Okay, it seems to me that you fear being romantic and emotionally driven because you think it'll make your intellectual/logical side deteriorate. That isn't true. If you were to become more romantic and fall in love with someone, it would only add to who you are. And especially if you are one who has the logical mentality to withdraw from being emotionally overwhelmed, what harm would it do? How would it make you lose intellect?


I don't mean to say that only love can lead to happiness. Serial killers gain happiness from torturing others. My point is that the amount of happiness that is possible for an evil person is less than a good person.


This is a little confusing. Do you mean I'll have to pollute the entire planet just to feed myself? Or just my lands? I won't pollute the entire Earth just for myself and family. If someone else did that, I'd be super pissed. If it's only the land in my area that gets polluted, then yes, cuz that'll only mean farming isn't possible in that one area anymore.


I've seen her do lots of good things on The Simple Life, including trying to persuade a man from ceasing to hunt deer. I really wouldn't say she's neatral. She might think it's okay to live in her own world sometimes, but for the most part, she is good at heart. Childish, but good.


Very true. But you're making it sound like if "evil" and "stupid" are equal partners. The world can live in peace with stupid people, but not with evil people. I think apathetic people are the ones that allow evil to grow more than stupid people because they just don't give a damn, and an attitude like that allows for anything to happen. Stupid people might be stupid but if they're caring, they might still speak up or at least instictively defend their territory from invaders (evil people).


Oh I can be mercilessly sadistic toward my enemies. Wrath is something I'd love to unleash on them.


You can be loving, romantic, and in love without losing your intellectuality. I consider myself to be logical but I also let myself fall into those orgasmic emotions whenever I can. Love doesn't cloud judgement unless you're illogical about it, I think. Love isn't necessarily a drug that makes you mindless and irrational. It is for some people, clearly, but not all.


Oh honey, don't be so paranoid. Fuck the brains out of people. And hey, condoms are the only thing you need to prevent yourself from having kids.


It depends what they're preying on. If they like to prey in general without any particular taste, then yes, I think you're right. However, like I said, I'd love to sadistically prey on my enemies if I only wouldn't have to suffer the consequences (jail, life sentence, etc.).


Makes sense, but personal gain is what always matters. I never meant to imply that it didn't. The difference is that being good opens you to more pleasure and happiness, so it's the better choice for personal gain, if you think about it. There is more joy, pride, and passion that a good person can feel over an evil person. Let's just be honest, we're all humans and we want to feel pleasure.

The difference between my opinion and yours is that I'd choose to be good but stupid because I'd still be able to feel higher emotions and have higher experiences, while you would choose to be evil because the struggle to gain those emotions and experiences would be easier, less intense, but easier. Evil people just shove anything and anyone out of their way to get what they want while good people actually work for their pleasure. It takes longer and it's harder to reach but when u do, it's far more rewarding. That's why I believe being evil clouds judgement because you'd go after what's fast and cheap instead of what's harder but much more rewarding and pleasurable.


I would still be good cuz I want the most amount of pleasure possible. However, if it were certain that my life would be sheer agony and misery as a good but stupid person, then I would choose to be evil.

I'm saying it might be possible for dolphins and other animals to have morality because they are capable of learning.

Human babies will smack the hell out of each other over toys or food. That doesn't happen easily as adults because we are taught right and wrong.

From a dolphin article....

"At the Institute for Marine Mammal Studies in Mississippi, Kelly the dolphin has quite a reputation. All the institute's dolphins are trained to hold onto any litter that falls into their pools until they see a trainer, when they can trade the litter for fish. Kelly took this task one step further. When people drop paper into the water she hides it under a rock at the bottom of the pool.

The next time a trainer passes, she tears off a piece of paper to give to the trainer. After a fish-reward, she goes back down, tears off another piece of paper, gets another fish, and so on. This behaviour is particularly interesting because it suggests that Kelly has a sense of the future and delays gratification. She has, in effect, trained the humans."

This shows they don't always react on impulse.

Article source....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/animals/features/299feature1.shtml

I don't know. Possible morality in animals is just a theory.

I’d still be a good man I would endure agony and misery as a good person. It would be worth it to stand up for what I believe to be right. I can’t allow myself to give up just because my actions would fail to produce any positive effects.

"Evil prevails when good men fail to act"

-Okay, it seems to me that you fear being romantic and emotionally driven because you think it'll make your intellectual/logical side deteriorate.-

Not at all. I have loved before, and I will love in the future. I have many people that I love currently, just not in the romantic sence. The point I was making was a rehtorical one, not one based on how I will choose to live my life. I was simply stating that love can indeed cloud the logical thought processes of a person, not that it always does. You asked for examples and I gave just that. However you are wrong about one thing: I don't have the ability to keep from being emoitionaly overcome in a heated relationship. I am quite falable in that regard. I actualy do sort of deteriorate whenever someone that I care about greatly is angry at me. That realy only pertains to very intense, hot and cold, types of relatioships though. Which I can avoid by being cautious about which significant others I chose.

-My point is that the amount of happiness that is possible for an evil person is less than a good person.-

And my point is that you seem to beleive that you know things which you don't. How could you know what an evil person feels unless you are evil yourself? I think that you have atendancey to think with your beleifs and not with logic when it comes to these sorts of things. You seem to be missing the fact that your opinion is just that, and not a truth.

-If it's only the land in my area that gets polluted, then yes, cuz that'll only mean farming isn't possible in that one area anymore.-

And this is the very nature of the crisis that the world faces daily. People make decisions based on their own well being instead of the well being of the world. If everyone made this choice, the world would be damaged. So you have, in fact, conceeded to my view of evil vs stupid in this very situation. The amount of damage done is irrelevant because everyone facs choices like this and they compile to do greater damage. Think of the current world situation and you will see this is the case.

-The world can live in peace with stupid people, but not with evil people.-

No, it likely couldn't. The world as we know it could not exist without intelligent people, it would degrade into the very chaos and disharmony that so many fear without them. We would basicaly go back to being one with nature and animalistic. You seem to have overlooked the fact that it is intelligent people who have brought us philosophy religion and science. These things could not continue without intelligence. If this is what you wish for then perhaps you wouldn't mind but the process of getting there would be incredibly bloody.

-You can be loving, romantic, and in love without losing your intellectuality-

Agreed, however the type of a career I wish for will not allow me to have a stable life. I would be raising a child in the most unstable environment imaginable and this I will not allow. I will likely spend 8 months out of a year traveling in order to do what I want. I choose career over family, plain and simple.

-Oh honey, don't be so paranoid. Fuck the brains out of people. And hey, condoms are the only thing you need to prevent yourself from having kids.-

If you beleive that this is true then you need to do alot more research into sexual education. There is no gaurentee that a person will be protected even with condoms and birth controll. Again I choose career over sex.

-It depends what they're preying on. If they like to prey in general without any particular taste, then yes, I think you're right. However, like I said, I'd love to sadistically prey on my enemies if I only wouldn't have to suffer the consequences (jail, life sentence, etc.).-

Then you have stepped far outside the bounds of good already. You have already failed to be what you said you would choose. What you are describing is selective evil, which is still plain evil.

-Makes sense, but personal gain is what always matters. I never meant to imply that it didn't.-

Again this is not a sign of good. This is just a different form of greed.

-That's why I believe being evil clouds judgement because you'd go after what's fast and cheap instead of what's harder but much more rewarding and pleasurable.-

Like for example sex perhaps.....I think perhaps you need to start analyzing your own moral compass a little more closely before you decide it is right and mine is wrong. It seems to me that your view of good is more kindred to some intense type of hedonism than it is any actual spiritual purity.

