Define evil...

[wiccansamurai]

*giggle* It turned into a religous debate. *giggle*

Er, evil is evil. No one, as was already said, is completely evil or good. There are plenty of evil actions, though. Really, all I have to say has already been said ^_^

EDIT: Let me expand a bit. There are only evil acts, because the acts were not thought to be evil. Usually. What I mean, the person who performs these evil acts, usually has a reason that they think is right. Even if they think its right only for their benefit, it doesn't

[QUOTE]I have one or two friends who love pain and harm immensely; and I don't see how enjoying inflicting hurt on them if they enjoy it makes that some how evil. [/QUOTE]

*shudder* It's an addiction. Addictions that can harm you are really [I]baaaaad[/I]. I think alcohol, drugs, and any thing like that used inappropriately is evil. Evil acts.

[Circ]

How about this other definition: An evil person does "evil" actions just for the sake of doing evil actions, or for no reason at all?

[DeathBug]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=century][QUOTE][i]Originally posted by doukeshi03 [/i]
[B]oh really? Then doesn't that completely null the point of a debate or in fact, a conversation? [/B][/QUOTE]

Not at all. I am completely open to discussing the nature or definition of [b]evil[/b]. He said that [b]evil[/b] did not exist, and that's wrong.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by doukeshi03 [/i]
[B]No it isn't a cop out because everything is based on perception. Just because society deems something as evil does not define it in concrete. A different society maybe deem that as acceptable...No matter how severe you think the action whether it is evil or not is always based on perception. [/B][/QUOTE]

You're splitting hairs; this isn't eating meat on Fridays or swearing in a church. The example that was brought up was Adolf Hitler. He directed a campaign that killed six million people, by gassing and burning them to death. That is [b]evil[/b], and he was an [b]evil[/b] man for doing so.


[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by doukeshi03 [/i]
[B]I reiterate my previous argument and add that to rule out all others opinions in favour of your own stubbord defenition is [i]ignorance[/i].[/B][/QUOTE]

I did not rule out all other arguments; just his.


[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by doukeshi03 [/i]
[B]I can explain to holocaust survivors that Hitler was not evil, and i would if I knew any. [/B][/QUOTE]

Then, I'm sorry, but you're a fool.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by doukeshi03 [/i]
[B]If you look at the facts then Hitler was not evil. Nor was he misunderstood. The actions he sanctioned were horrendous it's true, however, you do have to look at the reasons behind these actions and other actions in comparison to that.[/B][/QUOTE]

Hitler is the yardstick by which human [b]evil[/b] hs come to be measured. He killed six million people simply because he decided that they didn't deserve to live. He poisoned the minds of an entire generation of the German people with his hatred. He was an [b]evil[/b] man. Get over it.


[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by doukeshi03 [/i]
[B]You say that saying something is evil by perception is a cop out? Well saying something is evil just as a dismissal is just as big a cop out I'm afraid. [/B][/QUOTE]

I am talking about [i]Adolf frickin' Hitler[/i]. Say it with me, Adolf Hitler. You act as though I'm condeming people as [b]evil[/b] left and right. I'm not. If there was one truely [b]evil[/b] man in the t wentith century, it was Adolf Hitler. You'd have to do a lot of talking to explain otherwise.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by doukeshi03 [/i]
[B]Here's a wake up call for [i]you[/i]. Evil doesn't exist in the way that you think. You say killing someone is evil.[/B][/QUOTE]

Actually, I said killing children was an [b]evil[/b] act. My exact example of an unforgivable [/b]evil[/b] act was a man who raped and murdered a three-year old girl. Let's keep the facts right, 'kay?

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by doukeshi03 [/i]
[B]Okay, are the mentally disturbed, did they have a reason? Until you get inside someones head you can't define them as simply 'evil'. You can call a person bad, you can call an action wrong, disturbing, horrifying...but evil...thats only something you find in story books along side the 'evil' queen in snow white and the emperor in star wars. [/B][/QUOTE]

The only person I have called truely [b]evil[/b] was Adolf Hitler. If I have to explain to you why I believe this one man in history was, of all others, worthy of the title, then you're blind.

To say that [b]evil[/b] is merely a perception is dodging the argument. There are some actions that are simply [b]evil[/b], and there are a few people who are simply [b]evil[/b]. All I did was name Hitler as one of those people.[/size][/font][/color]

[Justin]

Wow, I'm getting a friggin' tan off of this one...this has gotten far too personal.

Though, I don't see why it's so amusing that's it's gone religious. Why shouldn't it? After all, if there were no God, anything I believed to be "right" or "wrong" would be bogus. That's why subjective truths cannot exist along side an omniscent God.

Evil is simply the lack of good. Satan lacks goodness, so he is evil. Simple enough? Because I'm a human, I was born into a curse of sin. Because I am human, I was born evil. The [i]one[/i], [i]singular[/i] thing that makes me not evil now is God's undeserved grace and love. By myself, I am nothing. By myself, I am the biggest hypocrite you'll ever meet. By myself, I am filthy, angry, lustful, greedy, arrogant, and perverse.
But by Jesus, who lives in me, all that is washed away. By Jesus, who lives in me, my sinful nature and personal slavery to my sinful nature no longer exist; in others words, I am free to be what I was designed to be. By Jesus, who lives in me, I am seperated from this world and all that characterizes it and placed beneath His cover. And by Jesus, who lives inside of me, I am becoming more and more like Him. [i]That[/i] is the ultimate goal of Christianity. Not what is acceptable based on my own reasoning; but what is proven righteous by His sacrifice. If Jesus had ever sinned, His life, death, and resurrection accomplished nothing; but, people, I can tell you, those events accomplished something. You're reading the words of an accomplishment made by Jesus Christ.

Give me that Wildfire, baby. The righteous [i]will[/i] burn again.

-Justin

[Ben]

You tell them, Justin. :smirk:

doukeshi03, since I have absolutely nothing better to do, I took the words that you used in place of "evil" (wrong, horrendous, disturbing, and horrifying) and ran them through Thesaurus.com

As it turns out, they are [B]all[/B] synonymous with evil. :toothy:

[Patronus]

[size=1]Evil is in the eye of the beholder, as proven in this very thread. One cannot give a concrete meaning to the word [b]evil[/b], for there are many perceptions. Evil is as different as we are; everyone has a different view on it.[/size]

[Charles]

I can't stand the term "evil." It's lost a lot of its weight, honestly. Especially following 9/11 and the war on terrorism. I don't intend to turn this into another thread that aims to needlessly bash George Bush--but his speech writers have stretched the word to its greatest possible boundaries, leading it to become nothing more than a catch phrase with no attached meaning. I feel that it became especially humorous when used by him--a reaction detrimental to his intended rhetoric of fear.

