Jump to content


Photo

Who is the Most Evil


  • Please log in to reply
108 replies to this topic

#81 kainboa

kainboa

    Believes Han shot first

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,805 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Denmark

Posted 08 January 2011 - 05:33 PM

To decide who is the most evil, we first need to establish what evil is, to some the act of killing another is evil, to others it is a perfectly logical way of dealing with an enemy.

Evil is subjective, as everyone has different opinions on what evil is, everyone will have different opinions on who is the most evil, while this debate is interesting we will never get to an agreement for that very reason.

#82 sirmethos

sirmethos

    A Man of the People

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,142 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Denmark

Posted 08 January 2011 - 05:52 PM

Not really, because there are many other things that that person could do that would be Merciful. Rather than Claiming another human being as their property, they could adopt them, or take them as a ward, or look out for them, or any number of things that would be Infinitely better then Slavery.



In this I believe you are talking about Soldiers.

Good Soldiers Kill, Bad Soldiers Murder. A Soldier kills because he or she is forced to, in the name of Self Defense or Defense of the people who cannot defend themselves against their aggressor. If you must Kill in order to stop others from Killing then it's not Evil. However in the chaos of war, sometimes this gets grey, accidents happen, blood gets a little too hot. What turns killing into murder is taking away that need to kill.



Vikings didn't consider the people they *insensitivity'd* to be human... it was more like bestiality to them, but not that bad because at least they Kinda looked like them. Even that's an Evil POV, as they were Humans, forcing themselves on other Humans, regardless of how they tried to justify it.

What the English Nobles did however Was Genuinely Evil. They attempted to literally Breed Out the Scots with that horrible law. That was their goal, so they made *insensitivity* Legal. There wasn't anything high and good about what they did. And I bet a fair amount of people thought the same.



Torture Never Works

You can do anything to them, and they will always say what you want them to say, regardless. If they aren't saying what you want them to say then you've not inflicted enough torture.

Saying that you need to extract vital information from a prisoner through torture is a Weak justification for it, as the validity of the facts is highly in question. Not only that but look at it's history, to see how it's abused. All the way back in the Spanish Inquisition, through even to Nowadays at Guantanamo. You know how may Innocent people they tortured?


Slavery: i didn't say there was no better alternative, as you already pointed out, there are plenty of better alternatives, that does not however, in any way, invalidate my statement. that it Can be an act of mercy.

Murder: actually, i wasn't talking about soldiers, fighting for their country. but people like mercenaries, hired guns. or how about just regular people. killing someone in cold blod, because of revenge for example. that is not, in any way, killing "to defend". but i doubt that most of the people that do it, think of themselves as evil for it.

Vikings: and that is Your perspective of it. if you had been raised as a 'norseman' in the same way the Vikings were back then, chances are that you would openly laugh in the face of anyone who called it evil, because to you, it would clearly be your god-given right. evil = subjective

Englishmen: again, the fact that it was 'genuinely evil', is Your perspective of it, because of how you've been raised. i'm pretty sure that the english noblemen at the time, fully believed they were doing a good thing. again, evil = subjective.

Torture: have i ever said that torture has never been abused? no. have i ever said that i believe torture is a good way of extracting information? no. have i said that the need for information is a good justification for torture? no. personally, i can only think of one, maybe two, specific cases where i would use torture, and that would be for the purpose of inflicting pain. not to get information. however, it Is true that torture is the fastest way of breaking a prisoner when you have no leverage on them. personally, in a theoretical situation of having a prisoner and needing to get information out of him quickly, i would use torture to make him talk in the first place, and Then start extracting the actual information. i know it's not even Close to being the best way of getting accurate information, but it IS one of the Fastest ways of getting information.


again, evil is subjective.


to use murder as a final example:

a terrorist has hidden a bomb somewhere in downtown manhattan, he has fortified himself in a secure location, and is holding hostages. you're lying on the roof of a building on the other site of the street, watching the only window in the building, through the scope of a rifle. the terrorist is standing in the window, but is covered behind a hostage. you know he is volatile and could detonate the bomb at any time.

for me, it's not even something i have to think about. shoot him, through the hostage. sure, the hostage dies, but the bomb doesn't go off. 1 innocent person just died, but it saved the lives of tens, maybe hundreds of innocent people.


could i have waited for a chance to shoot him without hitting the hostage? of course i could. but as i didn't know whether he would detonate the bomb in 3 seconds or in 3 hours. it was a judgement call. does that make me evil? personally i don't think so.

