Evil, the horror, or the banality: What really is it & w

by **Burning Dogs** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 10:49 am

Worst of!

by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:13 pm

This is the worst thread in the history of this BBS. So if you've been waiting for rock bottom, here ya go!

by **Tdarcos** » Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:14 am

How about this one?

I think it was Robert A. Heinlein's Autor Avatar Lazarus Long, who said something like "Evil is hurting other people unnecessarily. Hurting yourself isn't 'evil,' just stupid."

But what about other fun activities, like burning dogs alive, or dogfighting, what Michael Vick got jail time for. Or tearing the wings off flies? Are these evil, and why?

Did you hear about the kid that was soooio tough? How tough was he? He didn't tear the wings off of flies, he tore the wings off hornets!

by **Tdarcos** » Wed Jan 20, 2016 8:24 pm

Jizaboz wrote:From Dungeons & Dragons:

Lawful evil

A lawful evil character ... include tyrants, devils, and undiscriminating mercenary types who have a strict code of conduct.

Let's not forget Well Street Bankers and the politicans who wrote the laws to bail them out at taxpayer expense!

Jizaboz wrote:
Neutral evil

A neutral evil character ... has no compunctions about harming others to get what they want, but neither will they go out of their way to cause carnage or mayhem when they see no direct benefit for themselves.

Car salesmen!

Jizaboz wrote:
Chaotic evil

A chaotic evil character tends to have no respect for rules, other people's lives, or anything but their own desires, which are typically selfish and cruel.

Funeral directors and politicians!

by **Jizaboz** » Mon Jan 18, 2016 12:35 pm

From Dungeons & Dragons:

Lawful evil

A lawful evil character sees a well-ordered system as being easier to exploit and shows a combination of desirable and undesirable traits. Examples of this alignment include tyrants, devils, and undiscriminating mercenary types who have a strict code of conduct.

Neutral evil

A neutral evil character is typically selfish and has no qualms about turning on its allies-of-the-moment, and usually makes allies primarily to further their own goals. A neutral evil character has no compunctions about harming others to get what they want, but neither will they go out of their way to cause carnage or mayhem when they see no direct benefit for themselves. Another valid interpretation of neutral evil holds up evil as an ideal, doing evil for evil's sake and trying to spread its influence. Examples of the first type are an assassin who has little regard for formal laws but does not needlessly kill, a henchman who plots behind their superior's back, or a mercenary who switches sides if made a better offer. An example of the second type would be a masked killer who strikes only for the sake of causing fear and distrust in the community.

Chaotic evil

A chaotic evil character tends to have no respect for rules, other people's lives, or anything but their own desires, which are typically selfish and cruel. They set a high value on personal freedom, but do not have much regard for the lives or freedom of other people. Chaotic evil characters do not work well in groups because they resent being given orders and do not usually behave themselves unless there is no alternative.

by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Mon Jan 18, 2016 11:22 am

Paul: I had not realized that this is a thread that you have started. This is your thread. Please disregard my earlier post, everyone can set sail and continue what they were doing.

by **Flack** » Mon Jan 18, 2016 8:55 am

ROBB IS EVIL.

by **pinback** » Mon Jan 18, 2016 7:14 am

Yeah, Robb, what the hell is your problem??

by **Tdarcos** » Sun Jan 17, 2016 12:29 am

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:
Tdarcos wrote:
pinback wrote: You get ten guesses, and the first nine don't count.
I haven't seen you say anything. At least I'm trying to raise the level of conversation here, to be something other than what you've turned into.
I'm getting to the point where I can't take it any more.

Now this, I do not understand. I'm trying to raise a serious issue and improve the conversation here, maybe get people to think a little bit, and you seem to feel as if this is horrible. And I do not understand why.

I'm conversing in a thread I started which you were under no obligation to read and which you knew - before you even opened it - that I started it.

So please, explain to me what's wrong. I do not want you banning me again because I've broken some unknowable or unstated reason. I mean, seriously, if there is something bothering you I presume you have a reason that it does. Seriously, I do not want to hurt your feelings and I would like to understand what is wrong.