Thus, in a day and age when everything is "evil," I'm reminded of funny references--like cliché comic book heroes--or Gargamel from The Smurfs. It's just such an overly righteous expression that I can't help but to laugh at the sound of it. Using it seriously is the verbal equivalent of tripping over your toes.

[James]

[color=#707875]I tend to agree with Charles here.

Let's look at how the dictionary defines "evil". First, as an adjective:

[list]
[*]Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
[*]Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
[*]Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
[*]Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
[*]Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.
[/list]

And as a noun:

[list]
[*]The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
[*]That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good and evil.
[*]An evil force, power, or personification.
[*]Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice.
[/list]

As you can see, "evil" can be used in many ways. However, primarily, it is known as being something that relates to one's morals.

And this is largely why I find that the term can be used wrongly, because it [i]can[/i] be used in this black and white sense. And life just isn't that simplistic. All too often, people can simply use the word to define someone as being "morally wrong", when a person's morals are largely a subjective thing.

Having said that, the meaning of the world itself is quite varied, as you can see here. And the application of the word is also varied.

I think the problem that people have with the word being used, is that it's often used to project a moral superiority between two groups or individuals. In some cases, I'm sure that's also probably valid (ie: comparing a murderer to a regular person or something). But nonetheless, I can see why there's a hesitation to simply jump to the word "evil".

I think that talking about evil as being "perceived evil" isn't a cop out -- using the word "evil" in and of itself is actually the bigger cop out.

As I said earlier, it's easy to say that someone is an apologist because they don't want to simply label someone as evil. But I think that fails to understand the point -- and the point is that when one understands the motivation behind an "evil person" or an "evil act", one is better prepared to counter that and to deal with it. It can be difficult to deal with something when you simply slap a label on it, without any attempt to gain knowledge about that said evil.[/color]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=violet]Damn, I always miss the good ones!
Anyways, back to the actual topic.
Evil is as evil does from my perspective and I feel there has to be evil in this world because if there wasn't evil, how would we know what good is? Think about it, if there was no evil how would you know right from wrong? Good from bad. There has to be dark in order for there to be light. We have one thing to balance out another.
On the subject of defining evil, I don't feel that I'm in a position to do so. Saying that, I don't feel anyone of us is in that position to define exactly what evil is. Hell, the IRS (for the US ppl) probably thinks that cheating on your taxes is evil. However that is definately not on the same level as taking an infant and smashing its head against a wall to kill it or hanging your neighbor's cat then setting it on fire. But some critics may call those behavoirs signs of mental distrubance. Taking that into consideration, I think I'll jump on the Hitler debate band wagon.
Hitler was a disturbed individual, (for that matter so was Joseph Stalin and the Armanian horseshoe guy (if anyone knows what his name is, please tell me.)). In this day and age, if someone had shown Hitler's signs of mental instability that person would be put away, sent for counceling and given mass quantities of prozak and other anti-depression drugs. Unfortunately, they didn't do those sort of things in the 1920's and Germany made Hitler their dictator. Doing so set off the lovely arguement that historinas have dubbed world war two.
I notice that people have been replying to this topic by using religion. Okay, I'll add my two cents into this area as well. One of the main rules in Wicca is And it harm none, do what ye will. Simply put, this means, as long as you don't hurt anyone you can do what you want, but you should also be willing to take responsibility for your actions. That means that if you kill someone, you can't go and say-Satan made me do it. This is mostly because Wiccans don't believe in Satan therefore he cannot make us do bad things. You make yourself do bad things just as much as you make yourself do good things. There is no evil entity controlling your mind, nor is there one controlling someone else's mind. People make their own descisions to do wrong or right and they should take responsibility for those actions. There really is no forgiveness for your 'sins', you simply admit that you didn wrong and accept the consequences for your actions-which is really fun when the Rule of three comes into play.
In closing I'd like to state that in real life you can't always separate good from evil. There is no evil fairy-like in Sleeping Beauty-seeking revenge for someone's parents not inviting her to a party. There is only human nature which is both good and evil at the same time.[/color]

[Mitch]

[quote]No offense, but that's a bunch of crap. I'm sorry, but some things are evil, and I don't care who you are or what your perceptions are. [/quote]

[size=1] You've just proved my point. Some things [i]are[/i] evil--that is if you choose to perceive them as so.[/size]

[quote]So, when asked the question, "What is evil?", the answer is "Whatever you think it is"? That's a cop out.
I might be open to debate on the exact meaning or nature of evil, but to say it doesn't exist screams of ignorance. some actions are evil no matter who you are or how you percieve them.[/quote]

[size=1] In society today, there are things which are deemed certainly wrong and right. I do agree there. But again, what society says is yet again a perception. A perception in being that it's something that's seen one way when it could be many others.

I'm not saying evil doesn't exist--don't get me wrong, don't put words in my mouth. I'm just saying that it exists where one sees it--not on some immense level. The values which you believe are the ones you've lived with your whole life, right? Yes, they are. These values: the ones that say killing is wrong, rape is wrong, being rude is wrong, on and on and on. And I believe these things as well: I believe it is wrong to kill someone without reason.

Do you want more examples of how evil is how you see it? Must I give more?

Let's bring in suicide; in this day and age it's seen as a terrible act. And since you're so adamant about Hitler--I'll also say Hitler killed himself because he was so [b]evil[/b] that he couldn't go on.

Think back to feudal Japan. The Samurai. They lived for war. And if they were ashamed--they would kill themselves. If they were shamed in battle they would kill themselves.

Committing suicide was seen as a noble death.

It's seen as the same thing for the Romans. Have you read Shakespeare's [i]Julius Caesar[/i]? If you have, you'll remember that Brutus had someone help him kill himself on the field. It was seen as a noble act.

And look at today--with time comes change. Now suicide is seen as wrong.

