh No! God forbid we call something for what it is. "Evil (n) - that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune" It isn't all abuse? Oh, well, fine, I'm so glad that is cleared up because some sick fuck says that "its not all abuse". I can't wait for my kids to hear "Not all methamphetamine will cause you harm" from a speed freak. That logic makes infinite sense. Whether you like it or not, Evil most certainly exists in this world, regardless of whether or not there is a reason that it came in to existence. So, there you go, even though you don't feel comfortable labeling something for what it clearly is, feel free to label this post with a down vote.

unalone 18y ago
So, there you go, even though you don't feel comfortable labeling something for what it clearly is, feel free to label this post with a down vote. I hate to tell you, but even the people who have lots of karma don't play Hacker News for points. We just like talking with smart people. The only thing I downvote people for constantly are the people who talk about getting downvoted (but you replied to me, so you're safe there). Evil has more implications than the dictionary definitions. The dictionary defines "sacred" as "connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration" but there's meaning lost in such a bland definition. Similarly, evil means more than "not good". It isn't all abuse? Oh, well, fine, I'm so glad that is cleared up because some sick fuck says that "its not all abuse". I can't wait for my kids to hear "Not all methamphetamine will cause you harm" from a speed freak. That logic makes infinite sense. I love people who put words in my mouth. I suggested that life is complicated - that, say, a speed freak isn't an inherently bad person even if he's addicted to something that's very bad, and that I dislike people who look at something and call it Evil dwelling in man's heart. There's a whole argument about the nature of "evil" and "profane" in religion studies, where the argument goes that evil or profane things refer to things that are naturally inhuman (or lacking the empathy with God or other human beings that humanity seems to be defined by). Essentially, when you call something "evil" the implication is that it is without ration or excuse and that it is something that a "good" human is inherently incapable of doing. Big-E Evil in particular goes by those rules. I believe that the world and human nature is too complex to quickly call evil. It's why I hate that a post like this, long and complex and fascinating, gets called "Evil" in a single-sentence condemnation. It's almost certainly horrible. I think the entire trade is sickening. But I'll give it some level of respect, because these are human beings we're talking about, and because no human being deserves to be judged with a single sentence, especially not when he makes the effort to explain himself in a more complex way. Whether you like it or not, Evil most certainly exists in this world, regardless of whether or not there is a reason that it came in to existence. The idea of Evil suggests that there's no reason to evil, that it's original sin and that we are inherently flawed. That follows the ration that there's a such thing as inherent good. I subscribe instead to the belief that good and evil are both a part of human logic, and that the really awful thing is that evil is a part of nature (and not just human nature). As a result, I dislike the people who would assume that evil is an illogical, spontaneous thing, and I think that the best way to combat evil is to give it as much respect as possible. If you reject it outright, you're no better in a way, because you offer it no comprehension.
donaq 18y ago
That was a lot of rhetoric and hand-waving, but you still haven't proven that it is all abuse, nor have you proven that the examples listed in the OP are clearly "that which caused harm or destruction or misfortune" to the people involved, let alone that sex automatically harms or damages minors. While this is merely anecdotal evidence, I do know people who had their first consensual sexual experiences with older partners when they were below the age of 16, and they seem none the worse for wear.
- unalone 18y ago
  If talk's to be believed, plenty of people I went to school with had sex at 13-14, and some of them were very happy with those decisions. (As a side note, I find it a little funny that I'm 18, which should be the age that I'm finally able to have sex without it being legally weird, and yet my not being sexually active makes me a late bloomer. Society is odd.)
- ErrantX 18y ago
  How many of them photographed & videoed it to sell on the internet? :) (there is a distinction there I think)
  - donaq 18y ago
    None of them. Granted there is a distinction, but let's assume for the moment we've established that the sexual acts themselves cause no lasting damage. Where, then, does the damage come from? I think a large part of the damage from being exposed comes from the stigma attached to it. In which case I think it can be argued that the evil was committed not by the pornography, but by the people who have viewed and judged it. As Elaine once said in an episode of Seinfeld (The Pick) Because it is not me that is exposed but you. For I have seen the nipple on your soul!

by viggity 18y ago

unalone 18y ago

So, there you go, even though you don't feel comfortable labeling something for what it clearly is, feel free to label this post with a down vote. I hate to tell you, but even the people who have lots of karma don't play Hacker News for points. We just like talking with smart people. The only thing I downvote people for constantly are the people who talk about getting downvoted (but you replied to me, so you're safe there). Evil has more implications than the dictionary definitions. The dictionary defines "sacred" as "connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration" but there's meaning lost in such a bland definition. Similarly, evil means more than "not good". It isn't all abuse? Oh, well, fine, I'm so glad that is cleared up because some sick fuck says that "its not all abuse". I can't wait for my kids to hear "Not all methamphetamine will cause you harm" from a speed freak. That logic makes infinite sense. I love people who put words in my mouth. I suggested that life is complicated - that, say, a speed freak isn't an inherently bad person even if he's addicted to something that's very bad, and that I dislike people who look at something and call it Evil dwelling in man's heart. There's a whole argument about the nature of "evil" and "profane" in religion studies, where the argument goes that evil or profane things refer to things that are naturally inhuman (or lacking the empathy with God or other human beings that humanity seems to be defined by). Essentially, when you call something "evil" the implication is that it is without ration or excuse and that it is something that a "good" human is inherently incapable of doing. Big-E Evil in particular goes by those rules. I believe that the world and human nature is too complex to quickly call evil. It's why I hate that a post like this, long and complex and fascinating, gets called "Evil" in a single-sentence condemnation. It's almost certainly horrible. I think the entire trade is sickening. But I'll give it some level of respect, because these are human beings we're talking about, and because no human being deserves to be judged with a single sentence, especially not when he makes the effort to explain himself in a more complex way. Whether you like it or not, Evil most certainly exists in this world, regardless of whether or not there is a reason that it came in to existence. The idea of Evil suggests that there's no reason to evil, that it's original sin and that we are inherently flawed. That follows the ration that there's a such thing as inherent good. I subscribe instead to the belief that good and evil are both a part of human logic, and that the really awful thing is that evil is a part of nature (and not just human nature). As a result, I dislike the people who would assume that evil is an illogical, spontaneous thing, and I think that the best way to combat evil is to give it as much respect as possible. If you reject it outright, you're no better in a way, because you offer it no comprehension.

donaq 18y ago

That was a lot of rhetoric and hand-waving, but you still haven't proven that it is all abuse, nor have you proven that the examples listed in the OP are clearly "that which caused harm or destruction or misfortune" to the people involved, let alone that sex automatically harms or damages minors. While this is merely anecdotal evidence, I do know people who had their first consensual sexual experiences with older partners when they were below the age of 16, and they seem none the worse for wear.

unalone 18y ago
If talk's to be believed, plenty of people I went to school with had sex at 13-14, and some of them were very happy with those decisions. (As a side note, I find it a little funny that I'm 18, which should be the age that I'm finally able to have sex without it being legally weird, and yet my not being sexually active makes me a late bloomer. Society is odd.)
ErrantX 18y ago
How many of them photographed & videoed it to sell on the internet? :) (there is a distinction there I think)
- donaq 18y ago
  None of them. Granted there is a distinction, but let's assume for the moment we've established that the sexual acts themselves cause no lasting damage. Where, then, does the damage come from? I think a large part of the damage from being exposed comes from the stigma attached to it. In which case I think it can be argued that the evil was committed not by the pornography, but by the people who have viewed and judged it. As Elaine once said in an episode of Seinfeld (The Pick) Because it is not me that is exposed but you. For I have seen the nipple on your soul!