-I would still be good cuz I want the most amount of pleasure possible. However, if it were certain that my life would be sheer agony and misery as a good but stupid person, then I would choose to be evil.-

So long term, intense, social and emotional pleasure is your cost, and mine is long term intense intellectual pleasure. I think what I have learned here is that you see your views as right, and mine as misguided and corrupt even though you seem to be no more or less moral than I am when we realy get to the core of it. I had a friend that used to have this same arguement with me about love children and such and she failed to understand that while I don't have the same intense type of burning love that she does I have an intellectual peace that she will likely never reach. I am content with who I am and even thrive being such, however to be the opposite would destroy me. I live for intellectual stimulation, not emotional stimulate and it completes me so to speak.

I am not trying to judge your value as a person or your oppinions, but it certainly seems as though you are quick to judge me (and my motives) when I disagree with you. Again I am not angry with you, but I think you may need to open your own views a little in pertenance to this matter. I can fully appreciate your standpoints, and I am very glad there are a few rare people like you out there, however these views and ways of life are not for me. We are just very, very different people and I can accept you as being such. Luckily I don't want or need everyone to think like me, I like to have diversity in my friends.

K.V-I’d still be a good man I would endure agony and misery as a good person. It would be worth it to stand up for what I believe to be right. I can’t allow myself to give up just because my actions would fail to produce any positive effects.- I am sure you believe that but I question how much you would really sacrifice to acheive such an effect. I am not saying that you wouldn't, I am simply saying that we don't truly know untill we are tested. Often the test prooves to be greater than one would ever imagine. Further more I am sure that being a beleiver you cannot comprehend the lack of a god or afterlife internaly enough to sepperate from it. However it should be noted that I am glad to know you feel this way, for it is a sign of a gaurdian trype of mentality and those are amongst my favoirte types of people K.V.-"Evil prevails when good men fail to act"- You are right and this is the sort of evil that I am prone to and was mentioning by saying apathy was a form of evil.

p.s.....ugg again with the media references. Do you live in your t.v.? I didn't even catch that one at first

how can i live in my T.V. thats impossible, unless... its Imax in that case it is possible then again Imax shows movies not T.V. quite the Query.... However on a serious note I accept knowledge from whatever the source and Occasionally I see a concept on TV I can take to heart.

I have an answer for that. We all are. Good and evil are concepts I believe are higher than God. With the gift of free will comes the ability (and responsibility) to choose between the two. Just because someone fails to see that murder is an act of evil does not diminish it's evil just as the light from a lamp isn't diminished just because a person shuts his eyes. So that's why I don't particularly see an "ultimate judge" as an issue because who's the ultimate judge whether it's daytime or nighttime?

I would agree that we are all the judge, but I also believe that has some serious room for arguement. I am not sure that your analogy is fair because it implies an inherent evil as oposed to an imposed evil. For example almost all of us see murder as evil, but we find ways to justify it as well. Some believe murder is ok for justice, some believe it is ok in the case of war, some for self defense, and some simple beleive it is ok when it comes to those that anger them enough. There is a large grey area here I believe, and with most people it seems to come down to what they can justify. So how do we fairly judge this when we can't completely even agree as to what acts are evil?

I would be stupid.

Simply because being evil would leave you alone, given that you would be a complete asshole to everyone.

So, to those saying the want to be evil, perfering intelligence over friends, family, lovers ect... Think, do you want to be smart and alone for the rest of your life? Or the other?

Okay, first of all, I'm not judging you. Anytime I'm saying something here, it's based on my opinions. I'm not trying to necessarily pass it off as fact. If it sounds like if I am, then that's just the way I write. Sorry.

You and I disagree here, and the things is, stupid and evil are not equal, which means that if having to be evil or stupid were a real choice we would have to make, one of the decisions has to be at least somewhat better than the other, because they aren't equal opposites.


Exactly. I don't know the capacity of pleasure an evil person can have because I am not evil, which is why I am using my imagination here. Aren't you?

I'm being logical by saying that lacking the ability to romantically love renders one incapable of feeling emotional pleasure to its greatest level and I have stated why I think that many times already.


But there are also people who choose to be evil over good. That compiles to do greater damage, and there's even average people (like you and I mean no offense. Just an example) that are more leant on being evil if they were to ever have to make a choice which compiles the possible damage even further.

You'd be evil for the sake of your intelligence and freedom, and I'd poison a few acres of land to spare my family and I from starvation. Both examples here are examples of greed.


Yeah, but we'd still be able to live without murderers and people that cast dark times over millions of people. So it's all a matter of preference in this case.


I know condoms don't guarantee full protection from pregnancy. I was just trying to give you a little a little push to get you to think more playingfully about sex instead of fearing it for possible situations that are unlikely to happen with protection.


No, that wouldn't be doing evil, it's nature. Revenge is a natural desire. Being evil would mean I have made the choice to selfishly harm innocent people to get to where I want.

Is it evil to harm evil? Or Is revenge just a way of balancing things out? I find revenge to be natural, not something heartless. So if Hitler were to appear before the millions he hurt and they decided to torture him, that would be evil?

I don't think the idea of a child wanting to hurt the man who killed his mother is evil. I don't think a girl wanting revenge on a sadistic gang because they sliced off her legs is evil. I don't think a teenager wanting revenge on tormenting classmates is evil. I find that all rather natural and healthy.


But it is natural to want personal pleasure. That's what we do. That's what everyone does. The difference between a good and evil person is that the good person will exchange pleasure between other people while the evil person will not and only snatch what he can on his own or maybe only a few people (such as his partners or helpers).


No, I was talking about emotional pleasures. Sex is physical pleasure.


I thought we weren't putting spiritual concepts into this? In either case, is it wrong to prefer being good for the sake of both hedonism and spiritual purity? You're opinion is that being evil would grant the better benefit, correct? Well that's simply what I think about being good and for both of these reasons.


I'm confused. Your intellect does not feel. It doesn't have any senses. What is intellectual pleasure? Thoughts don't have sensual orgasms or happiness.

I think what you mean is that you attain your emotional satisfaction through intellectual stimulation. If you had no emotions whatsoever, you would care about nothing at all. You would not care to pursue intelligence. And I don't think I'm basing this on opinion, I think what I'm saying in this particular case is fact. Without emotions, you'd be no better than a robot.

The mind, body, and soul are all linked. Thoughts affect emotions, emotions can affect the body, the body can affect the mind, etc.

Also... "peace" is felt by the heart, not your intellect. The clarity of your thoughts might be what gives you that "peace" feeling, but it's a feeling nonetheless and your thoughts aren't the part of you that senses that.


I completely agree. That was my point about being able to have more pleasure if you're good cuz evil people put emotional barriers between themselves and the rest of the world.

-stupid and evil are not equal, which means that if having to be evil or stupid were a real choice we would have to make, one of the decisions has to be at least somewhat better than the other, because they aren't equal opposites.-

Agreed that they are not equal oposites. However I see it a bit differently. I see it as this: For you stupid would be better for me evil would be better. I think it is simply the nature of the beasts which we are. They are utterly seperate but neither is superior to the other unless a person decides they are.

-I'm being logical by saying that lacking the ability to love renders one incapable of feeling emotional pleasure to its greatest level and I have stated why I think that many times already.-

I understand that. What I am saying is that you seem to beleive so hard in you ideas that you are unwilling to aproach the possibility that they are not correct, or at least not complete.

-But there are also people who choose to be evil over good. That compiles to do greater damage, and there's even average people (like you and I mean no offense. Just an example) that are more leant on being evil if they were to ever have to make a choice which compiles the possible damage even further.You'd be evil for the sake of your intelligence and freedom, and I'd poison a few acres of land to spare my family and I from starvation. Both examples here are examples of greed.-

I once heard a very wise man say that all evil stars with a lie. This is something I try to think on as often as possible. It is a complicated subject and justifications are a form of lying to yourself. I guess I feel as thoug hyou are oversimplifying the subject.