I'm not supporting suicide. I'm just showing you--perceptions change with time. It's not always been a straight-up "suicide is wrong" type of mentality.

So were the Samurai "screaming of ignorance" for killing themselves because they were ashamed of losing battle, or were they killing themselves because they saw it as right? Was Hitler "screaming of ignorance" for killing himself, or was he killing himself because he didn't want to face his consequences (since you like to bring Hitler up so much in this argument)?

Here's what you need to do: you need to put yourself in Hitler's skin. You need to put yourself in a Samurai's skin.

Image, for a second, Deathbug, that you are Hitler. Your mind is a strange thing, working in its ways. By what you see, you see that the people of Germany are weakened by the Great Depression happening about ten years after World War 1.

Imagine, for a second, that you want to purify. Imagine for a second that from your eyes you think the Jews deserve to systematically die. Try to put yourself in Hitler's shoes.

Hitler wasn't some big bad evil man. He was just one man. And any man is weaker than can be said. Hitler only took an opportunity and used it to his advantage--this opportunity being that his country, as well as the US, as well as the entire world, was under a Great Depression. Because of this Great Depression, the US didn't pay attention to Hitler's rise to power.

Because of World War 1 the Great Depression, in an indirect way, arose. Because of the Great Depression, Hitler rose to power. Because Hitler rose to power, he started Germany's military to work (even though they had signed a treaty not to after World War 1). Because of this money circulated around Germany. Because of Hitler World War 2 began. But not because of Hitler, but because of opportunity.

Now, Hitler was just a man with a certain view on things--as bad as it may be--yes, I'll use the word, as [b]evil[/b] as it may be. He was just a man. He wasn't some demonical demon from the deepest bowels of hell--he was just a man.

A man alone cannot systematically kill so many people, can he? Other people have to cooperate with this man. And that's what happened with Hitler's rule. People did what he said because there wasn't much else they could do--and also, because, I'm sure, some of them felt the same way Hitler did.

Hitler wasn't the only man that killed those millions upon millions of people. It was also his minions, those "demonical demons from the deepest bowels of hell that were so evil." They also killed all those people in those camps. They gased and maimed and killed and abused all those people.

Yes, what Hitler did was bad--I think that goes without saying. This isn't my point. My point is that even though I, and you, see that what Hitler did was bad by our own perceptions--that by his perceptions it wasn't. That if I were Hitler and raised in the exact ways he was, I'd probably be that man too. I'd probably think that what I was doing wasn't evil, and it was wonderful and grand and great.

Put yourself in his skin. His "demonical demoned skin that is so evil." Put it on for a second--look at the opposite end of what you're thinking.

Yes, Hitler was mentally ill. Yes, Hitler was a bad man. But he's only bad because we see that he is--not because he sees that he is.

And it's not like "we" (meaning the United States) haven't done things that are in some character the same.

Hitler thought Jews were inferior. We thought blacks were inferior, we thought immigrants were inferior, we thought, as in the court case I mentioned, the feebleminded were inferior and needed to be cleansed and purified out of society.

Hitler only took it many steps further. He killed millions of innocent people because he thought they were inferior and he wasn't. He sought to exinct this branch of inferior people as he so saw.

And what did we do? What did the United States do? We had slaves.

have you ever seen the movie Amistad, Deathbug? It's a very good movie, directed by Steven Spielberg. See it sometime, won't you? Then you can see how bad slaves had it.

Slaves were many steps back from what Hitler did, but they do compare in a sense: that sense being we saw African Americans as inferior, and so we made them in our servitude.

Now, slaves were often beaten: beaten till they had large welts on their backs, till they bled all about. They were often starved, given little food, forced to work day-by-day and sometimes night-by-night slaving away in sometimes heavy physical work.

The US wasn't the only country having slaves--but for the purposes of this, I'll focus on the US, since it's where I think you live, I'd say.

You know what's funny about slaves? They were considered property. And why were they considered property? [i]Because they were perceived as so.[/i] The people of that era thought what they were doing was just as right as you think that killing, raping, and so on is wrong.

If you were born in that time, it's likely to say you'd be just like the people then. It's likely to say that if you were Hitler, you would've done what he did. Just put yourself back at those times and eras--try to understand why this person did this, why they did that.

Now slaves were treated like they were nothing. We beat them, overworked them. There were some that got lucky, though. Some that didn't have to do this daunting physical labor. But generally, this is how slaves were treated. And people thought it was right back then.

You know how they justified, at least some, what they did? Religion. That's how. Religion.

And how are you justifying evil right here? Society. That's how. Society. Society and what it's taught you.

So just because you never did any of these things--you're missing the point. Try to understand why people did these things--put yourself in their shoes. Don't just write things off as black and white and say, "Hitler was evil. Why was he evil? Because he killed millions of people." Don't just say, "Enslaving blacks was wrong. But I never did it." Put yourself in these peoples' shoes. Understand their motives. Read between the lines. See what they saw.

Perception. This is what this post comes back to.

I'm not saying your perceptions are wrong. I'm not saying that Hitler was a bad man (which seems to be your biggest gripe). I'm just saying that before you write something off as one thing or another, you should think about it. Even if your beliefs lie elsewhere, still try to understand what would drive someone to beat and punish blacks. Ask yourself why Hitler did what he did. Because I can certainly tell you it wasn't just because he wanted to kill a whole bunch of people--that is somewhat of it, but still, you're not understanding.

Deathbug, imagine something. Imagine you live in a different world. Imagine that in this world's society it's right to kill and rape and rob and plunder and kill and destroy. Imagine this. Put yourself in this society's shoes.

Now imagine you were born in this society. Imagine it was what taught you what you know--imagine that it's what your parents taught you to believe.

Would you still be saying that Hitler was an evil man?

For all purposes, let's say Hitler's the "leader" of this society. What if you were born here in that society, and were shown that all you think is bad is right.

Would you, having been shaped by this world (and not at all by what you know of this world) still think Hitler was a bad man? No, you wouldn't. For you would be born in a society where it's seen as right to do what Hitler's doing. And all those things would be interred in you. Just as all the things you are interred with now are in you.

It's just as I said: it's all how things are perceived. You've just been brought up in a way that makes you perceive things strongly your way. You need to learn to understand fully why people do what they do.

