| |
| | | | | 3949.32 in reply to 3949.31 | |
Dear Kath, As to controversy 2: You define "evil" as the opposite of "good". I do not. "Evil" is one perspective which is the opposite of another perspective labeled "good". Both are almost entirely subjective and considerably pejorative. The "bad" Germans fought the "good" English in World War I. Why? Because of who won the war. If the Germans had won, the English would have been "bad". I realize how the labels "good" and "evil" are used in this society and I object to it. To insist on using a word which has been thoroughly abused is to insist on maintaining the perspective which the word engenders. To call Saddam Hussein "evil", for instance, is to ignore the peace and prosperity he brought to his country and to label our troops and the Iraqi leaders they replaced him with as "good" is absurd in light of what has happened to Iraq in the aftermath of Hussein's being deposed and executed. My point is that all this is a DIRECT RESULT of the vocabulary and ideology used to analyze the situation. If we hadn't dismissed Hussein as "evil", we might have had a clearer insight into what it takes to rule a country such as his. My major and steadfast complaint is that the labels do not help any understanding and deter compromise. Once the Democrats label Republicans "evil" and vice-versa, progress stops and sensible legislation becomes impossible to enact. All this said, I think Saddam's sons were about as close to "evil" as anyone I know about and, even there, I would rather use descriptions such as "psychopathic", which at least are a description of behavior without implicitly ascribing some hidden and speculative causality. Love, Dave
Edited 10/9/2009 7:06 pm ET by goodguy |
| |
|
| | | | | 3949.33 in reply to 3949.32 | |
PS: You point to "understanding and empathy" as being "good". Then "evil", the word, isn't good itself because it works against this goal, whether the person influenced is "good" or "evil" and "good" ignores a whole lot of stuff that might otherwise encourage soul-searching, also precluding understanding. |
| |
|
| | | | | 3949.34 in reply to 3949.33 | |
Dear Dave, You give me a headache. Love, Kath |
| |
|
| | | | | 3949.35 in reply to 3949.32 | |
Davester, I don't believe `evil' and `good' are subjective. Of course, anyone can have a different perspective of what is good or evil, and that would depend on what their brains tell them to perceive. Psychosis is sometimes responsible for an absence of realization of the difference. But even Jeffrey Dahmer knew that what he was doing was evil although he was unable to stop himself. That doesn't change the fact that what he did was evil. Just having learned much of history (to my dismay and shock) as it really was, rather than what the history books portray it to be, I find myself sadly aware that things are not what they seem and never were. 911 was orchestrated by the United States to muster the strongest pro-US sentiment since Pearl Harbor (which was also orchestrated). So, Bush and Co. were able to pull off the invasion of Iraq because people (all galvanized by the 'mid-eastern TERRORISTS which they lumped into a whole...not knowing the difference) were focused on the 'evil' people who killed our citizens....LET'S GIT 'EM! Nevermind that 911 had nothing to do with Iraq. They (all mid-easterners) are the enemy. They are the 'evil ones' according to the whacker. Right after that, how many people signed up for the military to kick butt? Yeah, tie a yellow ribbon 'round the old oak tree....gather your groups to make care packages for the soldiers who would get their brains blown out in a war that was started for no good reason (but yes, evil reasons...oil control and to eliminate yet another group segment of our world population), which never would have gotten off the ground if it were not for 911. Yes, the OPINION of what is good or evil may be subjective, but the REALITY of good or evil is not. What is wrong is wrong no matter who is looking at it. Love
Kath
Edited 10/9/2009 10:39 pm ET by 888 |
| |
|
| | | | | 3949.36 in reply to 3949.33 | |
Dave, You wrote:
