Hey, we want to be part of the hate! by dreamtrove

I have it on mp3, never assumed it was a racist song. But people choose topics for a particular reason (vampires have been in vogue ever since aids struck. That's no coincidence, why do you think Bram Stoker wrote Dracula?) But this is a recurring theme, to draw from the past to address the situation of the day.

The indifference to killing an arab in particular I always thought was a reflection of the actions of the time. Middle east conflict has already flared up again with a little help from our friends. I think the choice was social commentary, all I'm saying.

Thanks for joining the hate. I think that no one on this thread has yet commented that it is also a quote of course.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 15, 2009 6:34 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Just a quick post:

Any ideologically-driven system can be considered utopian, not just 'socialism'. Capitalism - you get people competing to make and sell ever better, more inventive and cheaper 'stuff', which leads to a consumer's economic paradise, or as the Chinese used to say 'pigs in heaven'. Right ? Social Darwinism - you get people competing economically which leads to the weak dying off and improvement of 'the race'. Right ?

All of these ideologies seek to define some essential good that comes out of them, making their outcomes a utopia.

So, DT, according to your theory, anyone who subscribes to a utopian scheme - and that includes GHWBush and GWBush, Cheney, Friedman (either Thomas or Milton) - could be accused of being a potential jihadist for their particular brand of ideal.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 15, 2009 7:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:
The only thing I do vehemently disagree with is the tendency to assume that such ambitions MUST exist or would inevitably result, or that there is an undeinable connection between mass murder or child labor and socialism. Socialism is a utopian system but it is not an inherently evil system.

Ah, the snark which started the fire. I think y'all missed my point.

Ah, I see. I thought this was going to be snark-free hate. *biggrin*

Quote:

But let me say something about good and evil. Evil is created by good. If you don't define good, then there is not evil. If you define good, then it's opposition is evil, by definition. This being the real opposition, not just anything which happens to be not you, but anyone who opposes you, Al Qaeda say.

I'll disagree with this. :)

There is no evil. I am fully capable of defining good without defining "evil". I can identify undesireable, angering, incomprehensible, sad, horrifying, disappointing and disgusting... but not evil.

Evil is a Very Lazy Concept. I think I posted abou my relationship with this word in my earlier hate-contribution.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 15, 2009 7:29 AM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

I have quit posting, hell I have quit reading most of the threads for the same reason.

Me, too.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 15, 2009 9:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:

Ah, I see. I thought this was going to be snark-free hate. *biggrin*

BWAHAHAHAHAH!

Quote:

Evil is a Very Lazy Concept.

But it works for Star Wars & Harry Potter.

Real life... not so much.

The evil Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 15, 2009 9:50 AM

Kathy,

give me some credit for having a brain, please.

I only assign the term socialist to those who assign it to themselves. Obviously there are other utopian visions.

Neoconservatism, as defined by its founder, Irving Kristol:

"A Neoconservative is just a socialist who was blindsided by reality"

My mention of Joe Macarthy the other day, saying I live in fear of the day when Americans wake up to to find their country run by the followers of Max Shachtman and his Trotsky Communism, or words to that effect.

Those are there words. Irving Kristol and Max Shachtman, along with Allen Bloom, Leo Strauss, these are the *icons* of the globalist neocon/neolib academic thinktank community. The people who have advised the last four presidents, or more, with ever increasing numbers, have been direct disciples of these very same self proclaimed leaders of American Socialism. It's not a random label stuck on someone. These are guy who shouted "we are the American socialist movement" from the rooftops, and did it for decades. They come from the American Communist Party, the Socialist Workers party, the democratic socialist caucus, the social dems, and the neoconservatives, self defined as "Socialists who are not conservatives, but who support the conservative movement."

Sorry for the rant, but these are hard cold facts. This isn't labelling, and it's not conspiracy, I'm calling them exactly what they call themselves. Hell, they're proud to call themselves that. Let's throw in Tony Blair, neocon, globalist, and created of "New Labour."

Now, if you want to label them something else, go right ahead. It might be perfectly fair to call them corporatists. As I think it was Strauss, put it, why build up a govt. agency to control the social affairs when you might lose an election and find that agency controlled by someone else? Wouldn't it be better to privatize it as a corporation and thus always maintain control?

Hence we have Halliburton and Blackwater, whathaveyou, but there was no change in goal here, only a minor tactical shift. I don't entirely agree with Finn's definition, this is not about how much of it is controlled by govt per se, but how much is controlled, vs. what is laissez faire. The socialist govts. of Europe in WWII were well intermingled in govt. and corporate affairs, as is our own govt. which is sliding into socialism. It's not soviet socialism, it's corporatism of some sort, sure, but it's merely one permutation of the idea.

The notion that "corporate america" has taken over govt. is absurd. Take a look at corporate america. It's in the tank. If it were controlling govt. which has spend 25 trillion or so over the Bush presidency, then they would be swimming in cash. No, it's a handful of corporations, mostly constructed through some govt. relationship, like the ones I mentioned, or married to the govt. like the banks of the federal reserve, or, and this is the furthest removed, the pharmaceutical companies who now get the majority of their revenue from the govt, and almost all of the rest from the insurance industry, and not from consumers, this is hardly a laissez faire economic system.

Sorry for ranting, but I do know what I'm talking about. You are painting it as if the redneck is just throwing labels at anything he doesn't understand, as if I picked up any anti american group and called it Al Qaeda. If I recall at some point someone called Bin Laden a socialist. Now *that* was an absurd statement, and it was definitely not me.

Now, if it happens that you don't see it, perhaps you're not looking. It's right in front of us, with almost no disguise at all, and rewinds to the 50s 60s and 70s, they didn't disguise it, they heralded it from every street corner. Hence, the watergate revolution, the leading american socialists cornering their entry into govt.

Now, sure, you can be a socialist, and not like *these* socialists, Chavez is a socialist, and a pig and a moron, but he doesn't like our back room Rahms and Karls. Castro is a pretty decent socialist leader, and he hates these guys.

Honestly, the Chinese Commies are pretty pathetic socialists these days, but they hold up the logo, and they do huge amounts of social engineering, and sure, they have other issues.

So yeah, socialism, it's alive and well, and much more prevalent in the places that aren't getting named than in Europe or Canada.

I don't think socialist movements never had good ideas, or that they never worked, I just look at the large swath and say, boy is this a mother of a disaster.

My attack on capitalism would have to be much more detailed, but no, I'm not labeling anyone. Died in the wool socialists, and self proclaimed, with nominally conservative morons like Bush and Clinton as their frontmen. But as for socialists, and Allen Bloom, mentor of Mr. Barack Obama, we just voted these guys back into power on their own unpopularity. I like Obama, I hope he's playing them, and has an extra trick up their sleeve.

And no, I'm not going to stick the label on people because I dislike them. You don't hear me calling Ohlmert a socialist. I just call him an a**hole and a good number of other things, and oh yeah, that's not anti-semitic, it's personal. He, personally, is a total dick.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 15, 2009 10:43 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

DT

"Dyed in the wool socialists, and self proclaimed ..."

But - when they themselves realized the old labels didn't fit anymore, and gave themselves new labels, you didn't go with the new self-proclaimed ones.

Granted, people sometimes make up new names to confuse others about the same old things: torture becomes 'enhanced interrogation' or 'alternate procedures', prisoner of war becomes 'enemy combatant', increasing pollution becomes the Clear Skies Act, clear cutting trees becomes 'healthy forests' ... well, I know you get the idea.

But new words and names are also used to draw important distinctions. That's why we use ant, pinhole, paint spot, and pebble to distinguish between 'small dark things'.