#83 sirmethos

sirmethos

    A Man of the People

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,142 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Denmark

Posted 08 January 2011 - 05:56 PM

And my point is that it doesn't matter, at all if the society that practiced slavery, or systematic forced sexual activities (since it blurs our the 4 letter word) didn't think it was evil. The act itself is still evil. That those societies at large think nothing of it does not change the nature of the act, (the removal of free option and forcing, oftentimes violently, sexual acts on another human being which may lead to a whole host of other problems ie pregnancy, STDs etc).

You are basically saying that the forced sexual activities are malum prohibitum, wrong only because our current society views it that way, but sometimes acceptable in other societies.

I am saying that it is malum in se, wrong because the act itself is wrong, no matter what society you come from, what era it takes place in.


let me ask you a question then, are animals, dogs, cats, bears, eagles, snakes, etc. etc. etc. capable of being evil?( i know it seems nonsensical, but bare with me)

#84 AVP vs The Terminator

AVP vs The Terminator

    Will never see the Adult Board

  • CBUB Character Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,068 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ireland
  • Interests:Comics. Movies. Video Games. TV.

Posted 08 January 2011 - 06:10 PM

Posted Image

#85 force_echo

force_echo

    Pretentious, Obnoxious, Annoying...humanity's last hope

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC
  • Interests:Anything Interesting

Posted 08 January 2011 - 06:52 PM

Except morality doesn't come from deities. You can easily construct morality systems that don't require whatever god you believe in, so please, don't assume someone needs to be your religious idol to have morality or judge morality.



Yes, soldiers, police officers and the like sometimes kill people. However, they don't go out and kill people just for the hell of it, like you say. And simply because their government tells them to do something doesn't remove good and evil from the equation. A soldier following an order that will kill civilians can't suddenly say "Well, I was following orders, so it's neither!". He can object and refuse to carry that order.



He also loved his dog, his wife, and was kind and friendly to his servants and some of his generals...

And then he also ordered several million people to death and forced people into slavery, forced drafts and conquered their homes. So what if he did some good along the way (in the sense that this "good" came about by terrible and vile means). Also, he helped Germany? Strange, because if it wasn't for him Germany wouldn't have been severely damaged in World War II.

Sure, the Depression was shit for the entire world, but the idea that some of *uncreative*'s actions were good because they helped take us out of that is also absurd. I mean, there are ways to solve economic depression that aren't warfare.

Its not about my religous idol at all, its about how unless you're an omnipotent being, you cannot judge what is evil or not for the entire human race, you don't know everyone's point of view, and you don't know the customs of every culture or society. In the Aztec society, human sacrifices were made pretty regularly. To our society, this is pretty evil. To the Aztecs, it was a great honor to be sacrificed, and sacrificing wasn't evil, but actually an act of good to their Gods. What makes our society right and the Aztecs wrong? Its not like the Aztecs were some kind of morally deficient lawless vagrants, they were a cohesive and very advanced society.

You missed my point here entirely. I wasn't talking about murdering civilians, I was talking about war in general. Its like the American Revolution, we thought our soldiers were patriots, British people though we were terrorists. Same thing with the Israeli-Palestine conflict. Same thing with every conflict, they have more than 1 side, and it depends who is telling the story who the evil ones are. My point, evil is a point of view not something any nation or man or state can decide.

Again, you completly miss what I was saying. I'm not saying he was good because he got us out of our deppression, thats stupid. After WWI Germany was basically annihilated, economically, politically, everything. When the deppression hit, Germany was even more bankrupt. Why do you think *uncreative* got elected into power? He gave hope and promise to the german people, he promised to restore germany to its industrious state, get it back out of debt, and restore the pride of the German people. And unlike most politicians, he delivered on those promises.

#86 Blue Beetle (Jamie Reyes)

Blue Beetle (Jamie Reyes)

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 652 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 January 2011 - 07:56 AM

What about child molestation? Isn't that an universal act of evil? I mean, can you tell me any context in which child r-a-p-e is not considered an act of evil?

