There is no such thing as evil
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-06-2014, 02:17 PM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(23-06-2014 01:44 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Right, not murdering is not an action. Refraining from bad actions does not make us good, it only makes us not bad. Morality and virtue is a process of striving towards consistency in all our relations, not any single thing we do or don't do. That's why the book is called Universally Preferable Behavior, striving towards what is universally preferable is the virtue.

"Universally preferable" is an incoherent premise.

There is no such thing as "universal preference".

So there's that.

Faced with this, your response has been to mindlessly re-assert that "I am right because I feel like I am so there".
(that this is the battle cry of self-important tossers the world over seems to have escaped your acknowledgement)

Plus a little condescending dismissal of literally any other possible opinion, of course. Which actually follows inevitably; claims to a mantle of exclusive and objective correctness couple ever so easily to unfalsifiable certitude - and that leaves one with no choice but to condemn as objectively wrong and inferior that very same nuance you presuppose to be a deviation instead of mere statistics.
(hence the whole, "I guess if you disagree it is just because I am so much smarter / more educated and you are obviously a brainwashed neurotic" schtick - a heady blend of sanctimonious, arrogant, ignorant, and presuppositional; it reeks of an intellectual decadence an apologist would envy)

You're not interested in discussion. You're interested in pontificating and stroking off. But no worries; your asinine behaviour is more than sufficient to dissuade the casual observer from taking the merest whiff of your kool-aid.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like cjlr's post
23-06-2014, 02:58 PM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(16-06-2014 07:07 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  I think the concepts of good and evil are subjective. I don't believe in any universal good or evil.


I have been reading Suetonius and most of the Claudian Emperors had the same view as you. If you want to read a catalogue of grotesque ways to kill people just because you don't like them, then Suetonius's The Twelve Caesar's is for you. It makes the Mafia look like kindergarten.

I think the reason that the Claudian way of thinking, that anything goes so long as it goes my own subjective way and there is no right or wrong, failed and Christianity took root is that people actually do have a notion of right and wrong which is part of their makeup as animals, just like birds have something embedded in their brains, likely in their amygdalas, which allows them to find their way across thousands of miles without having to ask for directions.

It is instructive, I think to read something like Lucretious' The Nature of the Universe in which he sets out Epicureanism as a philosophy and compare that with the fundamental moral philosophy of Christianity and Kant's categorical imperative and ask yourself whether it is really all subjective. Our behaviour is filtered neurologically through our amygdala and we come to decisions about many things in billionths of a second. This part of the brain is now being regarded as central to understanding our anxieties and our reactions to all stimuli and it is a physical issue when we make decisions even though we cannot perceive it as such, or some can't.

I think that the moral "faculty" of weighing up what is right and wrong, is very deeply embedded in us through hundreds of thousands of years of evolution so that we as a species can actually understand, in the same way we can discern the differences in the textures of things around us and give them names, the difference between "wrong", ie., murdering, torturing and sacrificing people as did the Caesars, and what is "right", acting in a way which our faculty of reason tells us can be applied "universally".

But anyway, who cares. I was thinking the other day that the problem with this forum is that the whole idea of a "thinking atheist" is pretty silly. Why define oneself as someone who doesn't believe in a nonsense. It's is like saying that one is a "thinking APotterist" because one doesn't believe in Harry Potter...really!?

Then there is the idea of "thinking" which doesn't come through that strongly here. The promo for the site says to question everything and accept nothing. What you get, though is people who just question without ever saying anything about what they think. And, most of these people just "question" posters who are expressing their thoughts freely, trying to ridicule them and put them down with insults and foul language.

I think a name which better reflects a lot of the posting would be "Insulting Pseudointellectual".

Maybe it would be better to think of oneself in a positive way, if that is possible in this sea of nihilism. Perhaps one could be a "Civil Rationalist" and behave here, as some posters say they behave anyway, without religion, in a way which is respectful and friendly and to engage in rational discussions in an open minded way instead of hurling abuse and epithets and "ever so clever" remarks just to score "reputation" points by appealing to other IPs.

Just a thought...if that is actually permitted here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2014, 04:27 PM (This post was last modified: 23-06-2014 05:08 PM by Luminon.)
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(23-06-2014 02:10 PM)cjlr Wrote:  A classic non-response.

What is "aggression"? What is "initiation" thereof?
Protip: those judgements are subjective. They admit of much disagreement and contextual sensitivity.