To call Saddam Hussein "evil", for instance, is to ignore the peace and prosperity he brought to his country and to label our troops and the Iraqi leaders they replaced him with as "good" is absurd in light of what has happened to Iraq in the aftermath of Hussein's being deposed and executed. Now you've got my eyes crossing. I don't call Saddam Hussein 'evil'. However, his recorded acts of terror against his own people are evil themselves. What it was that allowed him to commit these acts is evil whether or not he believed what he was doing was evil. It was still evil. Was HE evil? Maybe, but my focus is on the acts themselves and not the perpetrator. If I would call someone evil, it would be because they do intentional harm to others because there is an evil force behind it. Many people in history committed evil acts and also were loving, benevolent people to others. Some realize the evil of their acts and don't care, whom I believe to be psychotic, and others don't see the evil in their acts whom I also believe to be psychotic. But the evil remains a manifestation. Kath |
| |
|
| | | | | 3949.37 in reply to 3949.35 | |
Jeffrey Dahmer was certifiably insane. Speaking as a person with considerable history in and around mental illness, I find the label "evil" to be completely and utterly inappropriate. The Devil did not induce Jeffrey Dahmer to do the sick and twisted acts we all have read about. He was ill. Once we know Mr. Dahmer is ill, we can start to understand him. We look into his past and the trauma of his youth. We see the sickness that ran in his family, passed from generation to generation. We examine the spiritual and see the terrible spiritual isolation of this tortured soul. We grieve for him AND his victims. And when we resolve this issue, his soul and the souls of his victims are in rapprochement and peace. --- Or we can call him "evil" and leave the situation as it is -- ugly, festering, irreconcilable. |
| |
|
| | | | | 3949.38 in reply to 3949.36 | |
OK. Let's call Saddam Hussein "evil". Then we believe all the lies and innuendo about him because it seems likely for an "evil" man to have done those things. Already we're off track. Saddam Hussein didn't personally gas Kurds. Saddam Hussein's men probably didn't gas Kurds. The most likely scenario, given that the Iranian army had the cyanide, was that the Iranians (not the Iraqis) gassed the Kurds (accidentally or on purpose) and blamed it on Hussein and the Kurds were ready to believe it. Saddam Hussein didn't have WMDs. We did. We do. Who's "evil" here. We have lots of atomic AND biological WMDs. We have huge stockpiles!! Yet we called him "evil" and stopped looking at reality and details. The word sets up a prejudicial system that subverts thought and precludes honest evaluation. And, it has the "Devil" back in the subconscious motivating everything. We forget that the subject is like us. We ignore other causes and other possibilities and ESPECIALLY we ignore our own deviance and culpability. "Evil" is how we get dishonest. It allows us to lie easily and glibly. And it really serves no other purpose. It isn't really descriptive -- unless you really think the Devil exists and sits back invading souls and then twisting them toward disruptive and destructive purposes. |
| |
|
| | | | | 3949.39 in reply to 3949.20 | |
What's wrong with this subject's postings. It goes right off the page and cuts off many words. By the way, it wasn't Kathy that posted "you didn't know before you were born, and you won't know after you die." It was me. Judith |
| |
|
| |
| From: | Juan | Oct-17 8:23 am |
| To: | 888 |
(40 of 76) | | | | 3949.40 in reply to 3949.35 | |
Hmmmm,
Can I assume that you're a vegetarian from this statement; "But even Jeffrey Dahmer knew that what he was doing was evil although he was unable to stop himself. That doesn't change the fact that what he did was evil."
:-) |
| |
|
| | | | | 3949.41 in reply to 3949.38 | |
Dave,
I agree with you that Evil is not a useful concept. It obfuscates the issues. It implies that some extrinsic factor has entered this person and now controls this person.....that it can ultimately be exorcised from any given person. This is archeaic thinking.
Real understanding will only come about when we see that the Jeffery dahmers and the saddam Husseins of the world are mentally ill......That these things are brought about by abnormal brain chemistry or brain injury or aberrant child hoods.....perhaps even all of the above. Not to mention defective genes or even too many genes.....as in the case of men who are born X-YYYY instead of the usual X-Y. It happens all the time that folks are born with unusual configurations of genes.
Turner's X-O, or Kleinfelter's XX-Y are very common anomalies, and have a huge impact on the mental status of the individual. Branding someone as evil severs any real mechanism for understanding and hence prevention....or at least understanding and compassion.
We see people with head injuries all the time who have a complete change of personality.....are they evil....particularly when they exhibit negative behaviour? I think not.
Kelly |
| |
|
|
|
|