#87 force_echo

force_echo

    Pretentious, Obnoxious, Annoying...humanity's last hope

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC
  • Interests:Anything Interesting

Posted 09 January 2011 - 08:38 AM

What about child molestation? Isn't that an universal act of evil? I mean, can you tell me any context in which child r-a-p-e is not considered an act of evil?

Back in the day (I believe Sirmethos mentioned this) whenever a serf got married, their noble reserved the right to have sex with the maiden. Even if the maiden didn't want to. It wasn't considered evil, it was a law to convince Lords into Britain in the king's plot to unify Scotland and Britain. Plus the fact that back then some girls got married off at the age of like 13 to people they didn't even know for political reasons. The men were almost certainly older. Its basically legalized molestation.

#88 Ruinus

Ruinus

    Plebiscite Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,154 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SupaFreedomland AKA USA
  • Interests:Star Wars, Guilty Gear, Guns N' Roses, astronomy, school, English, reading, science fiction, drawing, video games and playing guitar.

Posted 09 January 2011 - 01:32 PM

Its not about my religous idol at all, its about how unless you're an omnipotent being, you cannot judge what is evil or not for the entire human race, you don't know everyone's point of view, and you don't know the customs of every culture or society. In the Aztec society, human sacrifices were made pretty regularly. To our society, this is pretty evil. To the Aztecs, it was a great honor to be sacrificed, and sacrificing wasn't evil, but actually an act of good to their Gods. What makes our society right and the Aztecs wrong? Its not like the Aztecs were some kind of morally deficient lawless vagrants, they were a cohesive and very advanced society.


And I am telling you that this is nonsense. You don't have to be omnipotent to be able to reason out what is obviously evil or harmful and what is not. Look, I'll do it right now.

Murder = evil
R ape = evil
Slavery = evil

As for your Aztec example IF the human sacrifices went willingly, then it is neither an evil or good act. I have no problem with someone being killed if they genuinely want to die (suicide, euthanasia etc: so long as they are in the right frame of mind to make such a decision (ie not crazy).

IF on the other hand, the human sacrifices didn't go willingly (such as slaves or POWs) then yes, it is murder and wrong no matter what era you are in.

You missed my point here entirely. I wasn't talking about murdering civilians, I was talking about war in general. Its like the American Revolution, we thought our soldiers were patriots, British people though we were terrorists. Same thing with the Israeli-Palestine conflict. Same thing with every conflict, they have more than 1 side, and it depends who is telling the story who the evil ones are. My point, evil is a point of view not something any nation or man or state can decide.


This might come to a shock to you, but there are some people who think all wars are evil (except maybe WWII), because they are the needless conflict between nations over petty things.

Again, you completly miss what I was saying. I'm not saying he was good because he got us out of our deppression, thats stupid. After WWI Germany was basically annihilated, economically, politically, everything. When the deppression hit, Germany was even more bankrupt. Why do you think *uncreative* got elected into power? He gave hope and promise to the german people, he promised to restore germany to its industrious state, get it back out of debt, and restore the pride of the German people. And unlike most politicians, he delivered on those promises.


And? Really, so? This proves what, that some evil men can do acts of good?

#89 Ruinus

Ruinus

    Plebiscite Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,154 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SupaFreedomland AKA USA
  • Interests:Star Wars, Guilty Gear, Guns N' Roses, astronomy, school, English, reading, science fiction, drawing, video games and playing guitar.

Posted 09 January 2011 - 01:38 PM

Back in the day (I believe Sirmethos mentioned this) whenever a serf got married, their noble reserved the right to have sex with the maiden. Even if the maiden didn't want to. It wasn't considered evil, it was a law to convince Lords into Britain in the king's plot to unify Scotland and Britain.


And again, who the hell cares if it isn't considered evil? R ape, even if it's dressed up as a political tool, is still a basic violation of human rights and forces an unwanted and traumatizing act on a person.

I mean really, what's with this stuff about saying "Well, X act was tolerated at some point in time, so it must not be evil!" I mean really, look at your claims, simply because there was a law that said "X is ok!" then the act is no longer evil? So slavery was not evil? Segregation?

