|
|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
Predator Goose
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 5:30 pm |
  |
|
Yeah, I was going to say something about the nature of good and evil, but I just think you guys should drop it. Let username use the word "evil" if he wants, he's not necessarily being an ass for it, and drawing attention to the subject distracts from the actual story.
Edit: Incorrectly referenced "endless" as being the one who originally used the word evil. Fixed it.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Predator Goose
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 6:11 pm |
|
|
Oh god no. Struggling mightily not to make jokes in poor taste about "roid rage."
_________________
I can no longer shop happily. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Predator Goose
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 10:37 pm |
|
|
A guy was a wrestler. He strangled his wife, smothered his son, and then hung himself. That's all we know. Debating whether or not he is evil is ridiculous at this point. Maybe the guy was just suffering a case of severe demensia and didn't even realize what he was doing. Maybe someone forced him to do it. Maybe the roid rage took hold, he killed his wife, took some more roids to comfort himself, and then killed his son and himself in the resulting roid rage. Maybe his wife killed the son and then herself and he tried desparately to cover it up. (Police have been wrong about things before)
There's probably at least a dozen more possibilities for the events, ranging from the pure evil to the saintly. At least wait until more details are released by the authorities. to discuss the morality of what happened.
Edit: I think that tribute I was talking about was me getting my wires crossed with crappy wrestling fiction.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily.
Last edited by Predator Goose on Tue Jun 26, 2007 10:43 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Predator Goose
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 1:41 am |
|
|
| parkbench wrote: |
| The evillitude is only muddled by the fact that it's done under orders in a war. So, innocent people dying in a bombing in Baghdad or what have you is evil but not as simple as a man with a revolver; it's layered evillitude; evil with buffers and layers to make it socially acceptable. |
This statement only communicates the phrase "It's complicated". You don't relate "socially acceptable" in any way to the morality of the act. In that sense it does not address Waffen's view that the personal situation is more evil than the detached one.
And it's not sufficient to address Booji's claim at all, as that deals with the separate evaluations of the act and the actor, and where to lay the blame perhaps.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Predator Goose
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:13 am |
|
|
| parkbench wrote: |
| By saying that one situation is clearly evil ("simple") and another is diffused evil ("layered"), I thought I was naturally implying that one was clearly more easy to judge than the other--one was clearly, more resolutely 'evil.' |
Yes, you effectively communicated that one situation was easier to label "evil". But that statement doesn't actually arrive at any moral conclusion of it's own, and as such doesn't work as a rebuttal of Waffen's argument where he clearly states that one is more evil. He did not merely say that it was easier to judge as evil, he clearly stated that it was actually a more heinous act in the simple case.
And the separation of act and actor is not addressed at all, and I think was merely just Booji trying to help out with the "It's complicated" sentiment.
So really I don't think that they restated you.
Edit: My brothers, I love to fight about morals and don't care a lick about this wrestler person. Quickly change the channel with some hard facts about the story before I derail this thread any futher.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Predator Goose
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 10:50 am |
|
|
| parkbench wrote: |
| Quote: |
| also this thread is hilarious |
lol HEY GAYZ let's post in TEH AXE!1
| Quote: |
Yes, you effectively communicated that one situation was easier to label "evil". But that statement doesn't actually arrive at any moral conclusion of it's own, and as such doesn't work as a rebuttal of Waffen's argument where he clearly states that one is more evil. He did not merely say that it was easier to judge as evil, he clearly stated that it was actually a more heinous act in the simple case. |
By using the word "evil" I am inherently making a judgment. The word evil is so loaded, too, that it can only be used in situations of clear-cut wrongdoing. The 'evils' of modern warfare, as I said, are so diffused and layered and complex that using the word 'evil' grossly over-simplifies the situation. Civilians dying is a 'tragedy,' not 'evil,' at least in the cases where we assume it wasn't deliberate (and we shouldn't make the ethnocentric mistake that other militaries are like our own).
By saying that one situation is more clear-cut, I am saying the moral judgment is one a child learns to make at the age of two or three; it is one almost no one would disagree upon. I think anyone would think it more heinous simply because it has an identifiable source to blame, to be held accountable, whereas a problem like "nations waving their pricks at each other" is so much more involved and layered that I would think most people do not have the same almost instinctive human repulsion to it. |
I'm sorry, I should have said that your statement didn't reach any moral conclusion about which one is worse on its own, and therefore was not the same as Waffen's statement. Also I'd take issue with this statement:
| parkbench wrote: |
| The word evil is so loaded, too, that it can only be used in situations of clear-cut wrongdoing. |
But at least it brings you more in line with Waffen's statement.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