I think, historically, the Neo-Cons changed from what they used to be to what they are now - which is why they have a different name from what they used to have to what they have now.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 15, 2009 10:55 AM

Quote:
Ah, I see. I thought this was going to be snark-free hate.

Lol. No, it was intended as a somewhat tongue and cheek snarkfest. But I thought, there's a serious side here. We ought to be able to disagree. I mean someone can come in here and have serious issues with Islam, or Israel, and be able to state them without being taken down for it. I, personally, don't have issues with Islam or Israel, I do have issues with Ohlmert, and also with Abdullah, and their small circle of loyal nutjobs.

I thought if I didn't start out by taking a potshot at someone, then no one else would. Now the pro-socialists are arguing with me :).

So, I should add an addendum to the top saying "feel free to defend your position, but please, nobody go medieval on their a**es."

Also we might find that our biases are not as far reaching as we think. Most socialists who believe in more govt. control etc. are just people I disagree with. I have some friends who are pretty hardcore avowed socialists, one of whom thinks that Brezinski is our saviour. If I were less tactful in person I might forward him that picture of Brezinski teaching Osama how to use a machine gun

Quote:
Quote:
But let me say something about good and evil. Evil is created by good. If you don't define good, then there is not evil. If you define good, then it's opposition is evil, by definition. This being the real opposition, not just anything which happens to be not you, but anyone who opposes you, Al Qaeda say.

I'll disagree with this. :)

Just a logical extension of the tenet of the faith. My view on faith is that, really, we all take an awful lot on faith, and that, sure, someday, it may prove to be wrong. I think that certain kinds of extremism take the words of the ancients as an immutable itinerary for life, which is probably taking it too far, but in general, there's a lot of ancient wisdom that holds up pretty well under a lot of circumstances.

Much of modern science is taken on faith, as is much of politics, and based on facts and analysis by people of not that long ago, usually, and much of it is to some extent, wrong. But we take it on faith until we have a better working model. My own suspicion is that when I encounter conflicting viewpoints which also make sense, I'll probably adopt them into the same form, and then maybe eventually end up as a religion of one :)

Quote:
There is no evil. I am fully capable of defining good without defining "evil". I can identify undesireable, angering, incomprehensible, sad, horrifying, disappointing and disgusting... but not evil.

Okay, if this is a theological discussion, what Lao Tzu is saying is that by the act of defining good, you've created evil as its opposite. For instance, your definition of good, which might be completely different from someone else's, might include something as a tenet of Good, which would make that which contradicted it evil. I was going to put in an example, but I'll leave that to you.

Quote:
Evil is a Very Lazy Concept. I think I posted abou my relationship with this word in my earlier hate-contribution.

Sure. I totally agree. Esp. a problem in writing, but also in thought. That's why Taoism eschews the idea, and I think it makes my writing more interesting. Or perhaps, to me, readable. I have trouble with Star Wars and recently Legend of the Seeker, I haven't read the books, but these rely so heavily on the concepts of good and evil, that the merciless slaughter of countless "evil" is "good" because it helps the cause of "good" even if it saves no life. Fiction is replete with this nonsense.

I was just thinking of a couple other examples which appal me in their simplemindedness, the worst ever will probably be forever superman (imagine for a second superman with a different concept of the ultimate good, like, say, population control...) But there was another one, it will come to me.

I tend to enjoy characters who are logically consistent and at the same time complicated. Zoe and Wash kind of bore me, to be honest. I don't find them to be particularly complicated or interesting. River, Simon, probably the most interesting, followed by Jayne and Kaylee. I think Mal is interesting at times, and would like to have seen him develop more. Overall, I think anime has been putting out some more interesting characters than hollywood. The Mononoke conflict is much more interesting and real than anything you're likely to see in a typical western production.

I think this good/evil duality has deeply infected our culture, and helps us to fall into the trap of "my way is right, and yours must therefore be wrong" and this leads us into a lot of arguments in this forum. I think a lot of people when they post stand for something that has some root ideological concept they view as good. Once anchored to it, they raise an army to support the position. As much as I post, I'm really ambivalent on a lot of issues. It doesn't really matter to me all that much if Israel becomes overrun and absorbed by Palestine, or if Palestine becomes overrun and absorbed by Israel. My preference would be for two state solution, I think it would reduce conflict, oppression and increase variety, decrease loss of life. But like so many issues, you can post on this subject and you might break RiverLove.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 15, 2009 10:57 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Jadehand, although it was thrown at the far right that time, it does indeed apply equally to both radical ends of the political spectrum.

As for the whole hatin on thing, imma Misanthropic Maltheist, or would be if hatin on folk was too much effort to bother with, meh.

But my primary pet hatred is anyone pushing their will unto another with violence of the threat thereof in the bargain - and that *specifically* includes folk who do it by proxy by having "government" do the dirty work for em.

Which prettymuch includes most folk.

And don't get me started on the Christians and their murderous demon-god, unless ya really want a six page rant...

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 15, 2009 11:00 AM

Quote:
CAUSAL
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

I have quit posting, hell I have quit reading most of the threads for the same reason.

Me, too.

Mee three.

I proposal a new rule, I'm going to make a thread to support the idea, in the interests of time management. This is because, a forum with more members posting less is probably much preferable to a handful of people posting tons, especially when they're arguing as immovable objects.

CHRIS, it doesn't work though. Star wars is a pretty boring story. If there was no ILM, no one would watch this. As for Harry Potter, it's one of the major plotholes: Oh, we worship Voldemorte because we love death so much! I mean, really, our enemy is gothy teen angst?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 15, 2009 11:02 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"I think this good/evil duality has deeply infected our culture ..."

Just as a general concept of yin and yang, thesis and antithesis ... I think mathematics has an interesting disinction to make. There is the thing, there is the not thing, and there is the opposite. Each is a different concept.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 15, 2009 11:41 AM

Kathy,

the difference is that in the good/evil, one is inherently right, and the other wrong.

yin/yang is more like seely/unseely

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 15, 2009 11:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
We ought to be able to disagree. I mean someone can come in here and have serious issues with Islam, or Israel, and be able to state them without being taken down for it.

Agreeing to disagree is a fine thing.

But I think when you post an opinion here - be it a vague or a firm one - you should be open to polite debate. Name-calling is always, always uncalled for, obviously, but someone pointing out perceived hypocricy, factual error or ethical dissonance is just communication.

I like the part of dicussions where - ideally - both parties realize their exact root of disagreement, usually very personal values, and respectfully end the debate.

That should happen more often.

Quote:

I thought if I didn't start out by taking a potshot at someone, then no one else would. Now the pro-socialists are arguing with me :).

Not the pro-socialists. The pro-specifics! *g* You weren't stating a prejudice openly, you were trying to justify it by "facts" that weren't 100% true. That's the difference, hehe.

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
But let me say something about good and evil. Evil is created by good. If you don't define good, then there is not evil. If you define good, then it's opposition is evil, by definition. This being the real opposition, not just anything which happens to be not you, but anyone who opposes you, Al Qaeda say.

I'll disagree with this. :)

Just a logical extension of the tenet of the faith.

Not necessarily either.

That faith-like trust you use to describe most people's relationship with science does well without a concept of evil. My own trusting "faith" in scientific progress (that I cannot fully understand) knows no good and evil. It know "wow, that's fascinating" and it knows "Could be useful".

Faith and religion are also not the same. Religions have tenets but faith is just an aspect of religion, a personal state or act. You can have baseless faith in almost anything without the concepts of good and evil being involved at all.

Quote:

Quote:
There is no evil. I am fully capable of defining good without defining "evil". I can identify undesireable, angering, incomprehensible, sad, horrifying, disappointing and disgusting... but not evil.

Okay, if this is a theological discussion, what Lao Tzu is saying is that by the act of defining good, you've created evil as its opposite.