Plus the fact that back then some girls got married off at the age of like 13 to people they didn't even know for political reasons. The men were almost certainly older. Its basically legalized molestation.


Who cares if its legalized?

EDIT: BTW force_echo, you didn't even answer Blue Beetle (Jamie Reyes)'s question. He asked you in what context is child molestation or r ape not evil. You responded that sometimes it was accepted. Accepted =/= good. Unacceptable =/= evil. You didn't supply any reasoning, at all, as to why you think ra pe and child molestation was not evil in your example other than saying "There was a law that allowed it."

#90 Ruinus

Ruinus

    Plebiscite Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,154 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SupaFreedomland AKA USA
  • Interests:Star Wars, Guilty Gear, Guns N' Roses, astronomy, school, English, reading, science fiction, drawing, video games and playing guitar.

Posted 09 January 2011 - 01:43 PM

let me ask you a question then, are animals, dogs, cats, bears, eagles, snakes, etc. etc. etc. capable of being evil?( i know it seems nonsensical, but bare with me)


No, they don't have the mental capabilities to be either or, they are amoral creatures.

#91 Nilan

Nilan

    Part of the Rag-Tag Fugitive Fleet

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,217 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Colombo, Sri Lanka

Posted 09 January 2011 - 01:48 PM

Both my paternal and maternal grandmothers were about 14 when they were married and 15 when first pregnant. The problem with statutory *insensitivity*, child molestation, under-age sex etc is that the standards of acceptance vary from culture to culture.

To call it a universal evil is tricky, we would have no idea which standards we ought to use.

#92 bigballerju

bigballerju

    The Last Son of Krypton

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,316 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hollywood, Florida
  • Interests:Sports, Women, Comics, Games, Music, Clubs, Movies, and more.

Posted 09 January 2011 - 02:54 PM

LOL what happened to this thread?

#93 Ruinus

Ruinus

    Plebiscite Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,154 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SupaFreedomland AKA USA
  • Interests:Star Wars, Guilty Gear, Guns N' Roses, astronomy, school, English, reading, science fiction, drawing, video games and playing guitar.

Posted 09 January 2011 - 04:07 PM

Moral relativism.

What I find kinda funny is that AVP vs The Terminator kept posting "Shut up" comments instead of posting comments of his own. I mean, it's not like me, force_echo, Nilan or Twogunkid's comment's suddenly prevent everyone else from posting.

#94 LegendX

LegendX

    Part of the Rag-Tag Fugitive Fleet

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,154 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sparks,nv
  • Interests:MMA, pro wrestling, muscle cars, sport bikes, pitbulls, Star Wars, Star Trek, hip hop, stand-up comedy and the philosophy of pointlessly, useless stuff.

Posted 09 January 2011 - 04:19 PM

That's because the topic is titled "Who is the most evil?" not "How do you define evil?"

#95 sirmethos

sirmethos

    A Man of the People

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,142 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Denmark

Posted 09 January 2011 - 04:21 PM

No, they don't have the mental capabilities to be either or, they are amoral creatures.


in that case, how is R ape, 'evil'?

it happens among several different animal species, for example ducks, moles and dolphins, just to name a few.


slavery also exists amongst animals, for example ants that enslave the survivors of the opposing colony after 'war' between two ant colonies.



i will say again, these acts are only considered 'evil', because we have been raised that way, because that is the way our society has been built.

evil, is a purely subjective term. if you had been raised differently, then you might honestly think, that murder, slavery, or involuntary sex, was not evil.


subjectively, i definitely agree that all of the above mentioned acts are evil. but not objectively so.

#96 Ruinus

Ruinus

    Plebiscite Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,154 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SupaFreedomland AKA USA
  • Interests:Star Wars, Guilty Gear, Guns N' Roses, astronomy, school, English, reading, science fiction, drawing, video games and playing guitar.

Posted 09 January 2011 - 05:27 PM

in that case, how is R ape, 'evil'?

it happens among several different animal species, for example ducks, moles and dolphins, just to name a few.

slavery also exists amongst animals, for example ants that enslave the survivors of the opposing colony after 'war' between two ant colonies.