-Yeah, but we'd still be able to live without murderers and people that cast dark times over millions of people. So it's all a matter of preference in this case.-

I don't think we would. Sooner or later we would simply die off as a species without our intelligence. It is realy the only major reason we have made it this far, aside from having thumbs. I truly beleive we would not have survived as a species without heigher level intellgence.

-I know condoms don't guarantee full protection from pregnancy. I was just trying to give you a little a little push to get you to think more playingfully about sex instead of fearing it for possible situations that are unlikely to happen with protection.-

I appreciate the atempt as can I see the good motivation of it, but in this situation the risk (unwanted children or disease) far outweighs the reward (momentary pleasure) for me. Sex has never been one of my biggest concern on truth, it is only a temporary pleasure. Not a more long term pleasure as you are so fond of speaking about. Don't get me wrong, it is very fun, but not as much of a pleasure as using my intellect or even humor for that matter.

-No, that wouldn't be doing evil, it's nature. Revenge is a natural desire. Being evil would mean I have made the choice to selfishly harm innocent people to get to where I want.Is it evil to harm evil? Or Is revenge just a way of balancing things out? I find revenge to be natural, not something heartless. So if Hitler were to appear before the millions he hurt and they decided to torture him, that would be evil?I don't think the idea of a child wanting to hurt a man who killed his mother is evil. I don't think a girl wanting revenge on a sadistic gang because they sliced off her legs is evil. I don't think a teenager wanting revenge on tormenting classmates is evil. I find that all rather natural and healthy.-

Just because something is natural does not mean it is good, or even nuetral. Greed, lust, hatred, all of these are natural as well. Revenge is little more than acting out on these feelings in order to gain justice or emotional comfort. Revenge is not a trait of good, it is nuetral at best, you have to see this. Is it evil to harm evil? Interesting question. Most religions would say yes. I think many wise people would teach that revenge corrupts the soul. I think you are trying to use extreme examples which, in this case, does not cover
the whole idea. You said your enemies, you didn't specify what an enemy is to you, so for all I know you could mean everyone you dislike. I had no idea you meant to such an extreme.

-I thought we weren't putting spiritual concepts into this? In either case, is it wrong to prefer being good for the sake of both hedonism and spiritual purity?

I don't remember ever saying anything like that. Did I forget or miss something? It has become fairly difficult to sift through all we have wrote at this point. Hedonism is a philosophy not a spiritual pursuit, by the way. What I was saying is that your views of good and evil seem to be entirely wrapped around what brings you pleasure without causing others pain, and not at all about actualy doing anything unselfish. I don't see that as true good, that simply sounds like hedonism with a conscience. I am not saying it is evil, just that it is not realy what most think of as truly good.

-You're opinion is that being evil would grant the better benefit, correct? Well that's simply what I think about being good.-
I think if you look back you will realize that it was you who chalenged my opinion by saying this:

-5animals, why would you be evil if u had to make a choice? So you'd rather be a heartless maniac than someone dumb but capable of share a sweet cuddly night under moonlight with me? Think about it. You lose more than you gain from being evil.-

You were directly chalanging my oppinion and I responded by explaining it to you. If we were going to simply state our opinions and then move on this would have ended after my responce. I thought we had clearly decided to debate it for fun. So why would you now take the postion of a person in an intellectual stalemate? Was I being to harsh in my arguemnts? I did not intend to be. Nor did I intend to make you feel like you were wrong. I was simply debating for the sake of both of us gaining some knoweldge, and probably being competetive a little bit while I was at it.

-I'm confused. Your intellect does not feel. It doesn't have any senses. What is intellectual pleasure? Thoughts don't have sensual orgasms or happiness.-

I did not say intellectual pleasure, I said intellectual stimulation. Which means the usage and growth of my mind and intellect. That is something removed from emotion.

-I think what you mean is that you attain your emotional satisfaction through intellectual stimulation. If you had no emotions whatsoever, you would care about nothing at all. You would not care to pursue intelligence. And I don't think I'm basing this on opinion, I think what I'm saying in this particular case is fact. Without emotions, you'd be no better than a robot.-

I did not say I had no emotions, I said that without my intellect I would not thrive, I would not be content. Obviously I have feelings, and most evil people would have feelings as well. I was stating that you are much more concerned with feeling emotional pleasure, where as I am much more concerned with intellectual growth. I am not saying we don't both share those traits t osome degree, I am stating that we have them to different levels. You seem to be driven by your emotions, where as I am driven by my intellect. There is nothing wrong with either, it just seems to be the way it is.

-The mind, body, and soul are all linked. Thoughts affect emotions, emotions can affect the body, the body can affect the mind, etc.
Also... "peace" is felt by the heart, not your intellect. The clarity of your thoughts might be what gives you that "peace" feeling, but it's a feeling nonetheless and your thoughts aren't the part of you that senses that. -

Peace is nothing but a word. It is what that word represents that is important. Peace is not just a feeling, it has several meanings. For example if waters are peacefull they are still. If a country is at peace it means there is no war, no civil unrest. If a persons mind is at peace, it means that it has stopped searching, stopped picturing, stopped analyzing. I have a very hard time finding mental quiet if you will, though I have an easy time finding emotional peace. I often jump three sentances ahead of a conversation in my own mind while still carrying on a perfect dialog. In chess I pick several moves ahead of what I am doing. I often have no idea what I am doing at the given moment because I am overwhelmed by whatever I am thining about. Whenever I hear a person say something I am analyzing the deeper meaning even as I hear the words. It sounds like it would be a gift, but actualy it is a bit of a curse. It makes it quite hard for me to be even mildly normal, or to even pretend to be so. It is a bit like a.d.d. except for the fact that I can concentrate equisetly, I just can't shut it off. It is a curse of sorts, but it lends me to being very successfull at whatever I choose to do. I realy don't know how else to put it other than by saying my mind is a hard thing for me to slow down. If I try to sleep at night, my mind keeps me awake. I often get up in the middle of the night to read, write, debate with you , or simply turn on the t.v. to shut out my own thoughts. They are rarely even bad thoughs, just very energetic ones. There is little emotion to it, except the frustration that it latter causes from exhaustion. In order for me to even remain healthy and balanced I basicaly have to burn out my mind by taking in major amounts of information, and outputting theory. That or I need to completely drown out my own thoughts by some type of vice or stimulation. (I turned to knowledge and games luckily, as oposed to drugs) I have an extremely overactive mind that destroys my structural stability if left unused. It is more than just emoitional, as you have pointed out all things are interconnected. Does that make more sence?

I truly hope that none of what I said upset you, I was not intending to insult your views. I was actualy hopping to open all of our minds to new ideas, or to new degrees of ideas as far as morality is concerned. I had not even intended to single you out, you just presented the most opposition. In specific I have noticed that you have the tendency to get very aggresive or even angry when people disagree with you and do not relent, and I beleive this can cause a person to be closed minded about certain subjects. I guess I was hopping that I could show you this without insulting you, simply as a means of constructive criticism. The only reason I would ever bother to do this for someone is because I respect them and want to help them grow as a person. I would not do this as an attempt to look down on them. As per usual though, I inadvertantly did so in a harsh and overcomplicated manor. However you have made me think alot in the process as well, and I feel as though I have gained a new perspective on my own morality and of the nature of good and evil. I am not quite prepared to put it into solid thoughts, but it is lingering in the backgound somewhere turining into wisdom

This has been a true pleasure, I am just unsure if there is realy any more that we can debate without simply saying yes and no. If anyone thinks of something, or wisehs to disagree with me I will be here. I just need to let it go for a little bit and absorb what I have learned.