Then I disagree with Lao Tzu.

I think pancakes are good. I do NOT think that people who oppose pancakes are evil. Or that food other than pancakes is evil. I don't need evil anti-pancakes to like pancakes and I don't create evil anti-pancakes by recognising the goodness of pancakes.

Evil is an absolute, irredeemable, destructive, conscious malice. It doesn't exist. Furthermore, it doesn't need to exist. Thoughtlessness, ignorance, fear, anger and desperation are each more than enough cause for regrettable things.

Evil is the bogeyman in small children's minds, when they haven't yet learned to fully identify with another person, their POV, their motives and feelings. Sadly, we encourage that labeling later in life. We encourage helpless fear by using this label, because it suggests a power of unchangable invulnerability of destructive purpose, which nothing and no one truly has. Out of that helpless, ignorant fear, of course, hate grows. And destruction.

Quote:

Quote:
Evil is a Very Lazy Concept. I think I posted abou my relationship with this word in my earlier hate-contribution.

Sure. I totally agree.

I guess that is good then.

I'm not sure I understood exactly what you were trying to say with regards to your use of the word evil, though. You don't believe in the concept of evil but you use the word for the purpose of.. what?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 15, 2009 4:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

As for Harry Potter, it's one of the major plotholes: Oh, we worship Voldemorte because we love death so much! I mean, really, our enemy is gothy teen angst?

You're preaching to the choir here, my friend, I personally like the Narnia flicks better.

The roaring Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 15, 2009 8:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Evil is an absolute, irredeemable, destructive, conscious malice. It doesn't exist. Furthermore, it doesn't need to exist. Thoughtlessness, ignorance, fear, anger and desperation are each more than enough cause for regrettable things.

Do you think the Nazis did what they did because they were thoughtless, ignorant, afraid, angry or desperate? I don’t think so. I think there was something more. Something absolute, irredeemable, destructive and consciously malicious in their actions.

What about a serial killer? Someone who kills for the shear enjoyment of it. Ted Bundy, for instance, was quite thoughtful and intelligent. While he was prone to fits of rage, this wasn’t why killed. He killed because he got sexual satisfaction from making people suffer.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 15, 2009 9:12 PM

Quote:
Not the pro-socialists. The pro-specifics! *g* You weren't stating a prejudice openly, you were trying to justify it by "facts" that weren't 100% true. That's the difference, hehe.

Those were facts, but they were a snark. It's true that National, Soviet, Maoist are all types of socialist which have held multiple regimes, and those have been responsible for a large number of cumulative deaths, in a way that even military juntas would have to envy.

Quote:

Not necessarily either.

That faith-like trust you use to describe most people's relationship with science does well without a concept of evil. My own trusting "faith" in scientific progress (that I cannot fully understand) knows no good and evil. It know "wow, that's fascinating" and it knows "Could be useful".

Faith and religion are also not the same. Religions have tenets but faith is just an aspect of religion, a personal state or act. You can have baseless faith in almost anything without the concepts of good and evil being involved at all.

Miscommunication. I by no means meant to imply there was a connection between different faith-based sets of beliefs, merely that it was a common structure. People, largely, take history on faith. This doesn't require good and evil either. It's just a faith based system. You trust that other historians are objective and that their information is relatively accurate and unaltered. If you question that, you start to become a historian.

I also was making no assertion about religion. I'm not sure what religion is. Sometimes the word seems to apply to western religions of the judeo-christian tradition, which believe in good and evil. But other faith systems either do or do not. Not to cross arguments, but socialism is a strongly faith-based ideology that has a belief in good and evil.

If someone could define religion, I would know if Taoism was one. I think it's generally accepted to be one, but to me it seems much more like a philosophy, by western standards, and is very different from western religions.

Taoists do not believe in good and evil. I was stating Lao's premise for how the belief in good and evil comes about in the human mind, by the identification of one, the other ergo must be, hence the dichotomy is created. Not doing so is a tenet of faith. Hence, I can see that the world possesses lots of people who have differing ideas and approaches, and some may be truly misguided, because they have allowed themselves to fall into this absolutism. I think both sides of the western-islamic conflict are victim of this logic to some degree.

Quote:
Then I disagree with Lao Tzu.

I think pancakes are good. I do NOT think that people who oppose pancakes are evil.

I'll ignore your trivializing of my faith and simply say, take his words, not mine. Translation from the ancient chinese is hard, but good and evil here are the epic ideals displayed in star wars, not the taste of pancakes.

Quote:
Evil is an absolute, irredeemable, destructive, conscious malice. It doesn't exist. Furthermore, it doesn't need to exist. Thoughtlessness, ignorance, fear, anger and desperation are each more than enough cause for regrettable things.

Evil is the bogeyman in small children's minds, when they haven't yet learned to fully identify with another person, their POV, their motives and feelings. Sadly, we encourage that labeling later in life. We encourage helpless fear by using this label, because it suggests a power of unchangable invulnerability of destructive purpose, which nothing and no one truly has. Out of that helpless, ignorant fear, of course, hate grows. And destruction.

Evil is a perception. That perception arrives from the perception of good, or, vice versa. Lao does not believe evil to exist, but that some perceive it to exist, because they have clung tightly to a definition of good. He thinks this is a dangerous idea, because self perceived good will try to strike down, or impose its will on what it perceives to be evil.

I think you're not getting it, which means I'm not explaining it, because your attitude is actually coming across as rather taoist. Read the Tao te Ching, it's shorter than a lot of these forum posts

Quote:

I guess that is good then.

I'm not sure I understood exactly what you were trying to say with regards to your use of the word evil, though. You don't believe in the concept of evil but you use the word for the purpose of.. what?

Evil is a perception. It's like Ugly. A snail is not ugly, unless you define it to be so, or it defies what you define to be beauty. Perception of a snail as ugly is derived from the distinction of perception.

If you allow yourself an absolute good, such as the word of God is the absolute good, than a direct opposition of the word of God becomes potentially, in your perception, evil.

This is the logic that most of our literature falls victim to.

Firefly is one of a small set of shows that has ever stepped outside of this. The alliance is not evil. It is a group of people who have a perceived good, and so they perceive evil.

This contrasts with Star Wars, or even Star Trek, depending on the writer, where often the opponent is automatically evil either because they oppose the objectives of the self defined good, or because the writers sketch in a series of completely random meaningless killings and acts against everyone until they randomly offend the viewer.

Farscape is another outside the mold show. A few writers miss the point, and have Scorpius act in a way that makes him seem like a monster, but usually, he is simply treated as someone with a different point of view.

There are others. In movies, this is also pretty rare. Analyzing Bladerunner on this level is always interesting.

On Frems suggestion I've just acquire a copy of Elvenlied, which I won't watch tonight, but I'm looking forward to.

Seriously, check out the Tao te Ching, it's one of the better works. As I always say, Taoism doesn't seek converts, so I make the recommendation in the same sense I would the Bible, or Nietzsche, but a great deal shorter.

Editing other texts to extract their intended meaning in fewer words is a project I'd like to get involved in at some point.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 15, 2009 9:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Do you think the Nazis did what they did because they were thoughtless, ignorant, afraid, angry or desperate? I don’t think so. I think there was something more. Something absolute, irredeemable, destructive and consciously malicious in their actions.

Are there hawks that kill for fun?
Do cats kill mice with glee?
Can bats eat mosquitos purely to live?
Are there peeps that follow the master plan with only the thought of how THEY'LL survive?

Really Finn, I think your view of humanity is limited to your own very comfortable (relatively speaking) POV.

Quote:

What about a serial killer? Someone who kills for the shear enjoyment of it.

Tortured peeps don't do what they do for fun, they do what they do for the voices in their heads provided by chemical imbalances, brain deficiencies, and/or effed-up parenting styles.