I mean, just saying Hitler killed millions of people isn't enough to me. I want to know why he did it. I want to know the man behind it. And I know that Hitler wasn't the only man behind it. Hitler was just the head of it. He had all his cronies that also thought his ways. So he's not alone to blame, but generally is seen as so.

Anyway, I think I've said things in a direct enough way.

As I said, everything goes both ways for me. I can see how killing might be right, but from what I've been taught, it's wrong.

What's good is bad and what's foul is fair. That's what it comes down to for me.[/size]

[Baron Samedi]

There is a simple answer to this.

Evil is subjective- depending on who and when and where you are, it can be different things.

The social boundaries are defined by society. There is no definitive right and wrong line, only that imposed by the rest of the world. Without society, a single human would have no boundaries in what they would do. So, really, evil is not an actual definable term. Of course there are thing that everyone views as evil, but in a hypothetical society, they could be viewed as normal. So, evil is not set in concrete.

There is no such thing as an evil person. Because I believe that they would not commit evil actions if they thought they were.

There is difference in all of us. Some are radically different- to us Evil. You can't define this.

[James]

[color=#707875]I think that what Mitch mentioned about slaves is very appropriate here. Now, we'd probably be inclined to label slavery as an evil practice.

But at a certain point in history, it was acceptable to many people.

I think that's a very clear-cut example of how perceptions of evil/morality/social codes/etc change over generations. [/color]

[Ben]

Clarify this for me Mitch, please. You're saying that the slaughter of millions of innocent people [I]could[/I] be viewed as a [B]good[/B] thing to do? Based on a different perspective, I mean.

Just because Hitler saw it as right, it was an okay thing to do? Granted, people went along with it; people believed it. But the intended end (the "purification"), whatever the perception, does not justify the means.

Think about it Mitch. [I]Millions of [B]innocent[/B] people.[/I]

Just because a few people view it as right doesn't make it a good thing. Granted, I'm willing to admit that just because the majority of people view it as a bad thing, that it is not [B]evil[/B] based solely on their perception.

Tell me this too, if I murdered your family because I thought it was right, I should get off scott free while you sit at home crying in a puddle of your parent's blood and I am free to kill again?

That just makes no sense to me.

[ssj3borjan]

Yes, I am a 'newbie' here on the OB....

....but I feel that I too am able to add my input into the discussion.

For myself, personally, I feel that an evil person [b]can[/b] partially be defined. Notice I use the word 'partially' as I believe that to define evil, like ChibiHorsewoman has previously mentioned, is a task that is perhaps beyond us.....

For the moment at least. Because I believe that it would be more appropriate to define evil not using 'a one rule fits all' type definition that perhaps some people are aiming for, but using multiple definitions to perhaps get a bit closer to the true meaning, if there is one at all....

To clarify, think of the plight of the scientists that are trying to find to 'Theory of Everything'. no doubt some of you know what I am on about, for others, I will give you the simplist of explanations. It goes a little like this, the scientists have come up with ideas for how the universe truely works, but the problem is that while the laws that they are propsing are all 'true' and do explain various aspects of the universe and its workings, they do not all work together so well. What the scientist are trying to do is to look at all the equations and laws that they have written down and to revise them until all work in harmony together, thereby producing the Theory of Everything (Note: I am pretty sure that this was the jist of the programme I saw a while back, even if that is not the case, I hope everyone agrees the logic is sound...)

Relating this back to the concept of how to define evil, perhaps we need to sit down together (rhetorically of course, since I have no idea where you all are ^_^) and logically set out the 'laws' that define evil. These 'laws' should be things that people undeniabley all agree with, hence making them 'true'.

Of course, before I actually point out my intial 'law', I have to stress the point that is of most hinderence to my ideas, and the reason that I have placed the words 'law' and 'truth' in inverted commas....

It will be said as a reply to this (I'm one hundred percent sure of it) that again, these 'laws' will be a matter of opinion. That what everyone believes to 'true and right' may not be thought of in the same way 100 years from now. This is of course completely true. It would be foolish to say otherwise...

HOWEVER!!! What is needed is tweaking of the ideas that people put down, so that in more and more cases, people would agree with them, or instead, conditions could be proposed whereby the 'law' would be nulified. (Yes, I realise it may not be a law in the scientific sense anymore, since laws are supposed to be always true... but we are not dealing with a quantifiable thing here are we?). I will give an example below.

Finally, at long last, I will give and initial law.

[b]A person is 'evil' if they want to/commit acts that they know will be of no benefit to, and will not be enjoyed by, others. Instead, it would either cause extreme discomfort and pain. However, if the said person is mentally unstable, and commits these acts/wants to commit these acts, then determining if the person is 'evil' is impossible, as they are unable to think clearly about their action and their consequences[/b]

Granted, there are some (most likely major) flaws to this so called 'law' such as a definition of 'mentally unstable' is required to complete it, but then that is why I have posted it... for others to adjust it as they see fit until unanimously it is decided that it is fool proof. Then perhaps we will be a step closer to defining evil....

I hope that I was of some help ^_^

[Doukeshi]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Ben [/i]
[B]Clarify this for me Mitch, please. You're saying that the slaughter of millions of innocent people [I]could[/I] be viewed as a [B]good[/B] thing to do? Based on a different perspective, I mean.

Just because Hitler saw it as right, it was an okay thing to do? Granted, people went along with it; people believed it. But the intended end (the "purification"), whatever the perception, does not justify the means.

Think about it Mitch. [I]Millions of [B]innocent[/B] people.[/I]

Just because a few people view it as right doesn't make it a good thing. Granted, I'm willing to admit that just because the majority of people view it as a bad thing, that it is not [B]evil[/B] based solely on their perception.

Tell me this too, if I murdered your family because I thought it was right, I should get off scott free while you sit at home crying in a puddle of your parent's blood and I am free to kill again?

That just makes no sense to me. [/B][/QUOTE]

I think you're missing the point. Mitch's post was trying to clarify that there is no evil, merely bad deeds. The actions take by Hitler and serial killers, murders, rapists etc, are bad, horrible deeds but they are not evil. Also, just because something is not evil does not mean that someone gets off "scott free". If someone robs you they don't get let off, they get arrested, but they aren't evil just because they rob you. And where you say "Just because a few people view it as right doesn't make it a good thing." It's a good thing to the people who do it, it's a bad thing to you, the beauty of perception.

[Mitch]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Ben [/i]
[B]Clarify this for me Mitch, please. You're saying that the slaughter of millions of innocent people [I]could[/I] be viewed as a [B]good[/B] thing to do? Based on a different perspective, I mean.

Just because Hitler saw it as right, it was an okay thing to do? Granted, people went along with it; people believed it. But the intended end (the "purification"), whatever the perception, does not justify the means.

Think about it Mitch. [I]Millions of [B]innocent[/B] people.[/I]

Just because a few people view it as right doesn't make it a good thing. Granted, I'm willing to admit that just because the majority of people view it as a bad thing, that it is not [B]evil[/B] based solely on their perception.

Tell me this too, if I murdered your family because I thought it was right, I should get off scott free while you sit at home crying in a puddle of your parent's blood and I am free to kill again?

That just makes no sense to me. [/B][/QUOTE]

[size=1] Did I say it was a good thing? No, I didn't. So why are you telling me what I think?

Again, I already said this all in my post. You obviously didn't hear what I said.

I said that in this society today there are values interred and bestowed on as as a people which we are grown to follow. And because of this, we think killing is wrong, rape is wrong, murder is wrong, on and on and on.

I'm not saying I don't agree with this. I didn't say that at all. I'm just trying to get you people to think--to understand that, were you born in a certain way and taught a certain way, your perceptions on what's good and bad would be different.

So by this, yes, what Hitler did--[i]by his eyes, and those cronies with him[/i]--could be right in what they think they're doing.

All you have to do is think. I mean, imagine you're born in a society where it's okay to kill my parents, that it's okay to murder, plunder, kill, destroy. Now imagine you were brought up in this society--that your parents told you these things were right. Imagine all you think is bad is actually good in this society, and all you think is good is actually bad.

Say Hitler is the ruler of this society, since people just can't get past what I'm saying.

In Hitler's mind it was perfectly fine to kill millions of people. He thought the Jews were inferior--he sought to purify. And so, in turn, what Hitler thinks himself he perceives as what is right and wrong.

Do I sound like some broken record in this post? It's because I've already said everything you're asking in the above post.

I'm not supporting Hitler. People seem to just jump when they hear someone say something about him, that's what I think you're doing. Read the above post more closely. All the answers you are asking are there--you just have to see them.

I'm not saying it was a right thing to do--I'm saying it could be a right thing to do. But my upbringing brought in, it's wrong. I'm just trying to understand the implications of hows whys, not just the hard cold facts: that Hitler killed so many people.

Again, it's all perception. You just need to put yourself in Hitler's skin--put aside every little shred of what you think is right aside--and put in what Hitler thought. If you were Hitler you would have done the same things had you been brought up the exact same way he was, it's likely. I don't say it's certain, because there's always uncertainly.

I do realize that killing that many people is a big deal, but it's not like the US hasn't done things like this.

It's not like we didn't bomb the Japanese to end World War 2. That killed at least thousands of people--not millions--but still, we killed innocent people.

And what about war? If you think killing is wrong, then what's war?

It's hypocritical to be all, "Killing is bad. Murdering is bad," when you might be coming back and saying, "War is good."

War is the killing of people without much reason than the leader who tells all his soldiers what to do and why.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that just because Hitler was so bad, it's not like we could be this bad too and think it was good.

Again, I'm not supporting Hitler. People seem to not understand this--I said directly in my past post that what Hitler did was bad, no doubt. But if you were to look in his skin--as ugly as you might think it is--there's probably reason for his killing. There's probably ideals. There's probably morals he's made himself.

Hitler's just a man. Don't make him more than he is. He's a man that came to power under opportunity and took advantage of the people suffering in Germany by the Great Depression.

It's funny when you think about it actually. World War 1's end brought about the Depression (with a little bit of things going the wrong way by chance) and the Depression brought about Hitler's rise to power, thus World War II happened, and thus all the events that happened, happened.

If there hadn't been a Great Depression, and the economies of the world had been doing great and fine, Hitler would have never rose to power. He's just a man, as I've said. A man with an ideal that some of the German people bought into and thus went along with and thus killed all those people. Hitler alone didn't kill all these people.

I'm saying what I've said again, aren't I? There's not much else to say in this post. I've said all that needs to be said in the above post.

If I really wanted to be pessimistic, I could say this of the death of those 3 million people: they were going to die anyways. But that's just a perception, right?

Those 3 million people didn't deserve to die by my perceptions, but by Hitler's, they did.

There is no fine-line of what's right and wrong but where you make it. And where there's right there's bound to be wrong. Right and wrong go together: what's foul is far what's good is bad. There's sides to everything; a way it can all be looked at. You just have to be open-minded and not write things off so easily.

I'm looking past that Hitler killed so many people. I want to know Hitler the man, not Hitler the man that killed so many people just to kill them. Because there is a reason he killed them. There's more to everything than just cold facts. Hitler was also a person, he was born with the same potential as any regular human being. Things shaped him into what he was--his childhood, his life in general.

Anyway, that's enough of that.

The entire rants contained in my posts could be summed up in a few sentences: Evil is just a word. Right and wrong are perceptions as to how you see them. What's right to another could be wrong to someone else. What's wrong to another could be right to someone else.

And it could all be summed up in one word, if you wanted: Perception.

That's what this is all about. Look past your own ideals and see others' ways of thinking. Even Hitler's, as ugly as it sounds. Try to understand something and be able to say why before you just say it's wrong. Try to look in their head and know why they did what they did. It's as simple as that: perceive past your own perceptions instead of being so closed-minded.

And if you can't do that, and see what I'm saying, then I don't know what to say. [/size]

[quote]Wow, I'm getting a friggin' tan off of this one...this has gotten far too personal.

Though, I don't see why it's so amusing that's it's gone religious. Why shouldn't it? After all, if there were no God, anything I believed to be "right" or "wrong" would be bogus. That's why subjective truths cannot exist along side an omniscent God.
Evil is simply the lack of good. Satan lacks goodness, so he is evil. Simple enough? Because I'm a human, I was born into a curse of sin. Because I am human, I was born evil. The one, singular thing that makes me not evil now is God's undeserved grace and love. By myself, I am nothing. By myself, I am the biggest hypocrite you'll ever meet. By myself, I am filthy, angry, lustful, greedy, arrogant, and perverse.

But by Jesus, who lives in me, all that is washed away. By Jesus, who lives in me, my sinful nature and personal slavery to my sinful nature no longer exist; in others words, I am free to be what I was designed to be. By Jesus, who lives in me, I am seperated from this world and all that characterizes it and placed beneath His cover. And by Jesus, who lives inside of me, I am becoming more and more like Him. That is the ultimate goal of Christianity. Not what is acceptable based on my own reasoning; but what is proven righteous by His sacrifice. If Jesus had ever sinned, His life, death, and resurrection accomplished nothing; but, people, I can tell you, those events accomplished something. You're reading the words of an accomplishment made by Jesus Christ.

Give me that Wildfire, baby. The righteous will burn again.
-Justin[/quote]

[size=1] This is just what you think.

Let me tell you, I have morals. I just choose to think past them.

Let me tell you as well: God is just a perception. He's something you see, not what everyone else sees. And for something to be a truth, everyone must see it: it must logically, entirely be true and seen and known and felt and touched and known by all. And God isn't.

And what's your reply going to be to that? That I'm just not feeling God.

To believe in God is to be too assuming. There couldn't be a God as much as there could be.

The ideals that you live to die so you can become a better person and be cleansed of all you've done wrong is the talk of someone that's lost all hope but what God can give--but what a perception can give.

Justin, when speaking of death, it's best to remain cryptic. Let's keep Heaven and Hell and all that nonsenscial garbage out of it.

You don't know if there's a Heaven. You don't know if there's a Hell. I don't know if there's a Heaven, nor Hell. you don't know what happens after death. You don't know if Jesus even ever lived, you just choose to.

Jesus could've been some fantatical dude just like Hitler was. Only he didn't kill people--he bought them in on his beliefs. And he even died for them.

He could've thought he saw God, but he didn't.

As for Humans, they're both good and evil. Get that through your head: get it through your head that what's foul is fair, what's good is bad.

As for sins, I don't want my "sins" to be cleansed.

Again, what are sins? They're the words of your so-called God. A so-called God that only exists to those who perceptionize him.

Just look at all I've said. Look past what this so-called God says. And also look at what he says as well while seeing the rest of it. Just read my other post. It says everything I'm saying here.

It's just as fundamentally uncertain as our rights and wrongs. It's just like society--things are set and viewed as right and wrong just because you're told so. That's no way to live--just blindly believing to believe. You have to think for yourself.

You can fancify God and Jesus as much as you want. They're just as unset in what is right and wrong and evil as you are.

Saying that you can't have your own sets of wrong and rights but by some god is entirely preposterous. But it's your perception, and you can have it.

What's funny is your God isn't anything greater than anything else unless you make him. And so you perceive that he is, and perceive that what he says is completely right.

Nothing is ever completely right. There's always something bad in something good, always something wrong in something right.

Just assuming that some God has all your answers to your life is preposterous.

It's preposterous to think in the first that such a being exists. It's selfish and self-wanting. You want there to be a God, don't you? Not just say, you want. You want there to be Heaven, you want to die and go to someplace better.

Well, let me tell you, as good as Heaven sounds, I'd rather just die and no longer exist.

Anyway, don't worry Justin. I don't mean to be harsh. It's mainly the first part you said that really makes you seem selfish to your God.

God isn't about chruch, you know. It's about knowing him yourself. And as far as I see, knowing something yourself when you can't even see that it's there, you can't do that. Not me anyway.

It's when things are organized that they begin to force you to believe and muddle away your ways of thinking deeply and outside of just what this organized thing says.

Really, Justin, by your post, you sound like some religous zealot, even a fool.

You know, I'd rather cry with the sinners than smile with the saints.

I'm just as much of a fool as you too though. So I'm not any better than you or anyone else.

Again, what you see is your perception. What's your good and bad is your perception. Just don't force it on others in a way that you seem to be saying. What you think isn't absolute, Justin, just like what I think isn't either.

There could be a God as much as there couldn't. You could see things one way as much as you could see them another.

If you want to be omniscent like your God, you have to see every way too. Because to create you have to see everything and weigh everything; and to believe something that creates, you have to look at everything too. Just because the Christian God is said to be who he is doesn't even mean at all that that's what God is if there is one. I guess you can't see that your God probably isn't even God if there is one. It's obvious you haven't done that. You just choose to believe blindly what your God says because it makes you feel more whole and gives your life reason where there'd probably be none.

Well, I'd rather see it all than see one thing. I'd rather not be whole if it meant seeing as much of a truth as I could.

Justin, you're a stronger person for believing in your God. It's just the same as I said to Dan. And I'm weaker for not.

But I'm weaker in a way that will make me stronger--because seeing as much of the truth is stronger than any God can say or any follower of God can say.

I don't mean to be mean with this post, but I guess it's like that. I'm not even pointing the mean things I've said at you, I'm just saying them generally.

May you be stonger with your God, then. I'll be stronger with as much of the truth as I can have.[/size]

[DeathBug]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=century]The only person I have decryed as [b]evil[/b] is Adolf Hitler. If saying that Adolf Hitler was an [b]evil[/b] man, (emphasis on [b]man[/b]; I don't recall raising his status to some demonic anti-Christ) makes me close-minded, then I'll happily be close-minded. You know why? [i]Because it's Hitler.[/i]

I never once passed personal judgement on suicide, or even mureder (although I did decry the murder of children). I simply disagreed on two points; the Hitler thing, and [b]evil[/b] as only a perception.

There are some things that, no matter what lense of perception you view them through, are [b]evil[/b]. I classify the systematic slaughter of six million people simply because you don't think they deserve to live as an absolute wrong, no matter what your society is.

To say that [b]evil[/b] is a perception is to say that there is no absolute; please correct me if I am wrong for making that extrapolation.

If [b]evil[/b] is solely perception, then no one can be held accountable for their actions. Rape, murder and violence can run rampant if it's not wrong, can't it? At some point the line has to be drawn; at some point one have to say: "These actions are [b]evil[/b], and you are an [b]evil[/b] person if you continue to do them." Otherwise, you have chaos.

Where that line is and what actions those are is what I thought discussion could divine. (It won't, because people have been trying to devine it for centuries.) I would hope that slaughtering six million people would be placed in the [b]evil[/b] catagory.

Regarding slavery, you persist in using the pronoun "we", which is wrong; even if you consider "we" the United States, no one alive in the US today had slaves. There is no "we" to refer to in that sense. I take offense at being labled with those who would consider a human being property.

You act as though the entire country was in favor of slavery, which simply was not true. Slavery had been a devise institution in the US since its beginning.

You don't have to tell me how horrible slavery was. I will say that it was an [b]evil[/b] act, and I would hope that no one would argue that fact. However, even when slavery was legal, may people saw it for what it was. [/color][/size][/font]

[Mitch]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DeathBug [/i]
The only person I have decryed as [b]evil[/b] is Adolf Hitler. If saying that Adolf Hitler was an [b]evil[/b] man, (emphasis on [b]man[/b]; I don't recall raising his status to some demonic anti-Christ) makes me close-minded, then I'll happily be close-minded. You know why? [i]Because it's Hitler.[/i][/quote]

[size=1] And I've agreed with you that he's evil, but I've also said you need to see Hitler and understand what he saw he was doing.

As I said, Hitler wasn't the only person that killed all these people. So just "because" it's Hitler doesn't really give you a reason to just say, "I'm not going to think like Hilter." That's no way to think by my ways.

But then again, this is your perception.

As for making him some demonic anti-christ. It's called Mitchcasm. Get used to it. [/size]

[quote]I never once passed personal judgement on suicide, or even mureder (although I did decry the murder of children). I simply disagreed on two points; the Hitler thing, and [b]evil[/b] as only a perception.

There are some things that, no matter what lense of perception you view them through, are [b]evil[/b]. I classify the systematic slaughter of six million people simply because you don't think they deserve to live as an absolute wrong, no matter what your society is.[/quote]

[size=1] Well, Hitler ties in with suicide and murder. It's hard to stay off of something like that when that's what this man did.

Actually, you must realize, I was just using those things to further illustrate my point. My point being that everything's about perceptions.

And get it right, Hitler had motives for killing those people as bad as it sounds. Hitler was a genius in a bad way--he was intelligent to a point. Someone like that just doesn't decide one day as he's sitting down, "Hell, I want to kill millions of people sysyematically. That'll be great fun I think." He had his motives.

And Hitler wasn't even the one that did most of the killing, you have to understand. He just organized most of it.

Again, you're not being open-minded and just writing off what I said.

If you were born in a society which said what Hitler did was right, you'd be right there with it. You wouldn't have what you have here. You'd be just as brainwashed that killing was right as you say it's wrong here. And so would I.

There are some things that are evil by society; there are some things that are evil by what people see. Your argument is still soley based on that there's absolute things in this world that are good and bad, when that right there is a perception.

I don't even know why I'm wasting my words. I've said this all in my post already, as well as the one just before this lol.[/size]

[quote]To say that [b]evil[/b] is a perception is to say that there is no absolute; please correct me if I am wrong for making that extrapolation. [/quote]

[size=1] Obviously so. But you must realize that someone can perceive that a set group of things are right, thus making them absolute in a perceived manner. So in essence, in a sense, you can have absolution without set rights and wrongs--you just have to choose to make your own sets of right and wrong and choose to follow them.

It's what religion does. What society does. It's what we as humans do.[/size]

[quote]If [b]evil[/b] is solely perception, then no one can be held accountable for their actions. Rape, murder and violence can run rampant if it's not wrong, can't it? At some point the line has to be drawn; at some point one have to say: "These actions are [b]evil[/b], and you are an [b]evil[/b] person if you continue to do them." Otherwise, you have chaos.[/quote]

[size=1] That's why there's society: an organized thing that gives you perceptions. That's why there's government.

I agree that by the things I've been taught in this society that people should be responsible for what they do. I'm sure this is contradicting, but what can I say, humans are contradicting creatures, aren't they?

Even though this person may be responsible for their actions, they themselves also would never feel they were. Have to say that as well. So in fact, punishing them would be pointless. It would only make them more bitter--but it would, in turn, make the people who held him responsible for his actions feel better, wouldn't it, since they perceive what they are doing is right. [/size]

[quote]Where that line is and what actions those are is what I thought discussion could divine. (It won't, because people have been trying to devine it for centuries.) I would hope that slaughtering six million people would be placed in the [b]evil[/b] catagory.[/quote]

[size=1] If people can't find absolute lines, it's obvious there isn't. Things aren't that black and white.

Yes, by what I've been taught, and what society says, slaughtering people is wrong. But I'm just thinking outside my own box here. I'm thinking farther than just what I could think. I'm seeing all ends of the equation.[/size]

[quote]Regarding slavery, you persist in using the pronoun "we", which is wrong; even if you consider "we" the United States, no one alive in the US today had slaves. There is no "we" to refer to in that sense. I take offense at being labled with those who would consider a human being property.[/quote]

[size=1] Well, as I said in my other post (*ahem*), if you were born in that age and time, you would've probably seen that slaves were a right thing to have and use and abuse. You'd perceive what you were doing was right, and you'd be shown that slavery was right.

I'm not saying you think that; I'm just saying that "we" during this time say like that.[/size]

[quote]You act as though the entire country was in favor of slavery, which simply was not true. Slavery had been a devise institution in the US since its beginning.

You don't have to tell me how horrible slavery was. I will say that it was an [b]evil[/b] act, and I would hope that no one would argue that fact. However, even when slavery was legal, may people saw it for what it was.[/QUOTE]

[size=1] I'm speaking generally. Generally people thought slavery was right. Of course there were people that thought it was wrong--the slaves themselves being a grand example.

Telling me that some people didn't think slavery was right really has no call to this argument. I think it's obvious if you think about it that most people in the US did think slavery was right. It's called generalizations. People use them all the time.

The reason why I brought up slavery in the first place was to orchestrate that we are just like Hitler. We have the potentials to do things like that and perceive them as right.

Because during that time, the general consensus was that slavery was right. And now that's changed. We see at as wrong.

It further proves my point that nothing is so clear-cut as right and wrong or evil. And that there probably never will be while people can perceive for themselves.

And I find it funny, we're arguing a word here. It's enunciations and letters that spell out a certain notion: the notion that there's something set in stone that says something is bad.

Arguing someting so small is to argue something too big to ever be so clear-lined.

It's just a word. And so people are going to apply it to what they think the word applies to. Another point which further points out what I'm saying.

Deathbug, admit it. You're beat here. I have a much better argument than you do.

But you can choose to have what you want. That's fine.[/size]

[Heaven's Cloud]

[color=indigo]I would have to agree with Mitch (as well as anyone else that stated a similar opinion) whole-heartedly on this issue. Evil is a trait that changes with the morals and perception of the time from culture to culture. The people that society tends to deem evil are usually guilty of an act that has been considered immoral for centuries (ie: theft, rape, murder, genocide). Therefore, I would logically conclude that I find people that express traits of what society deems immoral and evil at the time to be evil. Obviously there is a flip side to that argument, because a person deemed ?evil? may be considered ?just? at a later date in history?[/color]

[DeathBug]

[color=indigo][font=century][size=1]I know what Hitler's rational was. I know what his circumstances were. I know he didn't carry out the killings himself.

Guess what? He's still [b]evil[/b].

To say that there is no absolute [b]evil[/b] is to ignore sociology. Is it a coincidence that, while not all, a vast number of societies hold the same practices in contempt?

You want to speak using generaliations? [i]Generally[/i], all societies think dishonoring parents is wrong. [i]Generally[/i], all societies think the harming of children is wrong. [i]Generally[/i], all societies have strict codes regarding the killing of a human being, and to violate these codes is wrong.

We do not have absolutes regarding good and [b]evil[/b], but we are [i]generally[/i] in the same chapter, if not on the same page.

There is a saying that says, "Those who doubt the existance of [b]evil[/b] have never experienced it." It's a simple concept; you will know [b]evil[/b] when you see it. If all [b]evil[/b] is to you is a four-letter word, then you're pretty lucky.

[QUOTE]Deathbug, admit it. You're beat here. I have a much better argument than you do. [/QUOTE]

That's an absolute statement, isn't it? Formed from your own perceptions, correct? It's very gracious of you to allow me my own opinion, though.

Your argument is that there is nothing truley [b]evil[/b], because it's merely a perception. If I went to your house and killed your family because I didn't like your argument, would that be [b]evil[/b]? Or would it merely be someone else's perception of [b]evil[/b]?

There [b]are[/b] absolutes; some people are simply to weak to seek them.[/color][/size][/font]

[Baron Samedi]

[quote][i]Originally posted by Deathbug[/i]

You know why? [i]Because it's Hitler.[/i][/quote]

You have no idea what we're saying. You are so blinded by your ingrained, stupid prejudice, that you'll never get past it.

You are not prepared to accept that Hitler thought he was right. He believed that he was in the right.

May I make a quote here. "No man goes to war believing that God sided with the enemy". And how true is that. In a battle, every side believes that they are in the right. May I make another quote here "History is written by the winner".

These are both so applicable. We don't think Hitler was a good man. He was a bad person- to us.

To him he was in the right. And [i]you[/i] were the bad person.

If he had won, you would think he was, to use a curious phrase 'Heaven on a stick'.

Everything you say... this is about evil. And the whole point of this is that there is only a percieved evil. Evil doesn't exist in the same form to everyone. Did you even read my first post?

You have no idea. Until you can look at both sides of the coin- you're prejudiced and blind.

[DeathBug]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Baron Samedi [/i]
[B]You have no idea what we're saying. You are so blinded by your ingrained, stupid prejudice, that you'll never get past it.

[/B][/QUOTE]

[color=indigo][font=century][size=1]Or maybe you can't get out of your ingrained stupid prejudice towards opposing views so that you might understand my point of view.

Is it that impossible to you to think that someone might have all the information you do, and come to a completely different conclusion?

Of course Hitler thought he was right; everyone does. I undersatand that. He wanted to 'purify' the world; what's not to get? There were socioeconomic pressures on all sides, and he did what he thought was the best thing to do.

He still orchastrated the deaths of six million people, and is still an [b]evil[/b] man. Deal with it.[/color][/font][/size]

[wrist cutter]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mitch [/i]
[B]Let me tell you as well: God is just a perception. He's something you see, not what everyone else sees. And for something to be a truth, everyone must see it: it must logically, entirely be true and seen and known and felt and touched and known by all. And God isn't. [/B][/QUOTE]

I don't want to get really involved in this post but this caught my eye anyway...

Let's say Jesus Christ is walking through your neighborhood and decides to stop by your house. He knocks on your door, states who He is, performs a few miracles to prove it, tips His hat, then walks out. I think we can agree you would be fairly convinced of His existance, correct?

Now, I know you're saying, "but perhaps I'm delusional", or "perhaps it was just a dream." And that's a good point, because you're the only one to have seen Him. Assuming you don't have video cameras running in your house, you can't really prove to anyone else that Jesus indeed came to visit you.

But what if Jesus, instead of ascending back into Heaven, walked over to your neighbors' house and visited them? He does the same thing for them: states who He is, proves it with some miracles, etc. etc. Now your neighbor has seen Jesus and fully believes in His existance.

If we assume that both you and your neighbor are generally rational people, and not likely to be carted off to an asylum anytime soon, then I think both of you would both believe that what you saw was indeed the real thing. You would be sure of your sanity and that you really did encounter Jesus Christ.

So maybe after He's done with your neighbor He leaves the Earth. Nobody ever sees Him again. He cannot be "seen and known and felt and touched and known by all" (two knowns?) because He's gone. But wouldn't you still be very sure of His existance? Your neighbor described the exact same situation, so you can be sure that it wasn't just your mind playing tricks on you.

If this were to ever occur, would you proclaim God as truth then? Granted, many would think it was just you and your neighbor trying to fool everyone with wild stories, but it would still be truth would it not?

[The Vampire: Ed]

Define evil? That's easy. I am evil, evil is me. I am the type of evil that scares little dogs, and throws frogs at peoples windows as they drive by.

[DeathBug]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by The Vampire: Ed [/i]
[B] I am the type of evil that ... throws frogs at peoples windows as they drive by. [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=indigo][font=century][size=1]You know, that's actually my favorite type of [b]evil[/b], [b]evil[/b] with frogs. Good job. ^__^[/color][/font][/size]