I consider animals amoral because they don't have the ability to think and reason beyond their base instincs. The Slavemaker Ants are driven on biological impulse and instince, so are all the other animals. They don't have the capability to stop and think about their action, they are simply being puppeteered along by biology.

Humans, on the other hand, do have the ability to stop and think about their actions and write up the math on their actions.

i will say again, these acts are only considered 'evil', because we have been raised that way, because that is the way our society has been built.

evil, is a purely subjective term. if you had been raised differently, then you might honestly think, that murder, slavery, or involuntary sex, was not evil.

subjectively, i definitely agree that all of the above mentioned acts are evil. but not objectively so.


And I say this: Some acts, such as the mentioned murder, slavery and r ape are always evil, no matter what a certain society thinks. You and force_echo are looking at evil as how a society views certain things, I am looking at the act itself.

To use the R example you guys keep bringing up. As you mentioned, the vikings didn't mind it, and some societies had ritual or political R. No one thought it was bad. Or a math analogy, would be the vikings going "I don't think 1+1=2, I think it equals 7."

I say that to judge an act on morality, you have to look at the act itself, not how the society views it. I don't care, as noted before, if a society once though slavery or R or murder was fine and dandy and accepted, the act itself still results in unneeded harm, restricted freedom and wrongful and unwanted termination of human life. Analogy is "1+1=2 no matter what society makes the math."

Or think of it this way. Even in that viking society, r ape is unneeded is it not? They can reproduce in other ways. The ra pe is unwanted, and presumably violent. It causes harm to the victim. It can result in an unwanted pregnancy or STD. It is, no matter how a society views it, a completely unnecessary and violent and violating act that causes great harm to the victim. It is regressing to baser biological urges and instincts that, frankly, cannot be tolerated by a race of self aware and intelligent beings with empathy.

Or to put it another way. I don't care how the perpetrator views his acts, I care about the result of his acts. The results can be viewed by everyone, they can be judged by everyone. Saying that it is acceptable is about the same as saying "Well that girl was asking for it, what with her skimpy clothing."

Oh, and so people don't complain this is off topic:
Aggressive Menace from I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream:

"HATE. LET ME TELL YOU HOW MUCH I'VE COME TO HATE YOU SINCE I BEGAN TO LIVE. THERE ARE 387.44 MILLION MILES OF PRINTED CIRCUITS IN WAFER THIN LAYERS THAT FILL MY COMPLEX. IF THE WORD HATE WAS ENGRAVED ON EACH NANOANGSTROM OF THOSE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF MILES IT WOULD NOT EQUAL ONE ONE-BILLIONTH OF THE HATE I FEEL FOR HUMANS AT THIS MICRO-INSTANT FOR YOU. HATE. HATE."

He kills off all of humanity except 5, 4 men and 1 woman. It then torments/tortures them everymoment of their lives and makes them kill each other. When only 1 of them remains AM realizes that if he dies it'll have no one to take out it's hatred on. It turns the last living human into a blob that is unable to die, immortal, and tortures him forever.

#97 force_echo

force_echo

    Pretentious, Obnoxious, Annoying...humanity's last hope

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC
  • Interests:Anything Interesting

Posted 09 January 2011 - 05:37 PM

And again, who the hell cares if it isn't considered evil? R ape, even if it's dressed up as a political tool, is still a basic violation of human rights and forces an unwanted and traumatizing act on a person.

I mean really, what's with this stuff about saying "Well, X act was tolerated at some point in time, so it must not be evil!" I mean really, look at your claims, simply because there was a law that said "X is ok!" then the act is no longer evil? So slavery was not evil? Segregation?



Who cares if its legalized?

EDIT: BTW force_echo, you didn't even answer Blue Beetle (Jamie Reyes)'s question. He asked you in what context is child molestation or r ape not evil. You responded that sometimes it was accepted. Accepted =/= good. Unacceptable =/= evil. You didn't supply any reasoning, at all, as to why you think ra pe and child molestation was not evil in your example other than saying "There was a law that allowed it."

Sigh, how commons sense is so rare. If it was a largely accepted aprt of life, it was not evil to their society. They didn't deem it evil. So therefore since your moralistic views hold no more value than theirs, it is a matter of opinion whether it is evil. If I say something is evil, and you say something is not, you're not automatically right, no matter how much you think so.