Wow, and I thought I thought in comic book terms regarding good & bad....

The freaked Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 15, 2009 10:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Evil is an absolute, irredeemable, destructive, conscious malice. It doesn't exist. Furthermore, it doesn't need to exist. Thoughtlessness, ignorance, fear, anger and desperation are each more than enough cause for regrettable things.
Do you think the Nazis did what they did because they were thoughtless, ignorant, afraid, angry or desperate? I don’t think so. I think there was something more. Something absolute, irredeemable, destructive and consciously malicious in their actions.

I absolutely think that they did what they did because they were hateful, powerhungry, callous, infused with a structive enthusiasm, indoctrined and yes, a lot of this was probably funded in fear - fear of losing power, fear of a world they didn't understand. What makes people want to control everything? Fear.

Calling it evil comes close to what I call Hitler-Demonization. Hitler wasn't a demon. He had no greater powers than any other person and it was human motivations that caused people to commit this atrocity with and for him.

Nazi-Germany, of all things, is what informs my opinion on the concept of evil because it seduces people into pushing it away from the territory of "what humans are capable of" into "what Nazis and Nazi's alone were capable of for dark, dark reasons" territory.

People don't identify with "evil". They can identify with hateful, powerhungry, callous, destructive and fearful. And then examine how far they would go to fight what they fear and recognize behavior patterns and just in general be far more effective in preventing such atrocities from happening again than they are when they get have absolute statements waved in front of them that don't really touch them except in vague terms of horror or disgust.

Quote:

What about a serial killer? Someone who kills for the shear enjoyment of it. Ted Bundy, for instance, was quite thoughtful and intelligent. While he was prone to fits of rage, this wasn’t why killed. He killed because he got sexual satisfaction from making people suffer.

And that's what I call a very very sick person who does horrible things because he's missing essential things like compassion and self-control.

I hope you aren't confusing my opinion on the word evil not with a stance against holding people accountable for their actions. They should be. But more than anything we should try to understand why things happen, and something like "evil" blurs everything.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 15, 2009 11:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Taoists do not believe in good and evil. I was stating Lao's premise for how the belief in good and evil comes about in the human mind, by the identification of one, the other ergo must be, hence the dichotomy is created.

Oookay, now I get that we actually hold a very similar opinion about the value of "evil" (Zero.)

We do, however, disagree on the origin of the concept.

I don't think that most people learn the concept of evil through a perceived dualism with the concept of good. I don't think most people defined evil as the opposite of good, either. I think most people have very specific, scary images in mind when they hear the word.

Children learn fear and pleasure and the big stretch of "okay" in between much earlier than they learn more abstract concepts. Everyone is capable of understanding what people mean by the word "evil" for precisely that reason. For children, their feelings are absolute. As we grow, we mature and our absolutes turn into more complex understanding.

It may be that some philosophies or belief systems hold on to the concept of evil to create this dualism with the concept of good. Actually, that's just the case, and it has informed much of western culture, perhaps other cultures, too. I'm not educated on the subject of theology enough to explore that in any meaningful way, though.

So, I still disgree with Lao Tzu, but I'm glad we cleared up that misunderstanding. :)

Quote:

Quote:
Then I disagree with Lao Tzu.

I think pancakes are good. I do NOT think that people who oppose pancakes are evil.

I'll ignore your trivializing of my faith and simply say, take his words, not mine. Translation from the ancient chinese is hard, but good and evil here are the epic ideals displayed in star wars, not the taste of pancakes.

I didn't mean to trivialize your faith, but I feel free to examine what you say about it. I also have a preference for easy and obvious examples.

Quote:

Firefly is one of a small set of shows that has ever stepped outside of this. The alliance is not evil. It is a group of people who have a perceived good, and so they perceive evil.

I'll disagree. I don't think the Alliance operates on terms of good and evil. I do think that the Operative did, and that the subset within the Alliance and Blue Sun who are involved in River's experiments and the Miranda project believe in good and evil.

I don't think, though, that the Alliance is in its origin or spirit an ideological system of the socialist kind, with a defined good and evil.

Quote:

Farscape is another outside the mold show. A few writers miss the point, and have Scorpius act in a way that makes him seem like a monster, but usually, he is simply treated as someone with a different point of view.

That is very true! I like how towards the end, even John himself becomes entirely morally ambiguious!

Quote:

Seriously, check out the Tao te Ching, it's one of the better works. As I always say, Taoism doesn't seek converts, so I make the recommendation in the same sense I would the Bible, or Nietzsche, but a great deal shorter.

Editing other texts to extract their intended meaning in fewer words is a project I'd like to get involved in at some point.

I'll file it away. One day (in 2010) I may find the time to read for pleasure again.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 3:28 AM

Quote:
AGENTROUKA
We do, however, disagree on the origin of the concept.

I'm gonna deal with this in just a sec.

First, I'm avoiding responding to Finn's inane post, I want to respond to some responses.

1. Chris, you actually posted an opinion.

Okay, now that I hve the snark over with, I'm not sure I totally agree with you on that last issue, but your answer is better,

2. I haven't seen the other ones. I remember the books. I resent the christianity in both Harry Potter and Narnia, though I'll admit it was more blatant in the latter, which is probably a good thing. But I like pure fantasy. I think someone said something about a right to culture, which I agree with, and faerie tales are just so utterly pagan. LoTR et al more. Still, back to Harry Potter and Narnia: We know that both author's deliberately said they were trying to deliver the christian message to an audience that wouldn't here it otherwise, at least C.S. Lewis had the courage to admit it *before* publishing. I found it obvious in HP, but she didn't admit it until she was done. She actually said she wasn't big into fantasy, but found it was a venue to reach the people. True, the same could be said about fiction in general, everyone has a stealth message, Matrix betrays its cult of Messianic Judaism very early on, even though they didn't admit it until they were done. For Joss' I am thankful, even though I never admit that he's to the left of me.

3. I think most nazis were doing what they generally thought was right. The SS and elite were all issued steroids and amphetamines as regimen. That affects human thinking, actually, it shuts down higher thinking and reverts us to animals. But Nazi Germany is far more complex than it seems on the surface. I see them as a trainwreck drug case, manipulated by the international MIC, who sought so see a war, and by greed from govt. and people, who didn't value life of peasants and inferiors, and so used slave labor, and killed people. They created a sense of superiority, creating "inferiors." There was a lot of feeling that "jews were evil" which had its reasons in real life, and has through history, that some jewish leaders ran credit economy, provoked wars, and blitzed Gaza. But much of Nazi Germany was also outside opportunists. Companys and govts. getting in on the act. But the pages of history show the nazis as far from unique. I'm going to go with the cats an mice idea. But it hadn't been so long since some of those mice were in govt, aiding and supporting WWI on multiple sides, not necessarily the same mice, but if you look at the collectively as group, that's wht you see. Finally, a lot of outside string pullers manipulating German. It's way too complex a situation to boil down to evil.

I worry about the messianic message inherent in terminator. It potentially undermines the premise. Also, like Buffy, there is a clear good/evil line that writers occassionally try to blur.

Okay, back to this:

Quote:
AGENTROUKA
We do, however, disagree on the origin of the concept.

I think he's talking more culturally, and with a specific value of evil. I can be afraid of bears as a child without thinking that bears were evil.

I thought I had more to say. Suffice it to say, in fiction, it is a common device, as it is in politics. America the Good, and those who oppose America, egro, the evil. But fictionally, the heroes have some assumed or defining good, but your right that evil is often defined first.

LoTR concept of evil as a dark inner nature of over reaching ambition within us all is interesting. More interesting than most.

Quote:
That is very true! I like how towards the end, even John himself becomes entirely morally ambiguious!