Allow me to clarify. When I say murder (this is for future reference too) I most often always mean the criminal act of intentionally killing someone with the death as the ultimate goal. Obviously killing in self defense isn't in the same league because killing the person isn't so much the goal but the means to reach a different goal; to survive.

But consider this: A guy is robbing your house but he's clearly unarmed. You sneak up on him and break his neck. Now, depending on whether or not the jury buys that you felt you were in mortal danger you may be cleared of all charges or may be convicted of voluntary manslaughter. Because the guy was robbing your house does killing him without absolute need count as a lesser evil than if you went out and just shot someone for the hell of it? Most people would say yes. So in a lot of ways good and evil may not be relative to what specifically constitutes good and evil but the...amount...of good and evil is relative to the situation itself. I think that's where a lot of the confusion comes into play.

We tend to believe that certain actions have an innate morality or amorality. Charity is moral. Killing is amoral. But I think most people see it like a scale. How much morality and amorality varies based on the situation surrounding the actions. A lot of people would also consider the intent of the actor while performing the action to matter as well. Is donating to the poor because you believe it's the right thing to do worthy of more "moral points" than donating to the poor because you want to be celebrated as a giving person?

Betrayal you say? Yes, I am well weathered the trait. Give and Take = Loyalty. Superficial? Sure. But are the objectives and Goals worthy? Likely yes as well.
Business is an "evil" trade to par-take in...and I am.......effective.

I wouldn't contest leadership or command so much as simply prove the point.
Also, sentinals require programming, and weapons require motivation to do..what they do....

Ah yes, the people. People are the one greatest weapon we'd acquire outside of land//sea itself. Influence the people, and they will give up the power and land to us.

As far as disposal, systematics have proven painfully adequate. Micromanagment and it's pit-falls allow them distraction from our objectives and goals. "Thier usefullness" implies that they will come close to effecting the mission...nah, they will all have "occupations".

---
Answers:

1. a. "It's a mistake in about-facing the crooked-I keep the Foes like the "King", send the Rook...."

b. "I keep the Devil close cuz' you know he's the enemy too,
I gotta small circle. The more friendly, the strict-er the rules...."

-ThePredator151-

2. Not a Star Wars Advocate....I truely only skim the franchise.

__________________________



Well, I like relativity as much as the next guy but, I don't view "evil" like that.

I look at it subjectivly though the crime, and intent. If a guy robs another guy for his.....his shoes(for instance), a trail is in order. They way I was grromed was to beleive that, if the intent doesn't justify the crime you shouldn't be doing it. If that guy got caught, and was stealing because he suffers from some deficiency(wealth, or plague) he should be punished, but fore-"given" a pair of shoes. "Don't do it again, here's some shoes".

If he was simply stealing because that was a "cool shoe" to have at the time, he should be punished in the same fasion that he comitted the crime. "How do you like it now that it's it happened to you?(take his shoes)...and you better not do it again."

Punish and Teach. Confinement and Reposession are good tools to use in this senario. Then of course, we delve into what the fair trade off isand so forth.

"Evil" is worse than the guy stealing via mis-wealth or plague. Evil is also worse than the guy stealing for spite. I view evil closer to definition, or by pure interpretation, which by my standards, is malicious harm or maliciously seeking a gain with-out regaurd for the consequences. It's to where that person(s) will get so far before the repercussions of their actions catch up with them....and in just the same fasion as their evil actions sewed for them...




I don't believe any murder is "o.k. myself. But I do believe that the situation that allowed murder to happen should be punished accordingly. Type of malicia vs the Type of justification.
People like to reason now. So simply put, trial should always be associated with murder. The intent of a murder should always be questioned, even in those self-defense situation.

At the same time though, I do agree. "Reasoning" itself creates a vast grey area.



Blur the line....If a person harmed you in a multitude of ways, from mentality to physically, the title of the charge against you for murder will change if you kill that person. The crime of "Pre-Meditated Murder in the 1st Degree".....but it was also Self-Defense.




Good point. "Motive" and "Circumstance" should play a part in the punishment in that case.




Scale, Intent, and the Situation surrounding the actions it is.

Both the donating situations are subject to "other peoples view of you" so I generally don't care....I'll feel the "eyes of others" on me if they think I was supposed to at a time, but I missed-to-donate. But it doesn't distract me too much...If I don't live, I can't//won't give. I hear what you're saying though abuot the cudos points for morality. I think that there still remains a fact in either....the fact that you donated..or not. heh

That's enough for now...whether I'm finished here or not.

I didn't mean to turn this into an argument of any sort. It's just a mild debate over a ficticious idea. The thing is, you choose evil and I choose stupid but both of our reasons are for entirely different things. You want survival and I want pleasure. Therefore, I don't think you and I are going to agree on whether being stupid or evil is the more beneficial choice because we are not seeing this on the same level.

I feel that your opinions are incomplete sometimes here too.... Survival correct? But survival in what way? Are you referring to your chances of staying alive in a war? Staying alive if the world starts to run out of food? Staying alive in a natural disaster? Staying alive if you become diseased?

Survival isn't always reached the same way. You think being evil would be the better choice because it means you aren't tied down to helping others and can fully focus on yourself, but there is no need to shove people out of your way if you become diseased, for example.

And yeah like I said, being evil doesn't promise that you won't be prey. So in that case, the question this topic brings up should have been explained far more specifically because stupid and evil aren't exactly simple concepts. You've brought up "grayness" instead of just good and evil, but that wasn't an option you provided at the beginning of this topic. See what I'm saying?


And what is the purpose of a lie? Isn't it to fool people to get what you want? Greed or selfishness?

When I lie, it's because I don't want to get in trouble. Rather than letting the problem get solved or finished by saying "Yes, it was me," I lie to spare myself from embarrassment or from looking stupid or weak. (For example).


I think you've made it seem like if choosing to be "stupid" in this topic would mean having to be braindead. Paris Hilton, we've agreed she's stupid but she isn't braindead. She can work cell phones, be creative, make jokes, think about things, etc. What I thought you meant by "stupid" was just stupid for humans, as in slow to learn or grasp complex ideas and thoughts, but you make it seem like if the "stupid" you were suggesting is more on the lines of total brainlessness and lack of any possible innovation or thought.

If the world were as stupid as Paris, I actually do think science would still exist, except it would grow much, much more slowly. Even stupid humans are smarter than animals, so I don't believe we would be totally living by nature and pure instincts.


It might not be good because it doesn't necessitate making others happy or whatever, but revenge is something healthy to me. Evil exists in human nature so I don't think it's fair to say that good people aren't good if they commit such religious crimes like lust and revenge.

Same thing for evil people... If an evil person is walking down the street, has someone smile at him, and then he smiles back... Does that make him good? It doesn't change the fact that he has a dark soul and sinister desires for the most part. He is still evil, even if he gives off a sweet smile sometimes.


You said you would be good for the sake of going to heaven but that in "THIS" world you would choose to be evil. (Note an exact quote). So because you continue to say you'd be evil, I thought spiritual concepts we'ren't allowed in this because otherwise, you'd be saying that you'd be good.

So we canbring spiritual concepts, such as heaven into this? The notion of heaven counts? In that case, how would choosing to be evil be the wiser decision? How would it benefit you more? (And I'm not attacking you.)


Can't doing unselfish acts bring pleasure? To establish romantic relationships, you need to be unselfish at times. It's a process of giving and taking love, not just taking.


But we are debating for fun. Maybe I should throw in more "LOLs" into my posts to keep that clear. I don't know.

Anyway...


You said this... "So long term, intense, social and emotional pleasure is your cost, and mine is long term intense intellectual pleasure."


I didn't say you didn't. I was just giving an example of why I think emotional pleasure is everyone's ultimate pursuit, whether it is obtained through intellectual stimulation like you, or something else.


Peace is an abstact concept; what one can experience only through feeling.