Vacuously declaring shit doesn't help anyone. Least of all when you can't substantiate it.

Studying nuance is literally the entire point of law courts. Do you have literally any idea what a trial is?

Your self-congratulatory and smugly masturbatory rhetoric grows ever less compelling.

I do plenty to make my opinions known within the free and democratic society in which I live, thanks.

Now, I realize that that's not an answer you like, because you're inextricably wedded to a deranged conspiracist delusion, but tough shit.
Man, I'm sorry. I must be some kind of monster for pushing your buttons like that. I heard abusers do that. Maybe it's some kind of trolling, teasing or bullying. Maybe I'm addicted to yanking your leg and you're a bit too ready to react. I've been bullied a lot, but never actually bullied anyone. But I think they do it for the sense of control. I can control you, I can detonate you quite easily. I mean, it's still your responsibility, you come with steam blowing out of your ears, it's not my idea. But once you react, you always react, like a robot. As a prime neurotic here, I say that's not healthy at all. I was like that in my early teens, before I understood that bullies actually want that. Abusers get a kick from driving their victims out of control. But even abused people get a kick from managing abusive people (that would be you). They like it as an adrenaline sport.

And I don't think it's really me you've got a problem with. I am just some anonymous young guy on the net. If someone made you very angry in the past, but he was more powerful, so powerful that you could not even show your anger, you save it for later and forget it is there. And then it erupts at anyone who resembles the original situation. But it will repeat indefinitely, because I am not the one who caused that. You are recreating the old scenario with new person (me) but it will not calm you down permanently, because I am not the one who caused your anger and repressed it. You're on a wrong address. If you can remember who was it and when, and re-live the situation, which is rather unpleasant, you will get a hold of this reaction. There's no other way but this therapy. But first you've got to recognize that flying off the handle like that isn't healthy or righteous.

"This is subjective" is not an argument, never was, not in society. Society is not a controlled laboratory environment, where objectivity exists separately from the people. Society is like "reality", it's a metaphysical concept. It includes what we know and what we don't know yet. Controlled environment is quite unlike the society. In society, even the subjective has objective effects, this is just what society does, can you accept that as an empirical fact or just a suggestion? It's a whole different situation epistemologically, there are no borders between the observers and the observed ones. There are paradigms like symbolic interactionism and it's kind of messy.
If you knew how messy it is, you would be glad for my effort of philosophically cutting through the Gordic knot of society.

The Thomas's definition of a situation is, people act upon their beliefs and these beliefs become "real" in their effects. That's basically why humanities exist, something like that can't be researched by natural sciences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_..._situation


(23-06-2014 02:17 PM)cjlr Wrote:  "Universally preferable" is an incoherent premise.

There is no such thing as "universal preference".

So there's that.
It's not about any specific content of preference. Content is optional, but how you should act in order to reach it non-violently, that is not optional. For example, if you want not to speak ignorantly about the topic, you should read the book. Here's a quote.
Naturally, preferential behaviour can only be binding if the goal is desired. If I say that it is preferablefor human beings to exercise and eat well, I am not saying that human beings must notsit on the couch and eat potato chips. What I am saying is that if you want to be healthy, you shouldexercise and eat well.
As Hume famously pointed out, it is impossible to derive an “ought” from an “is.” What he meant by that was that preferencein no way can be axiomatically derived from existence. It is true that a man who never exercises and eats poorly will be unhealthy. Does that mean that he “ought” to exercise and eat well? No. The “ought” is conditional upon the preference. Ifhe wants to be healthy, he oughtto exercise and eat well. It is true that if a man does not eat, he will die – we cannot logically derive from thatfact a binding principle that he oughtto eat. Ifhe wants to live, then he musteat. However, his choice to live or not remains his own.
Similarly, there is no such thing as a universally “better” direction – it all depends upon the preferred destination. If I want to drive to New York from San Francisco, I “ought” to drive east. If I want to drive into the ocean from San Francisco, I “ought” to drive west. Neither “east” nor “west” can be considered
universally “better.”