I mean, AArdvark came up with a very good example of what he thinks is evil. I think this thread is working in trying to raise the level of conversation.

by **AArdvark** » Fri Jan 15, 2016 6:38 pm

Not sure why but I thought this belonged here:

[youtube][/youtube]

by **AArdvark** » Thu Jan 14, 2016 5:08 pm

Evil is subjective. It's all point of view.

Suppose Mother Teresa shows up in a hot and dusty third world village with bowls of rice and that white milky crap that all the starving kids over there like so bad. That's a good thing, you say.

Now suppose Mother Teresa show up in that same village with an AK-47 and mows down everyone in a pinwheeling fury of hot lead. Her white and blue robes flying, eyes fierce slits, teeth clenched as she spins and fires, spins and fires. You'd say that is a bad thing, an evil thing.

But is it?

Maybe Mother Teresa holds the gun up and blows across the top of the muzzle and says: "Well, they aint hungry anymore are they?"

I think real evil would be Mother Teresa showing up in her white and blue outfit and showing them pictures of food that they don't have.

THE
OH WAIT, THAT'S FACEBOOK
AARDVARK

by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Thu Jan 14, 2016 4:00 pm

Tdarcos wrote:
pinback wrote:
Flack wrote:Is this really the best thing you have to talk about?
You get ten guesses, and the first nine don't count.
I haven't seen you say anything. At least I'm trying to raise the level of conversation here, to be something other than what you've turned into.

I'm getting to the point where I can't take it any more.

by **Tdarcos** » Thu Jan 14, 2016 12:27 pm

pinback wrote:
Flack wrote:Is this really the best thing you have to talk about?
You get ten guesses, and the first nine don't count.

I haven't seen you say anything. At least I'm trying to raise the level of conversation here, to be something other than what you've turned into.

by **Tdarcos** » Thu Jan 14, 2016 12:23 pm

Flack wrote:Is this really the best thing you have to talk about?

No, but I haven't seen anyone raise any seriousd issues around here.

This is a really serious issue! People, all the time talk about how something is terrible, or it's evil, or it's bad. So my question to you is, why? Why is it bad? Why is it evil? What is evil and how do you define it? If we can't define objectively what 'evil' is then what it represents is nothing more than 'I don't like it' which means that, if you can't define it, then Jeffrey Dahmer's dietary choices have no more significance than what you had for breakfast. And again, if you can't define what 'evil' represents, then if you think cannibalism is wrong, your opinion is of no more significance than if you said you think eating chocolate ice cream is wrong; it's pure opiniom and has nothing to objectively define it.

Or if you think there is something to talk about, then make a thread. Let's hear your great opinions.

I have opinions but I wasn't trying to just throw them out, I wanted to solicit other people's opinions. But if you don't have any, then don't proceed to argue that there is such a thing as 'evil' since you have nothing to support your opinion and it might as well be an opinion on the taste of chcolate ice cream.

by **pinback** » Thu Jan 14, 2016 6:25 am

Flack wrote:Is this really the best thing you have to talk about?

You get ten guesses, and the first nine don't count.

by **Flack** » Thu Jan 14, 2016 5:54 am

Is this really the best thing you have to talk about?

by **Tdarcos** » Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:47 pm

Okay, let's start with something easy.

Proposal: There is nothing wrong with adults having sex with young children.

By 'adults' I'm referring to people at least 30 years old, and by 'young children' I mean those 12 and under. The argument that this is evil is just the jealous whining of people who don't want to admit it could be fun for them.

Note I'm excluding rape or non-consensual sex because (1) it's probably too easy to make an argument against it, and (2) I want to argue that one separately.

So, seriously, if you disagree with the idea of adults having consentual sex with children - and I'd like to note this was a common, accepted practice back around the 4th century BCE - what is your reason to oppose it?

by **Tdarcos** » Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:32 pm

pinback wrote:
Tdarcos wrote:* First, no personal attacks.
Okay, you fat crippled autistic.

Fair enough, you bald alcoholic.

by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 2:34 pm

Foul! Foooooouuuul!

FOUL!

by **pinback** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 8:27 am

Tdarcos wrote:* First, no personal attacks.

Okay, you fat crippled autistic.

Evil, the horror, or the banality: What really is it & w

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Evil, the horror, or the banality: What really is it & w

Re: Evil, the horror, or the banality: What really is it &am