You said.... "I don't have the same intense type of burning love that she does I have an intellectual peace that she will likely never reach."

So I was referring to "peace" in the sense of it being a human feeling not something like water standing still. I know the word "peace" can mean different things.


Yes, but I think in your case, you heed your thoughts too much. Your mind is too overused. Why not focus yourself on emotional or bodily experiences sometimes? There is much to learn about your body's energy and soul instead of just what your mind can analyze all the time.

I consider myself to be pretty balanced in how much I use my mind, body, and soul. I like intellectual stimulation (mind), sex and energetic body experiences like dancing and playing and of course eating (body), and I also enjoy romance and those juicy warm feelings that sweet experiences or even movies can make me feel.

Maybe I'm crazy, but I consider myself more open-minded than most people because of this.

And I'm open-minded to your decision in this topic, but I think I'm just not convinced that it would the more beneficial choice.

LOL.

QS(TB)-But survival in what way-

Well obviously surviving something that is medical requires help from a higher source, which would be found in the form of doctors. This has little to do with good and evil and more to do with how much money you have. Take magic johnson for example. He is surviving well with H.I.V. because he has a very high dollar doctor, all the treatment options in the world and is in incredible shape for a person his age. I would argue that a talented person would be in a better postition to have such treatments, which definetly strengthens the position of an evil person vs. a stupid person. I was stating that a person would be more likely to survive if they choose the more logical path, and not the moral one. Such as in our idea about the farm land and pollution. I don't know how you wouldn't see that as the truth, but clearly evil people gain where moral people fail. Contrary to the popular myth, cheaters do win in many regards. All in all though a person would have a much stronger chance of survival if they were ruthless, cold, and calculating, much as a predator is when on the hunt. Clearly this does not apply to every aspect of life, but it does apply to such things as buisness, politics, war, self defense, sports, and hell even video games Cold calculating people are much more effective and dangerous in most regards. This is not to say that they are better but they are much more likely to succeed and thrive. This should be obvious if you take a look at the history of the world. Look at nature. Let's take the shark, one of natures most cunning predators. Does it have remorse fore its prey? Does it use honor, nobility, or fairness as a tactic? Does it care at all fro the individual being eaten? No it simply takes what it wants and because of this grows stronger and thrives. There is a lesson to be learned from such strength.

-You've brought up "grayness" instead of just good and evil, but that wasn't an option you provided at the beginning of this topic. See what I'm saying?-

I think we have moved far beyond the initial premise of the debate and into a different catagory alltogether. I was under the impersion that everyone know there is black white and grey when it comes to these sorts of ideas and therefore, even though it wasn't an initial choice, we could talk about it safely. If I am being incomplete it is because I respect you enough to beleive that you can follow along without needing to take all the baby steps.

-And what is the purpose of a lie? Isn't it to fool people to get what you want? Greed or selfishness?-

I was speaking, as was he, more in terms of lies that one tells themself in order to justify their actions. I speak in symbols frequently, in order to make a person put thought into what I say.

-I think you've made it seem like if choosing to be "stupid" in this topic would mean having to be braindead.-

No braindead is a medical term for lacking any mental function, a person who is braindead cannot even act. You are using very improper terms. I am saying that the person has less than average capacity, as in the inability to comprehend properly the average idea or concept. I think paris hilton is actualy a realy poor example. She is not realy stupid, she is a spoiled little flake that avoids using her intellect. I would say she is more along the lines of ignorant than stupid. She likely has an average or even above average I.Q. If you want to know what I meant by stupid you should look at those below 80 I.Q. which is realy only about 10-15 percent of the world. Around 50 percent of all people are considered to be average intellect, and often we call them stupid which is incorrect. Immagine a person incapable of learning to properly read, incapable of completeing complex thought, or incapable of memorizing more than their entry level times tables. I think your view of stupid includes a larger percentage of the populous than is actualy correct. You are above average intelligence so maybe you view those of average intelligence as stupid, or perhaps you have never met a truly stupid person. If so you are very lucky hehehe.

-Evil exists in human nature so I don't think it's fair to say that good people aren't good if they commit such religious crimes like lust and revenge. Same thing for evil people...-

This is an extemrely closed minded view of good and evil. This basicaly sounds liek a person way of justifying doing harm and still calling themself a good person. I don't realy know what intellectual grounds we could find here, but it is quite unaproachable if you keep that position. Good and evil lies in actions and intent, not in some inherent desire. We all have evil desires, and some combat them, while others give in to them. I truly beleive that there are no good or evil people, just people that choose to do good or evil.

-but revenge is something healthy to me-

Clearly your idea of health is a very..........colorfull one.

-You said you would be good for the sake of going to heaven but that in "THIS" world you would choose to be evil. (Note an exact quote). So because you continue to say you'd be evil, I thought spiritual concepts we'ren't allowed in this because otherwise, you'd be saying that you'd be good. So we can bring spiritual concepts, such as heaven into this? The notion of heaven counts? In that case, how would choosing to be evil be the wiser decision? How would it benefit you more? (And I'm not attacking you.)-


Simple, I do not beleive it exists, but that doesn't mean I don't take it into account. Besides I was not talking about heaven, I was talking about spirituality which can exist without any unified religious beleifs. After all other religions exist, as do other spiritual beleifs. Let me expand on what I said earlier. I do not beleive there is a heaven therefore I choose what I do. That does not mean you are not free to use it as a point, I would never try to deny you that right. If you want to argue for being good because of heaven I will simply state my view on the matter and leave it be, but you are free to voice any opinion you wish. Just because I do not beleive does not mean we cannot talk about it. To take it a little further. Even if heaven exists I cannot say 100 percent that I would be going there even if I do good. Because, by christian standards, (which I presume is your basis) I have to give my eternal sould to Chirst and ask for forgiveness. This is something I would not do even if he were here talking to me now. I will face the consequences of my actions regardless of what they are. That is a matter of being content with ones self more than it is of being good or evil.

-But we are debating for fun. Maybe I should throw in more "LOLs" into my posts to keep that clear. I don't know.-

You missed the point, I am not upset with you. I know you are not being mean. I was stating that by saying this:
-You're opinion is that being evil would grant the better benefit, correct? Well that's simply what I think about being good.-
You have basicaly closed the door for any further debate by saying we are at a stalemate. If that is what you wish than I am o.k. with it, I just thought it odd in the middle of a debate. One could easily view this is a retreat or as a time out if you will.

-You said this... "So long term, intense, social and emotional pleasure is your cost, and mine is long term intense intellectual pleasure."-

Then I simply used the wrong word, it happens from time to time. But later I did reiterate by saying intellectual stimulation. Which is much more accurate. I thrive when I focus on intellect and I degrade when I foucss on the other aspects of myself.

-Peace is an abstact concept; what one can experience only through feeling.-

Again I say that peace is much more than just this, it has many meanings and you are not understanding the one I was using. I often think it symbolism as opposed to the literal, so it is not realy your fault but a failure of mine to properly express this idea to you. I think I already explained this to you, but when I said peace I meant stillness not inner peace like a persons emotions. I meant it much more in the sence of a still water than in the sence of ank kind of emotional balance. My emotions are generaly quite week or still compared to other I know, simply because my mind is dominant. If my emotions become unbalanced it is only because my mind is creating such a situation, even then it is rare for me. I quite litteraly meant intellectual stillness, or the slowing of my mind. This is not emotional in nature at all. It is a matter of using up mental energy untill my mind is exhausted. I am not surprised that you are having a hard time understand me, as I have met very few people that can understand this personal inner conflict that I have.