(23-06-2014 02:17 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Faced with this, your response has been to mindlessly re-assert that "I am right because I feel like I am so there".
(that this is the battle cry of self-important tossers the world over seems to have escaped your acknowledgement)

Plus a little condescending dismissal of literally any other possible opinion, of course. Which actually follows inevitably; claims to a mantle of exclusive and objective correctness couple ever so easily to unfalsifiable certitude - and that leaves one with no choice but to condemn as objectively wrong and inferior that very same nuance you presuppose to be a deviation instead of mere statistics.
(hence the whole, "I guess if you disagree it is just because I am so much smarter / more educated and you are obviously a brainwashed neurotic" schtick - a heady blend of sanctimonious, arrogant, ignorant, and presuppositional; it reeks of an intellectual decadence an apologist would envy)

You're not interested in discussion. You're interested in pontificating and stroking off. But no worries; your asinine behaviour is more than sufficient to dissuade the casual observer from taking the merest whiff of your kool-aid.
If I was a teacher, I would pay more respect to people's opinions, even though I shouldn't (subjective, ha!). But for education's sake I should. But if I was teaching people, then they would come from their own will and admit there is something that they don't know and they want to learn and my job would be that much easier. Instead they make assertions about objective morality or its non-existence and I can't tell in advance how serious or informed they are.

Man, maybe if you had read the book, my behavior would be different.
I am interested in discussion to the degree that there is some equality in knowledge. And I don't know that in advance, I have to find out first. It's not easy, because people don't want to appear stupid or ignorant. I'd be even satisfied with some curiosity about the topic. Hell, I have to get by with provocative discussion, though it kind of sucks.

Then I can't back out of discussion because it would look like I lost the argument - but we didn't really get to it because of a lack of RTFM on opponent side. But I'd take some peace offering in terms of "dude, I have no idea what the fuck are you talking about, let's stop".
I'd be happy to do that, if that makes a point that people have no right to say "there is no objective definition of good and evil" if there is a free online book on the topic they have not read. Being acquainted with topic-related literature is a must. If people were truly interested in the topic as they claim, they would grab that book and read it.
http://www.fdrurl.com/UPBPDF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2014, 06:01 PM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(23-06-2014 04:27 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Man, I'm sorry. I must be some kind of monster for pushing your buttons like that. I heard abusers do that. Maybe it's some kind of trolling, teasing or bullying. Maybe I'm addicted to yanking your leg and you're a bit too ready to react. I've been bullied a lot, but never actually bullied anyone. But I think they do it for the sense of control. I can control you, I can detonate you quite easily. I mean, it's still your responsibility, you come with steam blowing out of your ears, it's not my idea. But once you react, you always react, like a robot.

What the actual fuck?

(23-06-2014 04:27 PM)Luminon Wrote:  As a prime neurotic here, I say that's not healthy at all. I was like that in my early teens, before I understood that bullies actually want that. Abusers get a kick from driving their victims out of control. But even abused people get a kick from managing abusive people (that would be you). They like it as an adrenaline sport.

What the actual fuck?

(23-06-2014 04:27 PM)Luminon Wrote:  And I don't think it's really me you've got a problem with. I am just some anonymous young guy on the net. If someone made you very angry in the past, but he was more powerful, so powerful that you could not even show your anger, you save it for later and forget it is there. And then it erupts at anyone who resembles the original situation. But it will repeat indefinitely, because I am not the one who caused that. You are recreating the old scenario with new person (me) but it will not calm you down permanently, because I am not the one who caused your anger and repressed it. You're on a wrong address. If you can remember who was it and when, and re-live the situation, which is rather unpleasant, you will get a hold of this reaction. There's no other way but this therapy. But first you've got to recognize that flying off the handle like that isn't healthy or righteous.

Sweet noodly appendage.

What the actual fuck?

Can't say I've ever been pseudo-psychoanalyzed by a gibbering maniac before. So I guess that's a new life experience.

(23-06-2014 04:27 PM)Luminon Wrote:  "This is subjective" is not an argument, never was, not in society.

No, "things are objective because I feel like it" is not an argument.

(23-06-2014 04:27 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Society is not a controlled laboratory environment, where objectivity exists separately from the people. Society is like "reality", it's a metaphysical concept. It includes what we know and what we don't know yet. Controlled environment is quite unlike the society. In society, even the subjective has objective effects, this is just what society does, can you accept that as an empirical fact or just a suggestion? It's a whole different situation epistemologically, there are no borders between the observers and the observed ones. There are paradigms like symbolic interactionism and it's kind of messy.
If you knew how messy it is, you would be glad for my effort of philosophically cutting through the Gordic knot of society.

I might not know much, but I definitely know better than to follow a self-appointed messiah with delusions of sanity. Thanks anyway.