Today I dropped a bomb into a field of flowers.

Some of the characters fascinate me. Chiana in particular. I find Aeryn very annoying, esp. in her relationship with John, but in her relationship with her parents she becomes intensely interesting. My fave ep. was probably the one at the sleezebag hotel. I was also fond of the silly druggie ep. Scorpius is a very interesting character. Complex. A lot of characters didn't get the full development package. But they're interesting seeds for writers to steal :) Also, sometimes a glimpse is enough.

I was curious to read that Graza, who was completely purloined from Blake's 7's Sevelan, that the theft was the actress' idea. She had been a big fan of the show, as many of us were back in the day when the only competition was, well, nothing. Dr. Who was on, but if you watched it you probably watched Blake's 7, which I have trouble watching now.

Quote:

I'll file it away. One day (in 2010) I may find the time to read for pleasure again.

Ah , time management issues. What do you do, I mean professionally?

I'm serious the Tao is short, only about 5,000 words. Some of it is abstruse, especially in the better translations. You have to be wary of "interpretive texts" that impose their own, usually christian, occassionally Buddhist, view.

OTOH, I've read the Holy Bible, NT and OT through twice, and it's 800,000 words. I have read the Qu'ran, but I find it virtually unreadable. Undoubtedly I need a better translation.

But time management is a serious issue.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 5:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Tortured peeps don't do what they do for fun, they do what they do for the voices in their heads provided by chemical imbalances, brain deficiencies, and/or effed-up parenting styles.

Maybe it was a chemical imbalance or brain deficiency, but that would just prove my point. Bundy did what he did because he received satisfaction for it. Something specific about him loved making women suffer to their death. He wasn’t afraid or sick. That was the way his brain worked. It was absolute, irredeemable, destructive. It seems to me that you’re the one trying to find a comfortable view of humanity. I hate it when people say serial killers are “sick.” It’s like they have the flu. The raping-women-to-their-death flu.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 5:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
And that's what I call a very very sick person who does horrible things because he's missing essential things like compassion and self-control.

What you’re calling sick is not the same thing as having a disease. What you’re calling sick is nothing more then a fundamental difference in the way his brain worked compared to yours or mine. In other words, he had a different point of view. A point of view in which murdering people for his own enjoyment was perfectly acceptable.

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I hope you aren't confusing my opinion on the word evil not with a stance against holding people accountable for their actions. They should be. But more than anything we should try to understand why things happen, and something like "evil" blurs everything.

This has nothing to do with accountably. That’s not what we’re talking about. But I don’t think calling Bundy evil is any hindrance to understanding why things happen, any more then calling mother Theresa good. No one is arguing that criminal psychology should be done away or that a single term can adequately distinguish individuals. But consider this, a lot of people in this world have chemical imbalances or brain deficiencies, but never rape 35 women to their death. So what makes Bundy different? Maybe all those others with chemical imbalances are just time bombs waiting to go off; Bundy went off and that made all the difference in the world.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 6:16 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Imma go with simple, and borrow a quote from the books of Andrew Vachss.

"Know what it takes to sit across from somebody, hear them speak, look them in the eyes, and blow their brains out ?

Nothing.

And the more of it you have, the easier it gets.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 6:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Maybe it was a chemical imbalance or brain deficiency, but that would just prove my point. Bundy did what he did because he received satisfaction for it.

No argument there.

Quote:
He wasn’t afraid or sick.

BIG disagreement there.

Quote:
That was the way his brain worked. It was absolute, irredeemable, destructive.

More agreement.

Quote:
It seems to me that you’re the one trying to find a comfortable view of humanity.

No, it's actually easier to see things in terms of good & evil.
Just wondering, is a rabid dog that horribly kills a child evil?
Sure, it needs to be put down, but is it evil?

The not-so-simple-sometimes Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 6:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

"Know what it takes to sit across from somebody, hear them speak, look them in the eyes, and blow their brains out ?

Nothing.

And the more of it you have, the easier it gets.

Scary & true.

The chilled Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 6:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
And that's what I call a very very sick person who does horrible things because he's missing essential things like compassion and self-control.
What you’re calling sick is not the same thing as having a disease. What you’re calling sick is nothing more then a fundamental difference in the way his brain worked compared to yours or mine. In other words, he had a different point of view. A point of view in which murdering people for his own enjoyment was perfectly acceptable.

Fine, call it an abnormality, if the likening to illness bothers you. Just like being born blind is an abnormality.

IF this is what made him do it, actually. I don't know much about Ted Bundy, in particular.

Ultimately, what he does is a very extreme version of something many people like to do. Getting away with something, dominating someone, exerting control. Coupled with extreme callousness and, apparently, extreme arrogance. It's all about power. And it's remorseless.

I understand that this combination in particular is what most people associate with evil and I find it much more appropriate here than in combination with Nazi atrocities, which weren't just individual crimes but a huge social subversion of human compassion.

Still I prefer not to use the term evil but the more clinical descriptions of Bundy's motives because I find it strips a few inches of awe-inspiring power from him, or those like him.

Quote:

But I don’t think calling Bundy evil is any hindrance to understanding why things happen, any more then calling mother Theresa good.

It can be, though. This is one hell of an extreme case, but people apply the word to a LOT of horrible things that they do not care about understanding. When I heard the term "axis of evil" used in reference to global politics I could feel nothing but absolute disgust. What a blatant attempt at getting people to stop thinking.

I don't think not using the word would be any hindrance toward recognizing that certain actions or attitudes are fundamentally wrong.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 6:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
When I heard the term "axis of evil" used in reference to global politics I could feel nothing but absolute disgust. What a blatant attempt at getting people to stop thinking.

Zactly.

The thinking Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 7:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Chris, you actually posted an opinion.

*Engages anti-snark defensive systems*

Quote:

True, the same could be said about fiction in general, everyone has a stealth message, Matrix betrays its cult of Messianic Judaism very early on, even though they didn't admit it until they were done.

Yeah, it was one of the things I have to get around to enjoy the flick, it's kinda in your face. But I liked the Buddhist references.
The Christian thing doesn't bother me much, as long as the crucifixion isn't over-used, or the main character isn't named Heyzeus or something.

"Headin' out to Zion, yeah, brother..."

The no-spoon Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 9:49 AM

If there is no spoon, then how am I suppose to eat this slush, whether it tastes like tasty wheat or not?

The christianity bothers me not because I object to christianity, which I don't, but because it waters down my wine. I like water fine, as water. But I want my wine.

When I go for fantasy, I want full on fantasy. I want total chaos, all rules and natural order suspended let chaos reign. Now if you introduce a messiah who has special powers, and the people who follow him are the good, and he must overthrow the dark lord, who minions are just an unmitigated force of evil, it's like you're spilling coke on my manicotti.

It should be a wonderland tour, and with any luck, you can get completely lost in it.

I won't turn into a giant snake, it never helps.

Hey Zeus, dont make it bad.
There's no need to get folks converting
Remember, we're the customer who pays your bills
No reason to keep that tired story sucking

Hey Zeus, just go get laid.
You were made to go out and get her.
The minute you let those theotropes slip in,
Then you begin to make it boring.

Anytime you pontificate, hey dude, refrain,
Dont push your world view on the audience
We've heard it all before, it's old, so play it cool
By making your world a little different.

Hey Zeus, dont let us down.
You have found God, now keep it on the down low.
Remember, to keep it under your hat,
Then you can start to make a decent show.

So scratch it out and write this in, hey dude, begin,
We're waiting for something not so dead.
And you know that stuff is tired, hey dude, it's true
The new stuff you need is in your head.