Think of it like a ball of energy contained in a box. It has an infinitely rechageable power source but produces a limited amount of energy per day. Let us say that sleep recharges this power source. If I use it all the way up, then there is no issue. I simply go to sleep and the cycle begins again. If I do not then........KABOOOM!!! I melt down and I need to vent an extremely large amount of energy or else the box will explode. This usualy result in me being very compulsive and working out, playing music, video games, or writing, for hours on end. Which is o.k, I will live through it, but it makes me a nervous wreck. Does it make more sence now? Can you understand why I have to be mentaly active at all times? Basicaly I am very, very high mental energy, to the point that it disturbs some people. Have you ever noticed that I post at all hours of the night and day? It is because I realy only require around 4 hourse of sleep to be fully functional. Alas.....I am a spaz

-Yes, but I think in your case, you heed your thoughts too much. Your mind is too overused.Why not focus yourself on emotional or bodily experiences sometimes? There is much to learn about your body's energy and soul instead of just what your mind can analyze all the time. -

(please take the following comments to be made in a mellow and carring tone, and not a harsh and condescending one)
This is exactly what I was talking about. You are directly telling me that something is wrong with the way I am because I am not like you, or not like what you think I should be. I am not just a mentaly stimulated person. This is why I am in the physical sciences. I am quite good to my body actauly. I get alot of joy out of working out and improving myself. I also regularly use my emoitins for fun as well. I love sappy, and cute movies, I play video games, I love sports. I am not so narrow as you paint me to be. Just because I refrain from sex, does not mean I do not derive physical pleasure from it. There is nothing wrong with either of us. I just use have a dominant mind, and you are more "intelligent" when it comes to you emotions. This is precisely why I called you closed. There is a difference between disagreeing with someones position and viewing them as flawed. Which is precisely what you are doing if you make comments like the former ones. Saying "I think in your case, you heed your thinks too much." is quite litteraly trying to tell me that I need to change, rather it is what you had meant to do or not. The way I see it is that I am a philosopher and you are more of a muse, or an artistic type if you will. There is nothing wrong with either, but neither of us could fully convert to being like the other.

-Maybe I'm crazy, but I consider myself more open-minded than most people because of this-

Most people beleive they are open minded, it is rare however that a person actualy is. Noone is all the way open minded because they would have no concept of anything solid if they were, but some people are dangerously closed about certain concepts, such as how to be a good person. This is what scientific thinking is all about.

Again I will reiterate that I am happy for you and your choices. I simply do not wish to live, or to think, the way you do. I would not be stable if I lived the way you described. I think if you look back you will see that it was you, and not I, that initialy questioned the others position. Again I say that it seems like you are realy bothered when a person does not agree with you, as I have seen you become quite upset with others on this board when their opinions do not align with yours. I am not insulting you, I like your passion and spirit. It is a rare gift to be so emotive powerfull and yet down to earth. However you realy have no grounds to tell me what I need to do more or less of simply because I disagree with you. It comes out as being very condescending, which is something I have tried to aviod doing to you in return. This is why I have attempted to be more sepcific and to leave you little side notes here and there. I am not mad or even annoyed. I am simply trying to share with you the limited wisdom that I have gained through my own life experience. I would hope you would see this as complimentary.



To TTT: I see exactly what you mean, and I certainly think this is one of those subjects that should not be viewed in a black and white manor. (as you like to point out) Man this thing has gone way beyond what it started as.........I have created a monster!!!

Perdator-At the same time though, I do agree. "Reasoning" itself creates a vast grey area.-

This is what I am trying to push the most. Most people can reason there way into and out of almost any moral dilema. Where as I am trying to be as brutaly honest with myself as possible. The conclusion that I come to is that I would choose my survival and well being over a moral concept. It sounds bad, but I beleive many people would if they were actualy being honest with themself. Basicaly if push comes to shove I am going to do what it takes to ensure the survival of me and mine, regardelss of what happens to the rest of the world. I think most people would do the same, regardless of what religious, moral, or emotional ideas they cling to.

Ugg I just realized how atrocious my grammar and spelling has been. I would edit it, but that would take forever. So I am sorry to those it concerns. I clearly need an editor

There's a famous Socrates argument that is quite closely related to what we're talking about.

I don't know it word for word but the gist of it is that this guy went up to Socrates and said that there are two men, a perfectly just man who everyone believes is unjust and an unjust man who everyone believes is perfectly just. The man asked Socrates why is it better to be a just man if everyone fails to recognize your goodness and why not be the unjust man if everyone celebrates you? In the end, Socrates argued pretty effectively that the just or unjust nature of a person is all that matters. Other people's perceptions are not important. I'll try to find the complete text if I can.

But since humans are smarter, we can get around to such things (like getting food, high social status, etc.) without harming other living beings. We're aren't savage like that, at least we don't have to be to survive.


I'm sure you still got my point.

So when you mean "stupid," exactly how stupid do you mean? Being incapable of any serious thought isn't normal. So, when you said "stupid" from the beginning, I thought you meant stupid but still normal, not mentally ill or incapable.


I see what you're saying, but you honestly think that a person who's taken revenge to violent levels can't be good anymore? I really don't believe we can completely rise above nature. I believe everyone is capable of commiting violent acts with enough anger or fear and it's because that is natural.

It would be almost impossible to be good then if doing anything bad marked us permanently evil. No one is perfect.

I think your perceiving good as something inseparable from morality (especially religious morality) when actually it can be something natural with all the raw and innocent imperfections of nature included.


I didn't realize that. Sorry.


I think why I don't understand your mental ways is because I haven't received a clear explanation yet. I know you've been trying, but... I don't know. Perhaps a different example or new explanation.


No, you just took it the wrong way. I was just giving you an idea. I never said I was better than you and that you should be like me. Sorry if it seemed that way.

I didn't tell you to do anything. I didn't say you should change. I don't think I did anything wrong or aggressive by saying that you might want to experiment and play with other aspects of yourself instead of focusing on your mind all the time.

You sort of made it seem like if you get overwhelmed by your own thoughts by using words like "exhausted," so I thought it would be okay to suggest moving away from what gets you exhausted sometimes.


I can can get immature frequently. It doesn't mean I want everyone to think like me or be like me. It just so happens that I can turn disagreements into fights and enjoy them.

Okay, that's enough of responding to your last post.

Here's my own thoughts now regarding this debate...

From the very beginning, I simply wanted to see if I could change your mind about being evil, and I wanted to try to just for fun, nothing serious. I have tried, but it seems you are adamant about your decision and I have seen you show no chance of changing your mind so I will stop trying to do that now.

I love a good debate, so this has been fun but I get the impression that you think I'm being too pushy or arrogant and I don't want you to think I'm a bitch. I'm mean, yeah, that's what my user name says I am so I probably know I am one better than anyone, but I don't want you to think so cuz your different (in a positive way) and I like that about you.

Also, I thought that from the beginning, you and I would be able to come to a conclusion on which choice would ultimately be the most beneficial, but neither of us are changing our minds at all (and yes, I do change my mind when I am convinced of something better than my initial opinion) or even discussing the core of the subject anymore.

I wouldn't mind continuing to discuss certain issues related to this topic if you want, but I think we're never gonna agree on anything really. I'm sure that one choice has to be better than the other because evil and stupid aren't equal opposites, but I don't think you're open to even think that one is more beneficial.

Frankly, you're too much of a beast and I'm too much of a bitch to keep trying to agree on something like this. lol

Well, I don't know. The debate has gotten confusing and I think it's because we're discussing multiple things at the same time and I don't even know which subject is the main one anymore.