(23-06-2014 04:27 PM)Luminon Wrote:  The Thomas's definition of a situation is, people act upon their beliefs and these beliefs become "real" in their effects. That's basically why humanities exist, something like that can't be researched by natural sciences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_..._situation

No, that is not the difference between scientific and non-scientific study.

(23-06-2014 04:27 PM)Luminon Wrote:  It's not about any specific content of preference. Content is optional, but how you should act in order to reach it non-violently, that is not optional. For example, if you want not to speak ignorantly about the topic, you should read the book. Here's a quote.
Naturally, preferential behaviour can only be binding if the goal is desired. If I say that it is preferablefor human beings to exercise and eat well, I am not saying that human beings must notsit on the couch and eat potato chips. What I am saying is that if you want to be healthy, you shouldexercise and eat well.
As Hume famously pointed out, it is impossible to derive an “ought” from an “is.” What he meant by that was that preferencein no way can be axiomatically derived from existence. It is true that a man who never exercises and eats poorly will be unhealthy. Does that mean that he “ought” to exercise and eat well? No. The “ought” is conditional upon the preference. Ifhe wants to be healthy, he oughtto exercise and eat well. It is true that if a man does not eat, he will die – we cannot logically derive from thatfact a binding principle that he oughtto eat. Ifhe wants to live, then he musteat. However, his choice to live or not remains his own.
Similarly, there is no such thing as a universally “better” direction – it all depends upon the preferred destination. If I want to drive to New York from San Francisco, I “ought” to drive east. If I want to drive into the ocean from San Francisco, I “ought” to drive west. Neither “east” nor “west” can be considered
universally “better.”

Since the quoted passage affirms that no, there cannot be any "objective" morality, despite your repeated assertions and fumbling to the contrary, I am prompted to wonder whether you've even read it.

I can quite happily tell you that, "be excellent to each other", is an objective and self-evident moral truth.

Do you know what use such a meaninglessly broad statement is?

None at all.

(23-06-2014 04:27 PM)Luminon Wrote:  If I was a teacher, I would pay more respect to people's opinions, even though I shouldn't (subjective, ha!). But for education's sake I should. But if I was teaching people, then they would come from their own will and admit there is something that they don't know and they want to learn and my job would be that much easier. Instead they make assertions about objective morality or its non-existence and I can't tell in advance how serious or informed they are.

"My unfalsifiable self-regard is such that I can ignore any and all outside views and opinions. But anyone who does have different views and opinions is just ignorant and wrong".

A productive attitude.

Not.

(23-06-2014 04:27 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Man, maybe if you had read the book, my behavior would be different.
I am interested in discussion to the degree that there is some equality in knowledge. And I don't know that in advance, I have to find out first. It's not easy, because people don't want to appear stupid or ignorant. I'd be even satisfied with some curiosity about the topic. Hell, I have to get by with provocative discussion, though it kind of sucks.

Let us pretend, for the briefest of moments, that there is any worth at all to anything you're saying.
(that will take some fierce pretending indeed)

If nothing else, I hope this experience has taught you something of how you come across whenever you open your mouth on any scientific topic.
(I am hardly holding my breath)

(23-06-2014 04:27 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Then I can't back out of discussion because it would look like I lost the argument - but we didn't really get to it because of a lack of RTFM on opponent side. But I'd take some peace offering in terms of "dude, I have no idea what the fuck are you talking about, let's stop".
I'd be happy to do that, if that makes a point that people have no right to say "there is no objective definition of good and evil" if there is a free online book on the topic they have not read. Being acquainted with topic-related literature is a must. If people were truly interested in the topic as they claim, they would grab that book and read it.
http://www.fdrurl.com/UPBPDF

Please, Mister Preacher-Man, tell us more of your Scriptures.

This delightful excursion has shown you to warrant less consideration than ever. Congratulations.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
23-06-2014, 06:04 PM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(23-06-2014 02:58 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Just a thought...if that is actually permitted here.

Whine moar, it's totally endearing.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
23-06-2014, 07:36 PM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(23-06-2014 04:27 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(23-06-2014 02:10 PM)cjlr Wrote:  A classic non-response.

What is "aggression"? What is "initiation" thereof?
Protip: those judgements are subjective. They admit of much disagreement and contextual sensitivity.

Vacuously declaring shit doesn't help anyone. Least of all when you can't substantiate it.

Studying nuance is literally the entire point of law courts. Do you have literally any idea what a trial is?

Your self-congratulatory and smugly masturbatory rhetoric grows ever less compelling.