#98 force_echo

force_echo

    Pretentious, Obnoxious, Annoying...humanity's last hope

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC
  • Interests:Anything Interesting

Posted 09 January 2011 - 05:44 PM

And I am telling you that this is nonsense. You don't have to be omnipotent to be able to reason out what is obviously evil or harmful and what is not. Look, I'll do it right now.

Murder = evil
R ape = evil
Slavery = evil

As for your Aztec example IF the human sacrifices went willingly, then it is neither an evil or good act. I have no problem with someone being killed if they genuinely want to die (suicide, euthanasia etc: so long as they are in the right frame of mind to make such a decision (ie not crazy).

IF on the other hand, the human sacrifices didn't go willingly (such as slaves or POWs) then yes, it is murder and wrong no matter what era you are in.



This might come to a shock to you, but there are some people who think all wars are evil (except maybe WWII), because they are the needless conflict between nations over petty things.



And? Really, so? This proves what, that some evil men can do acts of good?

You seem to missing the point of my debate here. I am not debating what is evil and what is good, because, in my opinion all of the above things you mentioned are evil. I am debating that evil is only a point of view and there is no right view.

Yes, and there are people who think wars are not evil at all, but natural and sometimes justified. This is my point, which you seem to be again, horribly missing. It is your opinion, you cannot prove that the first person in the above statement is right over the second person.

There are many people who believe murder of POWs is not horrible at all, they are POWs, they're people are killing yours, they deserve to die. Again, you cannot justify that either way.

No, it proves that to many people, *uncreative* was not evil at all, and it proves the complexity involved in human nature that makes issues of such gravity more complex than "he was evil" and "he wasn't".

Again, for the Aztec example, I am debating whether something sacrificing human beings is good or evil, I am debating that the Aztecs something most people consider evil as good.

#99 Ruinus

Ruinus

    Plebiscite Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,154 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SupaFreedomland AKA USA
  • Interests:Star Wars, Guilty Gear, Guns N' Roses, astronomy, school, English, reading, science fiction, drawing, video games and playing guitar.

Posted 09 January 2011 - 05:48 PM

Sigh, how commons sense is so rare. If it was a largely accepted aprt of life, it was not evil to their society. They didn't deem it evil. So therefore since your moralistic views hold no more value than theirs, it is a matter of opinion whether it is evil. If I say something is evil, and you say something is not, you're not automatically right, no matter how much you think so.


Again, who the hell cares what the society thinks if acceptable or not?

Again, is the ra pe not:
unnecessary
violent
unwanted
can lead to severe complications? STDs and pregnancy

Seriously, how is this so hard? The action, no matter the society, is a basic violation of human rights, violates the person's sense of freedom, can cause physical and psyhological scars and is an unnecessary act of violence against another human being. I mean really, it's acceptable because the people at the time were too stupid to realize what they were doing?

EDIT: So I don't have to reply to your other post: I am arguing that your view that evil is subject and depends on a point of view is wrong. Some acts can be objectively considered evil, the opinion and point of view doesn't matter (unless there are extreme extenuating circumstances).

#100 force_echo

force_echo

    Pretentious, Obnoxious, Annoying...humanity's last hope

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC
  • Interests:Anything Interesting

Posted 09 January 2011 - 05:57 PM

Again, who the hell cares what the society thinks if acceptable or not?

Again, is the ra pe not:
unnecessary
violent
unwanted
can lead to severe complications? STDs and pregnancy

Seriously, how is this so hard? The action, no matter the society, is a basic violation of human rights, violates the person's sense of freedom, can cause physical and psyhological scars and is an unnecessary act of violence against another human being. I mean really, it's acceptable because the people at the time were too stupid to realize what they were doing?

Oh. My. God. You are STILL not getting what I am saying. I wholeheartedly agree that *insensitivity* is a bad thing, but people back then obviously didn't think so, and my moralistic beliefs are no more sound than theirs are. So therefore, noone is right. You think people like that were too stupid to realize what *insensitivity* was? People knew the consequences of raping, its not like females back then enjoyed it or something, the act is the same back then as it is now, and yet they still deemed it an ordinary facet of life




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users