I think that this discussion has now been beaten to death, not much more could be added. someone must create a new philosophical topic

-I'm sure you still got my point. So when you mean "stupid," exactly how stupid do you mean? Being incapable of any serious thought isn't normal. So, when you said "stupid" from the beginning, I thought you meant stupid but still normal, not mentally ill or incapable. -

No it isn't and being stupid is also not normal. Normal would be normal, are you not understanding that normal people are not stupid, they are just average. A person who is stupid is not normal they are below normal. I even assigned an I.Q. number to go along with it, as per fairly standard measurements. I never said the person was mentaly ill. I never said anything about them not being able to do any serious thinking, I said complex thought. Such as the type we are using now. You are just not understanding that the number of people in this world that are truly stupid are very, very few. Most people simply choose not to think, or don't educate themselves, though they have the capacity to do so. Let me show you a chart that might help you comprehend this a little more clearly.

http://www.geocities.com/rnseitz/Definition_of_IQ.html

Consider people harboring around 75 or so IQ to be truly stupid, the bulk of people fall under the catagory of normal. 85% of all people fall between 89 and 110 IQ So logic tells us that these people are normal where a anyone falling in another catagory is either stupid, or fairly gifted. When I say stupid I don't mean people on the lower end of average, I mean below average intelligence. That does not have to mean that these people are mentaly ill or handicapped, just that they are not smart. Hence where you would fall if you chose to go that route vs. being evil. People of those levels do not frequently invent, or create. It is very unlikely that man would have evolved in such a way as we have without intelligent people. Perhapos we would be smarter than animals, but we would also be much more frail, and without our weapons, and comforts, we would likely go extinct. Man barely survived the end of the last major ice age, and likely could not survive a another without our technology, especialy now that we are so dependant on it.

-I see what you're saying, but you honestly think that a person who's taken revenge to violent levels can't be good anymore? I really don't believe we can completely rise above nature. I believe everyone is capable of commiting violent acts with enough anger or fear and it's because that is natural.-

No I think there are just good and evil act and not good an evil people. A person can do both good and evil in their life and are never truly cut off from one or the other. I beleive it is a constant struggle that we never fully overcome. Such is the nature of good vs. evil, neither side can exist without the other.

-I think your perceiving good as something inseparable from morality (especially religious morality) when actually it can be something natural with all the raw and innocent imperfections of nature included.-

How can good and evil exist unless we as humans asign them. Is nature good and evil? I don't think so. I think it is a very human concept. Do you beleive there is some inherent good and evil force out there? I do not. I see good and evil being defined by our morality, and existing because of them. Is it evil to hurt someone, or is pain evil? Clearly I would choose the former. I am not at all religous nor do I guage morality based on religion, I have my own views as I have stated ofter. In my mind evil is when you know something is just very wrong and yet you still do it. I beleive evil lies in intent and not in the act itself. Though it is very difficult to even understand your own intent if you allow your emoitions to cloud the subject, or if you justify it to yourself.

-I think why I don't understand your mental ways is because I haven't received a clear explanation yet. I know you've been trying, but... I don't know. Perhaps a different example or new explanation.-

I can't possibly break it down any more simply than my analogy of the box and energy. I wonder if I just tried to hard to explain it in to many words. I realy don't think I could be any more clear about something as abstract as thought, but I will try.

If I don't overuse my mind, I can't sleep because my mind is not tired. While my body may be, my mind is not. Imagine trying to lay down to sleep after drinking 5 cups of coffee, this is what my mind is like all the time. Very active, and very fast. If I don't grow and increase my intellect I feel as though I am wasting my life. I am just very mentaly dominant. I can't realy explain my mind to you, but I can tell you that it is very different from yours. I don't seek pleasure, I seek balance and calmness of the mind. This only comes from the use of my mind. Much like this thread my mind is a disorganized series of ideas, if I do not make them into something constructive they become destructive. The best result for me is to exhaust myself mentaly and then I can be at rest. Is that more clear?

-I love a good debate, so this has been fun but I get the impression that you think I'm being too pushy or arrogant and I don't want you to think I'm a bitch.-

I don't think you are a bitch at all. I think you are very passionate, and at times that can be a flaw, but it is also your strength, so I take it in stride. I am quite fond of your outlook and you should already know this. I just don't pull any punches and neither do you. One of us is always going to get a bloody nose if we argue, if not both of us. Frankly when someone pushes me I don't fall backward, I push forward harder, and I get the sence that you are much the same. This is why I told you specificaly what was bothering me instead of just saying something mean like don't be a bitch, or just attacking you verbaly. That is the way I resolve conflict with people I like, by being honest and open. Perhaps I took offense to something I should not have but I tried to be very forgiving about it and to explain to you what I did not like. I think the result was better this way, don't you? I know I wish others would handle me the same way.

-I wouldn't mind continuing to discuss certain issues related to this topic if you want, but I think we're never gonna agree on anything really. I'm sure that one choice has to be better than the other because evil and stupid aren't equal opposites, but I don't think you're open to even think that one is more beneficial.-

I never intended to change your view. I simply wanted to throw down some very good arguements to show that my position was well thought out, and not the result of some primative urge, or some damage I have suffered. I get the sence that you are unwilling to consider that neither is greater than the other, that they are not equatable. Why does one choice have to be greater just because they are not equal? That is like saying an apple or an orange need to be greater because they are not equal oposites. There is realy no way to equate the value of such subjects so they realy could not be equal. After all is a dog equal to a cat? Is one better than the other? If you answer yes all you are showing is bias, not a well thought out posititon. I beleive this subject is much the same. The value of these concepts is not inherent but it is implied by the person viewing them, much like beauty is. I am sure you can at least appreciate that position. To me intelligence is greater, but to you good is. That much I can accept. The only way I could concede to your arguement is if the situation were that we were concerned wit hthe well being of the world, and not just ourselves. In that case I would agree with you that good is more important. However for me, as a person, intelligence is more important. Keep in mind that the original premise was simply a poll about what would you rather not be, not a debate thread. We turned it into that latter. Also I never actauly said this would make you live a life of good or be intelligent, I was presuming that you would realize you were losing something in the choice, not gaining anything. In my case I would be losing my goodness, in yours you would be losing your intelligence. It was meant to be about making a tough choice that would ultimately cost you something dearly important. For some people it would not matter, because they are already stupid or live a life greatly comprised of evil, but most people are neither of these things in reality. Those people are truly rare. As with I.Q. most of them fall in the middle somewhere.

-Well, I don't know. The debate has gotten confusing and I think it's because we're discussing multiple things at the same time and I don't even know which subject is the main one anymore.-

I agree, but it was fun. Frankly I was fine untill we actualy started talking about me, I am not realy comfortable with doing that publicaly, or in the form of a debate. I suppose that is my own fault. We did end up trailing off badly but that is because we were trying to come to terms as far as vocab was concerned and that always makes things messy. After all good evil, intelligent and stupid are not simple concepts, they require some extra thought and debate of unto themselves.

I may be wrong, but what I have learned is this:

You are very concerned with being good because it grants you a large degree of emotional satisfaction, you care about the world, and because you beleive you will be rewarded in the afterlife. I am very concerned with being intelligent because I would not even be me if I was not. This is why I could not give it up at any cost. It would be like dying, and then being reborn as someone else. I share all those noble traits with you in my life, but I have a cost as I have stated before.


K.V -I think that this discussion has now been beaten to death, not much more could be added. someone must create a new philosophical topic- I take it you are not a strong student of philosophy. It is usualy waaay more boring and wordsmithy than this, and often goes over the same concepts time and time again. Try reading Plato sometime if you don't believe me

Oh, okay.


I believe evil is actually a personality trait some people can possess and I also believe it is a major flaw for them.

Serial killers have obsessions with doing evil things. It is their heart; their nature.

So I definitely think evil can be inherent.


I see what you mean, but I prefer to measure evil through the amount of desire one has to harm for pleasure instead of basic morality.

As you can see, I like to see things through more organic perspectives and not through what people try to teach us or other possible artificial ideas (not that morality is necessarily artificial).