I do plenty to make my opinions known within the free and democratic society in which I live, thanks.

Now, I realize that that's not an answer you like, because you're inextricably wedded to a deranged conspiracist delusion, but tough shit.
Man, I'm sorry. I must be some kind of monster for pushing your buttons like that. I heard abusers do that. Maybe it's some kind of trolling, teasing or bullying. Maybe I'm addicted to yanking your leg and you're a bit too ready to react. I've been bullied a lot, but never actually bullied anyone. But I think they do it for the sense of control. I can control you, I can detonate you quite easily. I mean, it's still your responsibility, you come with steam blowing out of your ears, it's not my idea. But once you react, you always react, like a robot. As a prime neurotic here, I say that's not healthy at all. I was like that in my early teens, before I understood that bullies actually want that. Abusers get a kick from driving their victims out of control. But even abused people get a kick from managing abusive people (that would be you). They like it as an adrenaline sport.

And I don't think it's really me you've got a problem with. I am just some anonymous young guy on the net. If someone made you very angry in the past, but he was more powerful, so powerful that you could not even show your anger, you save it for later and forget it is there. And then it erupts at anyone who resembles the original situation. But it will repeat indefinitely, because I am not the one who caused that. You are recreating the old scenario with new person (me) but it will not calm you down permanently, because I am not the one who caused your anger and repressed it. You're on a wrong address. If you can remember who was it and when, and re-live the situation, which is rather unpleasant, you will get a hold of this reaction. There's no other way but this therapy. But first you've got to recognize that flying off the handle like that isn't healthy or righteous.

"This is subjective" is not an argument, never was, not in society. Society is not a controlled laboratory environment, where objectivity exists separately from the people. Society is like "reality", it's a metaphysical concept. It includes what we know and what we don't know yet. Controlled environment is quite unlike the society. In society, even the subjective has objective effects, this is just what society does, can you accept that as an empirical fact or just a suggestion? It's a whole different situation epistemologically, there are no borders between the observers and the observed ones. There are paradigms like symbolic interactionism and it's kind of messy.
If you knew how messy it is, you would be glad for my effort of philosophically cutting through the Gordic knot of society.

The Thomas's definition of a situation is, people act upon their beliefs and these beliefs become "real" in their effects. That's basically why humanities exist, something like that can't be researched by natural sciences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_..._situation


(23-06-2014 02:17 PM)cjlr Wrote:  "Universally preferable" is an incoherent premise.

There is no such thing as "universal preference".

So there's that.
It's not about any specific content of preference. Content is optional, but how you should act in order to reach it non-violently, that is not optional. For example, if you want not to speak ignorantly about the topic, you should read the book. Here's a quote.
Naturally, preferential behaviour can only be binding if the goal is desired. If I say that it is preferablefor human beings to exercise and eat well, I am not saying that human beings must notsit on the couch and eat potato chips. What I am saying is that if you want to be healthy, you shouldexercise and eat well.
As Hume famously pointed out, it is impossible to derive an “ought” from an “is.” What he meant by that was that preferencein no way can be axiomatically derived from existence. It is true that a man who never exercises and eats poorly will be unhealthy. Does that mean that he “ought” to exercise and eat well? No. The “ought” is conditional upon the preference. Ifhe wants to be healthy, he oughtto exercise and eat well. It is true that if a man does not eat, he will die – we cannot logically derive from thatfact a binding principle that he oughtto eat. Ifhe wants to live, then he musteat. However, his choice to live or not remains his own.
Similarly, there is no such thing as a universally “better” direction – it all depends upon the preferred destination. If I want to drive to New York from San Francisco, I “ought” to drive east. If I want to drive into the ocean from San Francisco, I “ought” to drive west. Neither “east” nor “west” can be considered
universally “better.”