Hey Zeus, dont be so mad
Take your story and make it interesting
Remember, we're the not the enemy from the start,
No reason to turn on us and hurl lightning

Na na na na na ,na na na, hey dude...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 12:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Ultimately, what he does is a very extreme version of something many people like to do. Getting away with something, dominating someone, exerting control. Coupled with extreme callousness and, apparently, extreme arrogance. It's all about power. And it's remorseless.

I see. So you don’t have any problems identifying the symptoms. You just don’t want to make a diagnosis.

I don’t think we disagree on what evil is. I think the issue is political correctness. You don’t like the use of the word, because you feel that some people misuse it, but the solution to that is not to censor it, but to use it correctly yourself and demand others to do the same. Any word can be misused. You prefer the word abnormal to evil, but that’s only because you feel it hasn’t been as misused. However, if you start substituting abnormal for evil, you will be misusing it, because there are a lot of people that abnormal describes who do not do what Ted Bundy did. Instead of lumping Ted Bundy in with all those innocent people maybe we should distinguish him correctly.

That's just my view. In the end, we seem to agree. It's just usage we see differently.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 1:58 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by Jadehand:
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

But, for a reference point, it's been 20 years since the Cure song "Killing an Arab." It's not new.

Actually, it's been 28 years. The Album "Boys Don't Cry" was released in 1980. Also, I hope you aren't implying that "Killing an Arab" is a racist song. It's not. It was inspired by Albert Camus' book The Stranger (also known as The Outsider). The book deals with existentialism, and the title "Killing An Arab" was taken from a passage where the main character thinks about the emptiness of life after killing a man on a beach. It is about someone who has killed an Arab on a beach and is thinking about it in retrospect, observing the body.
So kinda the opposite of what just reading the title may make you think.

Actually, it's been 31 years now. The single was released in the UK in 1978. I bought an album called "Twenty of Another Kind" in 1979, and that album had "Killing An Arab" on it. The album was a compilation of what was new and upcoming in the music world. It also has Generation X, which featured some singer named Billy Idol, and Plastic Bertrand's single "Ca Plane Pour Moi", which has gained popularity recently. Stiff Little Fingers and The Jam were also featured.

I've still got the album on vinyl. Apparently it's collectible now; back then, it was just a throwaway way to listen to some overseas punk music...

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 2:02 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Ah, I see. I thought this was going to be snark-free hate. *biggrin*

A hate without snark is a hate not worth having. :)

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 2:53 PM

Quote:
I think the issue is political correctness.

对不上, it's an issue of abstract concepts. Not everyone believes in this dichotomy, and some think that it is inherently destuctive, or counter-productive to constructive thought.

Quote:
Generation X, Plastic Bertran

Dude, you have to be like, exactly my age. I never had either I vinyl. I had everything on bootleg.

Mike,

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 11:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I see. So you don’t have any problems identifying the symptoms. You just don’t want to make a diagnosis.

No, that's not the case. I said that someone who believes in the concept of evil may find it most clearly defined in such a case, but for someone who doesn't believe in it, there is no "diagnosis: evil" to make. I don't believe that this was all there was to Bundy - and his actions or motives.

And as I said before, his actions were a mere very extreme form of what many people enjoy doing: exert control at the expense of others, to compensate for the lack of it elsewhere. Where do you truly draw the line?

Quote:

I don’t think we disagree on what evil is. I think the issue is political correctness.

No, actually I think we disagree on the idea that it truly exists. I can define it or describe it without subscribing to the concept, and my certainty that the word is being misused and CAN be harmful doesn't automatically mean that there are cases where the word would rightfully be used.

Quote:

You don’t like the use of the word, because you feel that some people misuse it, but the solution to that is not to censor it, but to use it correctly yourself and demand others to do the same.

You misunderstood me, perhaps because I phrased things wrongly.

I think that collection of descriptors I used for Bundy were one aspect of him and one point on a big spectrum of human behavior. For you, there is a demarkation somewhere that defines this point as "evil". I will judge you for it, but I wouldn't try to stop you from using the word. But for me, there is no such demarkation. I can aknowledge that it exists for you, but it doesn't for me. There is no evil, there is only human behavior.

Quote:

You prefer the word abnormal to evil, but that’s only because you feel it hasn’t been as misused.

There you definitely mistunderstood. I used the word abnormal to describe the specific state of Bundy's brain. Not his actions. To merely replace another word for a concept that I don't believe it would be pretty inconsistent, and with "abnormal" it would even be quite unspecific.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 11:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Quote:
AGENTROUKA
We do, however, disagree on the origin of the concept.

I think he's talking more culturally, and with a specific value of evil. I can be afraid of bears as a child without thinking that bears were evil.

But it's easy to make the leap, especially as a very young child. Bogeyman, monsters under the bed, the wicked witch. There is little room for complexity in irrational fears, and little children's fears often are irrational because they cannot be rational yet.

And I think I really get where Lao Tzu is coming from - based on your words - how in a culture where good is defined very narrowly, un-good takes up so much room that it becomes its antithesis in evil, but it is kind of unsatisfying a theory to me because evil is a very emotional concept that everyone can identify with, even if it is a fallacy, and I think it cannot be fully explained on an abstract level.

Re: Farscape

Quote:

I find Aeryn very annoying, esp. in her relationship with John, but in her relationship with her parents she becomes intensely interesting.

Aeryn is actually my favorite character.

I agree, though, that her relationship with John is extremely flawed, though I blame both of them for it.

Quote:

Quote:

I'll file it away. One day (in 2010) I may find the time to read for pleasure again.

Ah , time management issues. What do you do, I mean professionally?

I'm a full-time student and part-time secretary, plus a commute and a theater project. It's not an impressive life but it's a busy one. Why, oh, why must I need sleep??

Quote:

I'm serious the Tao is short, only about 5,000 words.

Oh, so short? Is there an online version you can recommend?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 17, 2009 5:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
There you definitely mistunderstood. I used the word abnormal to describe the specific state of Bundy's brain. Not his actions. To merely replace another word for a concept that I don't believe it would be pretty inconsistent, and with "abnormal" it would even be quite unspecific.

It’s political correctness. You can’t see that because you’re stuck in the mindset that “evil” has to be understood in some non-existent religious context. It’s just a word that describes human behavior. There’s nothing magic about it. And just like every other word it has a definition, which you hit on very well in one your posts. You obviously understand the concept and we obviously agree on the definition. You just don’t want to use the term – political correctness.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 17, 2009 6:49 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Okay, if this is a theological discussion, what Lao Tzu is saying is that by the act of defining good, you've created evil as its opposite. For instance, your definition of good, which might be completely different from someone else's, might include something as a tenet of Good, which would make that which contradicted it evil. I was going to put in an example, but I'll leave that to you.

Each time we use a word, ANY word, we mentally create the thing and the not-thing. Good (evil). Alive (dead). Cup (non cup)

So think about that cup.

You know what it means, right?

Does it have a handle?
But what about a Japanese tea cup? How is it different from a bowl?

Well, is it more tall than flat, like a paper cup? Then what about coffee mugs? They're taller, and they even have handles. But how is that different from a beer stein? Size?

So is it limited by size? (6-8 oz?) what about espresso and demi-tasse cups? They're smaller.

Does it sit on a flat bottom?
What about victory cups, which have "stems"? And how is that different from a wine glass, which is about the right size?

We THINK we know what we mean when we say a word, but our very words blind us to reality, which doesn't respect our mental boundaries at all.

-------------

So when we talk about cups and non-cups, good and evil, alive and dead... and we think we have a clear-cut definition which crystalizes everything we know about a topic.... all we have is a bright, shining definition which says something about our mental models but perhaps not as much about the real world. That is the nature of mistaking our definitions for the real thing. We must always be aware that simple WORDS can blind us to reality, or even conjure a reality in our minds (purple dragons) that doesn't exist.

----------------

So, on the nature of "good" and "evil": There are people who take pleasure from making others suffer (sadists). There are people who have such internal frustration and such poor impulse control that they lash out. There are people who grew up in abusive households and violent neighborhoods, suffering from PTSD. There are schizophrenics, depressives, people drunk or on other drugs, brain-damaged, low-IQ, seizure-prone, suffering from heavy-metal poisoning, high-functioning autistics, psychopaths and sociopaths of every stripe. They do "bad things".

But what does calling them "evil" do for us? It doesn't tell why they're doing what they're doing, and more importantly it doesn't tell us how to treat them or to prevent the same thing from happening in others. At best, all it does is justify fear, righteousness and vengeance. And vengeance, or "justice", or punishment... or whatever you want to call it.. simply DOES NOT WORK TO DETER SERIOUS VIOLENT CRIME.

So when a definition/ perception causes us to take an action, and that action fails over and over and over and over.... maybe it's time to change perceptions.

The REAL test of whether or not we understand something is called praxis. It provides the reality check for our definitions.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 17, 2009 7:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
There you definitely mistunderstood. I used the word abnormal to describe the specific state of Bundy's brain. Not his actions. To merely replace another word for a concept that I don't believe it would be pretty inconsistent, and with "abnormal" it would even be quite unspecific.
It’s political correctness. You can’t see that because you’re stuck in the mindset that “evil” has to be understood in some non-existent religious context. It’s just a word that describes human behavior. There’s nothing magic about it. And just like every other word it has a definition, which you hit on very well in one your posts. You obviously understand the concept and we obviously agree on the definition. You just don’t want to use the term – political correctness.

You seem pretty determined to tell me what I am thinking.

If I understand the concept of miracle and we agree on the definition but I wouldn't want to use the word to describe an unlikely, lucky happenstance because to me miracles are non-existent, would you accuse me of overt political correctness, as well?

I find it a little offensive, to be honest, that you presume to tell me what I am thinking, while ignoring what I am telling you. The symptoms that create a definition of evil we seemingly agree upon is only one part of a whole situation, and I refuse to pretend that the part IS the whole.

The absolute nature of the word evil is something that I will never accept as actually existing. There is more than one side or perspectice to everything, so I reject the concept, not just the word.

I'm really a little curious why it means so much to you that I aknowledge that evil is a legitimate concept?

And while we are at it, do you think political correctness as an entire concept is wrong, or only if it is exaggerated? Because I think there IS use in insisting on neutral language in certain areas of life. Language has power and words have connotations that we shouldn't always ignore.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 17, 2009 7:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
You seem pretty determined to tell me what I am thinking.

If I understand the concept of miracle and we agree on the definition but I wouldn't want to use the word to describe an unlikely, lucky happenstance because to me miracles are non-existent, would you accuse me of overt political correctness, as well?

That would depend a lot on the definition of miracle that we agree on. The usual definition is dependent upon divine intervention, but it doesn’t have to be that way. A miracle could simply be an unlikely, lucky event. And if that were the definition that we agreed upon, than I might be similarly confused by your unwillingness to use the word to describe such an event.

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I find it a little offensive, to be honest, that you presume to tell me what I am thinking, while ignoring what I am telling you. The symptoms that create a definition of evil we seemingly agree upon is only one part of a whole situation, and I refuse to pretend that the part IS the whole.

Only you know what you’re thinking. All I can do is examine your words, which so far remain confusing. We seem to agree up on a definition of evil, yet despite that you continue to insist that there is something else. What? Because according to the definition, evil simply means morally reprehensible. That’s it. Do you believe that there is no action committed by human beings that is morally reprehensible? That would seem to contradict your previous comments about Ted Bundy. Or are you adding a superfluous connotation to the definition? Perhaps it’s not political correctness, perhaps its superstition? What concept about “evil” are you rejecting?

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I'm really a little curious why it means so much to you that I aknowledge that evil is a legitimate concept?

I’m not concerned with whether or not you acknowledge the word or not, I’m just curious as to what drives you to deny it.

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
And while we are at it, do you think political correctness as an entire concept is wrong, or only if it is exaggerated? Because I think there IS use in insisting on neutral language in certain areas of life. Language has power and words have connotations that we shouldn't always ignore.

I disagree with the whole concept of political correctness. At best it’s a redundant social norm, at worst it’s a manipulative attempt to control thought.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 17, 2009 7:56 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Finn, any comments on my post?

Also, directly to the difference between "evil" and "morally reprehensible".

"Morally reprehensible" is redundant. "reprehensible" would do. Reprehensible means worthy of condemnation or censure. The opposite is praiseworthy.

"Evil" is more extreme. We wouldn't "censure" evil, we'd do a lot more than that. The opposite of evil is good.
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 17, 2009 8:05 AM

Quote:

Quote:
I'm serious the Tao is short, only about 5,000 words.

Oh, so short? Is there an online version you can recommend?

I try to read a different translation every time. The hitch is that it's written in ancient chinese, a language which is no longer clearly understood. The characters slowly changed meanings over time, and so unravelling the true intention is problematic at times.

Additionally, the text often gets corrupted by the translator, usually for one of three reasons:

1. The obvious malicious translation. This comes from a christian or buddhist or some deist who wants to manipulate the text to be consistent with their own faith, sometimes this is even done unconsciously.

2. The well minded but interpretive translation which is trying to make it easy for the reader to understand. This usually corrupts and oversimplifies the meaning, and takes a lot from it, and is sometimes just outright wrong. When Lao says "Become a Valley" that's what he means, and part of the fun is figuring out what he means by that, and then you get it, and say Ah Hah!, I mean, Ah Hah! Deep evil brewing. You're never be bored here Faith. Welcome to Sunnydale, home of the big brewing evil. Oh, sorry, I digress.

3. Ancient languages are just tricky. A lot of linguistic rules, meanings, change over time. For instance, in the ancient Gaelic, and still sometimes today, ll and l were actually unrelated characters. Hence Lloyd would not be "Loid". Finn McCool is originally Fionn, like Fionna, for fair or white, So, in the older spelling, Finn Mac Cumhall would be White Knight, because traits were considered in the clans to be inherited, so fair, light, [son of] the warrior, implied a noble name. Cumhal otoh, means whore. Which is why I said that when I was mad at him, but it was worth it. Points for a segue snark? No offense Finn. Finn's like the second senior member here, I think, after Haken.

Anyway, that aside, it's true of the chinese characters, and leads to a lot of mistranslation, understanding the intend makes it easier.

I would be tempted to go to the most literal translations possible.

taoteching.org is probably the most popular, but there is a group of Thais who made a site
truetao.org which was more accurate, but since then they've changed the text, I think they have may have an agenda. But still, it's a better interpretation. I see now they've taken it down, and are reworking some of it, but I still have the link. Anyway, I'm going recommend Derek Lyn's truetao

http://www.truetao.org/ttc/complete.htm

This page is not openly accessible, but the link should work.

There's also a common work that's been around for a while called the GNL which is an English interpretation of the book, I think this is only useful if you can't make head nor tail of the text.

The general opening line is "the tao that can be spoken is not the true tao," which is a guide to the whole text, that these riddles are clues to the path of life, and to carry the reader through the experience. It's important to remember that Lao was writing this as a very old and learned man, and in part, it's a response to Confucius, who was a very headstrong young warrior.

Often the opening bounces around as an interpretation "The true Tao can not be spoken..." 'only experienced.' The Tao itself means the Way, though it is sometimes translated as the Flow. Knowing the multiple possible meanings is also useful, since there's no guarantee that in an isolated culture, that we will have direct parallel words. The meaning may be in between the two.

Another issue with chinese is there are a lot of cognates, like "run" in English, and so many others.

taoteching.org opens with "The Way that can be experienced is not true;" which cannot be a literal translation, and so is automatically an interpretation. This is the same opening as the GNL, which is highly interpretive, I don't know if it's the same text throughout. It's different from the last time I was at this site. Maybe they scrapped their translation in favor of the GNL. That would be a shame.

Anyway, not to knock the GNL, which basically ballpark, but though my chinese is poor, I did a translation of the first chapter, and then settled on derek lyn's as the closest, much closer than mine is likely to be.

Think of it this way "In my father's house there are man mansions" in the kjv new testament turns into some absurd things in modern translations along the likes of "my dad has a really big house."

Also, the text is taken by a lot of western new agers as some sort of astrology-style wisdom that you can freely interpret as you choose and apply it to yourself. The Tao te Ching is written in somewhat riddle form, but under that riddle is a very definite intended meaning, it's not meant to mean one thing for one person and another for something else.

Taoism began several thousand years ago as "the search for the way." Lao Tzu, (Tse) means old master. Li Er was the Royal Librarian of the Zhou Dynasty, Lao Tzu is a title, meaning older master. After him, it was generally accepted that though not the final word, his text was the best guide.

As for myself, I generally agree with Lao, and when I disagree, I find in time, I tend to agree. But I still quest. At the moment I'm searching for other wisdom of this nature and converting it into this form. Many philosophical texts are information overload in themselves, to say nothing of religious ones, (the bible is as I said, 800,000 words, and I've read it twice) But I'm not seeking to create a universal merged philosophy, just for ideas consistent with this notion of the search for the way.

The contrast between Lao Tzu and Confucius (for Kung Fu Master Kong-Fu Tzu (Tse), his name was Kong Qiu, a student of Lao') is pretty marked. Kong's Analects are essentially rules to be learned, Lao's are essentially concepts to be understood. The Tao te Ching does contain some direct attacks on the Analects. Duty, Justice and Righteousness are vitrues of Confucianism, Lao paints them directly as vices of hypocrisy and ignorance.

The wisdom within the Analects is another project for another time for me. The Analects have been added to by various authors in the name of Kong, so it gets confusing, if you pardon the pun.

Confucianism is the chinese force of order, and has become the philosophical basis of Chinese communism. There are followers of Confucius who decry the abuse of his, and other ancient works, hyper selectivity of heritage, and malicious editing by the communists to make it a better fit, a debate I'm going to dodge for the moment, it's the ideology of of Chinese collectivism. Taoism is the ideology of Chinese individualism.

Not surprisingly, the Chinese govt. hates the Tao te Ching, which it banned for a few years, leading to a revolt, and then like soviets vs. Islam, they just had to deal. When 250 million of your people belong to a faith, banning it without having a civil war is going to be tricky. They're not fond, at any rate.

My personal view is that not everything on the Tao necessarily has to be ancient and Chinese. I tend to recognize it when I see it, and adapting other works has become a hobby.

Oh, one final note. Some words should not be translated. Most people get this about the word Tao, it's a new concept really, and should be defined, rather than translated in the text. The other ones that stick out like a sore thumb are Yin and Yang. Literally, Yin translates as Female, and Yang translates as Male. To Taoism, Yin and Yang are concepts of light and dark, and complementary elements of existence. A whole lot of havoc is caused by literally translating them into female and male. There are undoubtedly others in here that I haven't identified as words that shouldn't be translated. It's like if you were to literally translate Karma from the Sanskrit, it would mean "Action." If you were to use that definition in any eastern philosophy, you would already be headed way off course.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 17, 2009 8:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But what does calling them "evil" do for us? It doesn't tell why they're doing what they're doing, and more importantly it doesn't tell us how to treat them or to prevent the same thing from happening in others. At best, all it does is justify fear, righteousness and vengeance. And vengeance, or "justice", or punishment... or whatever you want to call it.. simply DOES NOT WORK TO DETER SERIOUS VIOLENT CRIME.

I don’t think the use of the word is intended to deter serious violent crime. We use words to convey meaning not control people’s actions. As to that extent, let me bring up a point I made earlier which has remained unanswered. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that I have a friend who suffers from schizophrenia. In other words, he has a chemical imbalance or abnormality in his brain. According to some on this board, this puts him in the same category as Ted Bundy, Richard Ramirez or Charles Manson, unfairly equating him to actions that are not his, because we draw simplistic distinctions. But there is nothing simplistic about the brain or human nature. So just making broad references to chemical imbalances or abnormalities does not adequately characterize the distinguish that exists between Ted Bundy and many innocent people who suffer from mental illness’ but who have never and probably will never hurt anyone. So what is that distinction? What makes Ted Bundy different from my friend, or more to the point, how do we characterize that distinction.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 17, 2009 8:19 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I don’t think the use of the word is intended to deter serious violent crime. We use words to convey meaning not control people’s actions.

Words are a double-edged sword. They can create meaningless concepts. (How high does a purple dragon fly?) And our actions spring from our concepts. (Maybe we should build higher defenses.)

Quote:
As to that extent, let me bring up a point I made earlier which has remained unanswered. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that I have a friend who suffers from schizophrenia. In other words, he has a chemical imbalance or abnormality in his brain. According to some on this board, this puts him in the same category as Ted Bundy, Richard Ramirez or Charles Manson, unfairly equating him to actions that are not his, because you choose to draw simplistic distinctions. But there is nothing simplistic about the brain or human nature. So just making broad references to chemical imbalances or abnormalities does not adequately characterize the distinguish that exists between Ted Bundy and many innocent people who suffer from mental illness’ but who have never and probably will never hurt anyone. So what is that distinction? What makes Ted Bundy different from my friend?

Nothing. As you say, the brain is complicated. There are many ways for it to go "right", a few ways for it to be "brilliant", and a zillion way to go "wrong". Some ways put people in la-la land. Others make the lizard-brain become sexually aroused by rubber galoshes. To call someone "evil" is less productive than to call someone abnormal or imbalanced, because when we call someone abnormal or imbalanced we can start looking for a specific cause. What does the word "evil" get us?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 17, 2009 8:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Nothing. As you say, the brain is complicated. There are many ways for it to go "right", a few ways for it to be "brilliant", and a zillion way to go "wrong". Some ways put people in la-la land. Others make the lizard-brain become sexually aroused by rubber galoshes. To call someone "evil" is less productive than to call someone abnormal or imbalanced, because when we call someone abnormal or imbalanced we can start to look for the specific cause.

There is no reason why accurately distinguishing Ted Bundy as “evil” from the many non-evil and good people who suffer from mental illness should prevent research into psychological or mental illness.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 17, 2009 8:34 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Finn, as you said

Quote:
What you’re calling sick is not the same thing as having a disease. What you’re calling sick is nothing more then a fundamental difference in the way his brain worked compared to yours or mine.

Yes, his brain works differently. Why? Is there something missing from his amygdala? His frontal cortex (where people model/ mimic other's behavior and some say is the seat of empathy?) I can point to all kinds of abnormal behaviors rooted in the limbic system. We should be studying peeps like Bundy. Finn, you think that people have a lot more "choice" than they really do. Most people's behavior is directed by their lizard-brain and their overall chemical balance.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 17, 2009 8:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn, as you said
Quote:
What you’re calling sick is not the same thing as having a disease. What you’re calling sick is nothing more then a fundamental difference in the way his brain worked compared to yours or mine.
Yes, his brain works differently. Why? Is there something missing from his amygdala? His frontal cortex (where people model/ mimic other's behavior and some say is the seat of empathy?) I can point to all kinds of abnormal behaviors rooted in the limbic system. We should be studying peeps like Bundy.

We are studying peeps like Bundy. So what? How does that not make him evil?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 17, 2009 8:42 AM