Ok, I understand better now. I have problems with falling asleep too. Not for the same reason as you, I think, but similar. Most nights, it takes me around an hour to fall asleep because I stay in bed thinking too hard. I always have something on my mind, I like to be as analytical as I can, and so falling asleep takes me a very long time most of the time because of this.

I wouldn't say I have to "exhaust" my mind to sleep, but it's just kind of time consuming to shut it off, if you will. I just wait in bed until I get bored to death and then fall asleep. Orgasms put me to sleep a lot faster though. lol.

However, once I fall asleep, getting up is just as hard, unlike with you. So I don't know. We're different but we both have wierd insomnia issues.


Yes. I don't do this often with people though. If there's something I don't like about what they're saying, I just state, and somtimes with an attitude. That's why I argue a lot here at MKO I think. I guess it's something reserved only for respected people.


Well because if they are not equal....

Say stupid and evil are objects placed on a line. If they aren't equal, it's because one hangs higher than the other. Which one in this case is the higher one? That's what I was trying to figure out between the two of us.


Exactly. Which is why I think this debate became very confusing. It had debates within debates and complexity that lead to more complexity.


Yes, but also because I feel it rewards me within my life as well. There are so much more good things a good person can feel, in my opinion, and sometimes, I think we have to thank evil or negativity for that.


Understandable. It's who you make of yourself. At least you have a passion for something (that isn't evil) because it seems many people don't.

-I believe evil is actually a personality trait some people can possess and I also believe it is a major flaw for them. Serial killers have obsessions with doing evil things. It is their heart; their nature. So I definitely think evil can be inherent.-

In all of my studies and all of my time here on earth I have rarely heard of a person that was evil by default. The types of people you are speaking of are almost always results of abuse, mistreatement, neglect, or possibly trauma. This is where most psychological disorders rest. Often if these people seek help they can be very decent and functional members of society. This is not to say that they did not choose to act on their defects, but they were not born inherently evil in any case that I am aware of. Child molesters were often molested, did not seek help, and then became the very beast which burdened them. Serial killer who taget beautiful women (one of the most common types) were, almost to exclusion, abused by their mothers. The story of the roman emporer Caligula is a great one to help understand human nature in reference to evil. So perhaps there is a greater degree of nurture involved than you would like to admit. I am not denying that some people could be born with major evil instincts, but I also think it is in their choices that the true evil lies.

-I see what you mean, but I prefer to measure evil through the amount of desire one has to harm for pleasure instead of basic morality.-

Well I would say this. A person can desire to do evil all they wish, but if they do not act apon it they are not evil. In fact a person with evil thoughts who does not act on them is more impresive than a person without them that acts naturaly. How can you condemn someone for what they are naturaly? After all is it evil to desire to kill someone, or is it evil to actualy do it? If I did everything I desired to I would be quite a monster, and I think you will find that this is quite normal. I am having a hard time believing that you are any different. I truly believe that good and evil are in choice, not in nature. I am having a hard time understanding this concept of inherent evil that you speak of to be honest. Do you know anyone that would actualy constitute as a good person by your guidlines? These sorts of ideas contain a dangerous similarity to eugenics and social darwinism. Even for the greatest people alive it is a struggle to do good, because it is often in conflict to living out ones desires. Such as your own desires for revenge on your enemies. Which, regardless of your way of justifying it, would be evil by the terms you have thrown out now.


-Well because if they are not equal....

Say stupid and evil are objects placed on a line. If they aren't equal, it's because one hangs higher than the other. Which one in this case is the higher one? That's what I was trying to figure out between the two of us.-

In what way would they be of greater value? They are not numbers, and I don't believe we can asign them and innate value. The two are not mathematical figures, they are subjective. Can beauty be put on a line and measured? Can we put a man and a woman next to each other and say that one is better looking than the other, or would we be very biased by our sexual orientations/personal opinions? As I asked before are a dog and a cat equal? Is one better than the other for every person to have as a pet, or even simply by nature? We are talking about concepts not equations. The word equal in this subject does not mean of the same mathematical value, and frankly equal should not have been the focus word. I think you are looking too hard at terms and not hard enough at the logic of the situation. Perhaps they are not equals in the sence that they are not simetricaly opposed on a spectrum, but they are unequatable in any sort of measurable value. After all we have no spectrum to even place them on, so the value is not something we can state. Equal in the sence of this subject is more kindred to the old saying "all men are equal before the law." This does not mean all men are of the same value it simply means that they will be judged fairly and treated as such. I can't even imagine how we would go about assigning these things value other than by bickering back and forth untill one person quits. Which I suspect would never end with the two of us, as neither of us are the types who are going to back down without a serious fight. There is simply no logical basis for an equation here, or a debate on this particular aspect of the subject. I think a better way to look at this is that they are in fact equal, they are just not polar oppposties. The only way I can think of to even give them an arbitrary value is to do just what I have done and take a poll. Then they would have a democratic value of sorts which, unfortunately for you, did not favor your opinion in this circumstance. (probably because there are so many evil, or dishonest, people on here ) Your line theory only takes into account one axis. So while they may not rest on the same y axis (as in your string idea) they do, in my opinion, rest on the same x axis. Can you picture that? I'll draw a sketch model for you. I actualy reversed it from you concept on accident, but it gives you the picture none the less, just look at the screen sideways to make it more like you though of it.


y

x stupid evil x

y


-Exactly. Which is why I think this debate became very confusing. It had debates within debates and complexity that lead to more complexity.-

I confess that struture and organization are not my strong points. I am not the best person to lead a debate. However I still feel as though I learned a few new concepts, or at least had something to chew on for a while. I did, in fact, take alot of your ideas (and those of the others who contributed) to heart. It is just hard to express what I have learned from them. If nothing else I think that I may have gained a better understanding of my own beliefs, which often happens when we express ourselvs. I often find that debate strengthens both position as opposed to actualy changing anyone's position. After all it is through conflict that we grow strong and through stagnance that we grow weak.

-At least you have a passion for something (that isn't evil) because it seems many people don't.-

I think passion is the difference between being alive or going through the motions of life. That is realy where I find my strength, and I am often thrilled to see the passions of others. Passion is fuel for the soul

I don't think evil can always be attributed to some trauma or abuse in the past. I think of it like I do smoking. When you smoke, you don't automatically get cancer. But smoking is like adding an extra bullet to a chamber while playing russian roulette. It increases the odds of something going wrong. And that's really what most of life is; playing the odds. There are very few guarantees.

Sometimes people just suck. It's a side effect of free will that I don't believe can always be explained through science, history, religion, etc. I tend not to like the assumption that there's always an answer because I've seen some people take it too far in either direction. Some people go too far into religious territory and use it as an excuse to make generalizations and persecute people for whatever reason. Others go too far down the scientific/medical route and become apologists for criminals. "It wasn't his fault. He molested that child because he has a chemical imbalance."

I agree and I like your balanced approach to this actualy. I don't think that anything happens 100% of the time, to say that it did would be very short sighted I think. I was trying to show that there are some common themes amongst bad people, more than I was trying to say that they should be forgiven. I believe that choice is the ultimate factor in all conflict. Much as you said every bad act that happens to us loads another bullet, and some people just have way more bullets than other. The choice to pull the trigger is ultimately your own though. My point was more that it is the choosing to do evil that makes you bad, not the desire to do it. Does that make sence to you? I would also have to agree that "extremist views" in any direction can be very dangerous, especialy when they are blindly followed without the use of free thought, and an open mind.

On a side note are you a fan of Giordano Bruno's work? His phliosophy and logic seem like something you could realy sink your teeth into.

And the reason "boring and wordsmithy than this" some poeple could not belive they were wrong. futher more they were drunk and more passonate about the topic.

P.S. i'v been reading The Republic.

Touché Kombatveteran

Stupid.