(23-06-2014 02:17 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Faced with this, your response has been to mindlessly re-assert that "I am right because I feel like I am so there".
(that this is the battle cry of self-important tossers the world over seems to have escaped your acknowledgement)

Plus a little condescending dismissal of literally any other possible opinion, of course. Which actually follows inevitably; claims to a mantle of exclusive and objective correctness couple ever so easily to unfalsifiable certitude - and that leaves one with no choice but to condemn as objectively wrong and inferior that very same nuance you presuppose to be a deviation instead of mere statistics.
(hence the whole, "I guess if you disagree it is just because I am so much smarter / more educated and you are obviously a brainwashed neurotic" schtick - a heady blend of sanctimonious, arrogant, ignorant, and presuppositional; it reeks of an intellectual decadence an apologist would envy)

You're not interested in discussion. You're interested in pontificating and stroking off. But no worries; your asinine behaviour is more than sufficient to dissuade the casual observer from taking the merest whiff of your kool-aid.
If I was a teacher, I would pay more respect to people's opinions, even though I shouldn't (subjective, ha!). But for education's sake I should. But if I was teaching people, then they would come from their own will and admit there is something that they don't know and they want to learn and my job would be that much easier. Instead they make assertions about objective morality or its non-existence and I can't tell in advance how serious or informed they are.

Man, maybe if you had read the book, my behavior would be different.
I am interested in discussion to the degree that there is some equality in knowledge. And I don't know that in advance, I have to find out first. It's not easy, because people don't want to appear stupid or ignorant. I'd be even satisfied with some curiosity about the topic. Hell, I have to get by with provocative discussion, though it kind of sucks.

Then I can't back out of discussion because it would look like I lost the argument - but we didn't really get to it because of a lack of RTFM on opponent side. But I'd take some peace offering in terms of "dude, I have no idea what the fuck are you talking about, let's stop".
I'd be happy to do that, if that makes a point that people have no right to say "there is no objective definition of good and evil" if there is a free online book on the topic they have not read. Being acquainted with topic-related literature is a must. If people were truly interested in the topic as they claim, they would grab that book and read it.
http://www.fdrurl.com/UPBPDF


What the fuck is this???? I mean, what the actual fuck IS THIS??? What the hell did I just read? There is some twisted stuff in there....

A person very dear to me was badly hurt through a misunderstanding and miscommunication. For this, I am sorry, and he knows it. That said, any blaming me for malicious intent is for the birds. I will not wear some scarlet letter, I will not be anybody's whipping girl, and I will not lurk in silence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Charis's post
23-06-2014, 07:37 PM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(23-06-2014 01:44 PM)Luminon Wrote:  It is not difficult to use clear-cut logic in virtual world with virtual objects, it is extremely difficult to use it in the seeming chaos of social world. Many give up after their fourth birthday or so, mostly because parents are stronger. Sorry to bother you.

Oh, okay.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2014, 07:40 PM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(23-06-2014 02:58 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(16-06-2014 07:07 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  I think the concepts of good and evil are subjective. I don't believe in any universal good or evil.


I have been reading Suetonius and most of the Claudian Emperors had the same view as you. If you want to read a catalogue of grotesque ways to kill people just because you don't like them, then Suetonius's The Twelve Caesar's is for you. It makes the Mafia look like kindergarten.

And yet they and I reached different opinions on what we felt was moral. Hmmm...


(23-06-2014 07:36 PM)Charis Wrote:  What the fuck is this???? I mean, what the actual fuck IS THIS??? What the hell did I just read? There is some twisted stuff in there....

I don't know. It's gone from weird induction to TL;DR obfuscation which I can only assume is to mask the weird induction. I've made my point over ten pages ago.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RobbyPants's post
23-06-2014, 07:49 PM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(23-06-2014 07:40 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(23-06-2014 02:58 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I have been reading Suetonius and most of the Claudian Emperors had the same view as you. If you want to read a catalogue of grotesque ways to kill people just because you don't like them, then Suetonius's The Twelve Caesar's is for you. It makes the Mafia look like kindergarten.

And yet they and I reached different opinions on what we felt was moral. Hmmm...


(23-06-2014 07:36 PM)Charis Wrote:  What the fuck is this???? I mean, what the actual fuck IS THIS??? What the hell did I just read? There is some twisted stuff in there....

I don't know. It's gone from weird induction to TL;DR obfuscation which I can only assume is to mask the weird induction. I've made my point over ten pages ago.

This long ago became you state a reasoned point Luminon ignores it and preaches, you respond to his delirium and raise yet more points his half assed theory cannot cover he ignores then and repeats his preaching repeat.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Revenant77x's post
24-06-2014, 01:24 AM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(23-06-2014 07:36 PM)Charis Wrote:  What the fuck is this???? I mean, what the actual fuck IS THIS??? What the hell did I just read? There is some twisted stuff in there....

Hey, that's my mind you are talking about! And my musical taste! Although I was switching to chillhop lately. Consider
[Image: 6a00d83451b36c69e201676309771a970b-800wi]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: