Define evil...

[Patronus]

[size=1][QUOTE][i]Originally posted by The Vampire: Ed [/i]
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.[/QUOTE]

That's intelligent. :rolleyes:

[quote][i]Originally posted by DeathBug[/i]
[b]And that's all I really have to say about that.[/quote]

That's funny, cause you seem to have more to say. ;)

[quote][i]Originally posted by ssj3borjan[/i]
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.[/quote]

You cannot say that, because, as said before, Hitler thought what he was doing was [b]right[/b]. He thought it would be enjoyed by those who supported his actions - and it was. Those who supported him could say that he was the best man alive, in which he would be good, and we, those who saw him as bad, would be evil. See, it all leads back to perception.[/size]

[DeathBug]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Leh [/i]
[B][size=1]
That's funny, cause you seem to have more to say. ;)
[/size] [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=century] At the time, I thought I was done.

Trust me, the irony does not escape me. ^__^[/color][/font][/size]

[Mitch]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by wrist cutter [/i]
[B]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? [/B][/QUOTE]

[size=1] I just want to clarify why God is a perception at this time.

No one has really seen him, right? As far as we know no one has.

And so people make him like they want him to be.

There's Christianity. There's the Muslims. There's the Jewish religion. There's the Mormon religion. There's many religions all with a different perception of God.

And just like that, that's what I meant. People perceive God when they haven't even seen him.

If I were to see God, then he wouldn't be a perception, he'd be a truth. But no one can admit to this with proof, now can they?

I see what you're saying wrist cutter. But at this point in time God is perception to me.

As for you, Deathbug, you can have your opinions. I'm done with you. I've said well enough my opinions, I don't see any reason to continue just bickering over nothing.

Just know that from the replies to this thread, my perception of what evil is has been said over and over again. More people stand by me. Most people accept what I've said. They see it absolutely the way I've said it. They totally agree.

That must mean that mine makes more sense, now, doesn't it? If the general consensus says my opinion more over yours.

Indeed. But you can have your opinion, whilst all others have theirs.

*tips hat* Fare thee well, Sir Deathbug. [/size]

[DeathBug]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mitch [/i]
[B][size=1] As for you, Deathbug, you can have your opinions. I'm done with you. I've said well enough my opinions, I don't see any reason to continue just bickering over nothing.[/size] [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=century]If you knew me, you'd know that I find the process of debate just as entertaining and interesting than the debate itself. (Go ahead, ask me about communism...)

If you decide that you're throught, that's cool, but I'm always willing if you ever wish to bring it back up. ^__^[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mitch [/i]
[B][size=1] Just know that from the replies to this thread, my perception of what evil is has been said over and over again. More people stand by me. Most people accept what I've said. They see it absolutely the way I've said it. They totally agree.

That must mean that mine makes more sense, now, doesn't it? If the general consensus says my opinion more over yours.[/size] [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=indigo][font=century][size=1]Aww, no, Mitch, no... Never say "Everyone agrees with me, so I'm right"; that's one of the weakest argumenrs around.

It just means that a lot of people are wrong.[/color][/font][/size]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mitch [/i]
[B][size=1]Indeed. But you can have your opinion, whilst all others have theirs.[/size] [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=indigo][font=century][size=1]You mean a lot of people share your perception, don't you? Sorta' like a lot of Germans shared Hitler's perceptions. The masses aren't always right.[/color][/font][/size]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mitch [/i]
[B][size=1]*tips hat* Fare thee well, Sir Deathbug. [/size] [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=indigo][font=century][size=1]Ciao for now, Mitch.[/color][/size][/font]

[Mitch]

[size=1] Exactly. You got my Mitchcasm in that post. Good work lol.

You're as right as anyone. I'm just here giving my opinions and making you think about them. I'm sure you learned something from this long, extended excursion.[/size]

[Drix D'Zanth]

Good form.

Firstly, take this thing off of religion, or at least the Validity of a given religion. We all know that some people base good/evil on religion. Mention your belief and move on. There's no point in having a big argument about whether or not "Jesus was a sinner" or he even existed!

Here's my take on evil. I believe there is a good and an evil, of course from a religious and moral standpoint. However, the social and personal ambiguity of the word makes it incredibly hard to define fully.

One must understand why evil would even be conceived. It?s simply a word to justify one?s perspective. As others have said, evil is merely a perspective, much like truth right?

Wrong. I look at it from a standpoint of anti-sophism. The truth of the matter, although relative in it?s perspective, is absolute by the measure of the fact it has perspectives. By keeping the means of the perspective own to change, you are allowing yourself to oppose a standard, viewpoint, moral, or decision.
Truth to some is absolute. Truth to Socrates is Absolute. He believed that the inherent recognition of truth relied on the masses and their ability to find the truth. I have to found mine on religion and some absolute power.

I cannot convince anyone to agree with my perception, or at will, God.

That in mind, I can only hold on to the concept of an absolute good in desperation. Through the Dialectics of Socrates, I understand that the purpose of civilization is for the common "good", and by dissuading from this good would inevitably lead to a society?s destruction. Now we live in a fairly stable society , but the principles of our society are based on our own perception of good. And yes, it is based on a "Creator". That doesn?t matter.

I approach it with desperation because without the identification of evil and mutual understanding of what it may be, we inevitably succumb to it.

Your thoughts? I?ll add more later.

[Katana]

*goes off from the current discussion*
What is evil, you ask? Evil is flare pants, evil is the government for not sending my school baked chicken, evil is Cartoon Network showing old Rurouni Kenshin and Yu Yu Hakusho episodes...
Evil is some of the mods here. I won't mention any names, but there are some people here that I believe are evil. They seem to enjoy torturing people. oO
I am evil. Yep. I admit to it, and proudly. My friend and I were playing some game in math, and she wrote on my sheet "Katana: Evil" and I wrote write beneath it, "Yup!"
Evil is also the fact that DVDs cost too much.
Evil is Suncoast, charging twenty bucks for a video tape.
Evil is the fact that we have to have health class instead of gym.
Evil is...

[Ben]

(I must say that I just love how this went from a bitter, name-calling debate between Mitch, Deathbug, and random others to a peaceful tip of the hat.;))

[QUOTE]I just want to clarify why God is a perception at this time.

No one has really seen him, right? As far as we know no one has.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared."[/QUOTE][B]Genesis 32:30[/B]

[QUOTE]Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up 10 and saw the God of Israel.[/QUOTE] [B]Exodus 24:9-10[/B]

There's seventy-four right there. Dismiss them if you wish. :p

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

[I]I[/I] wasn't telling [I]you[/I] what [I]you[/I] think, I was [B]asking[/B] if that was what you were saying. I won't push the question though, as you have already answered it. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

[QUOTE]I'm thinking farther than just what I could think.[/QUOTE]

That line just reeks of contradiction. :p

[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]

Because I am such a no-life, I went through Justin's post. I counted 15 'I''s, 6 'me''s, 3 'myself''s, and 3 'my''s. He only used the word "You" twice. It seemed remarkably unoppressive to me. :whoops:

(All of this, of course, is just my perception)

[Brasil]

I'm heading to class, so I'll make this brief. Also, I apologize for any spelling errors that may be in this post.

I think there is one key point that 90% of these posters are mission.

It is not a matter of perspective, nor is it a matter of black and white. It is a matter of [i]gradation[/i].

DeathBug, you tend to view things in only black and white, and have done so in the early half of your discussion here. Now, however, you are beginning to adopt matter of perspective. I'd clean up your contradictions before you decide to post again.

Mitch, yes, perspective factors in partially. But mostly, it is gradation.

I bring in Joseph Conrad's Heart Of Darkness, as Jordan and I were discussing it last night. He is required to read it for school. Lucky devil ;).

He asked about Conrad's motives in HoD, and whether the presentation of humanity was more concentrating on clear-cut, black and white "Evil," or the matter of perspectives.

I conclude that Conrad intended neither in HoD. Here is why.

While HoD is a very concrete book with very concrete messages concerning evil, it is made very clear that "Evil" itself is a nonapplicable issue in the work. Throughout HoD, we are mezmerized by Kurtz, without even meeting him. Kurtz has long been idolized as evil incarnate.

But, when we examine just what evil is, we see, as Charles as put it in this very thread, a literary convention. I would further suppose that Edmund Spenser's The Fairie Queene is the exact illustration of evil. Simply, evil is an archetype--an outdated one at that. The notion of an all-encompassing demon is something that dates back to Romantic literature, even King Lear features archetypes of evil. Lear's legend was based on a Germanic tale, I believe.

So, using "evil" to describe a Modern-Day maniacal dictator is foolhardy.

On the subject of Hitler, DeathBug, know your history. The German populace did not agree with Hitler on their own free will. They did not flock to him because they agreed on wiping out the world's populace. They supported him because he gave them false hopes of economic stability. You said so yourself. "Socioeconomic pressures." On top of that, Hitler was a very charismatic guy. Watch old footage of him. He knows how to work a crowd. That's why he came into power. Because he knew how to get people on his side. He saw opportunity and grabbed it. Desperation causes people to do bizarre things, even on OB. Don't play off the German following of Hitler as some...mass independently-derived support or consensual agreement.

But back to gradation. HoD strongly emphasizes gradation of corruption. Come to think of it, "evil" should not be used. "Corruption" should be its common-day replacement.

So, Kurtz essentially unplugged himself from the Company and resorts to savagery. He has, according to most scholars, been corrupted by the jungle. This makes sense, as there are skulls impaled in his compound, an Amazon mistress clad in very little, and a distinct air of disease and Malaria surrounding Kurtz.

However, is Kurtz really that corrupt? He opens Marlowe's eyes to the dangers of civilization. He shows Marlowe what it means to be alive, even in the disease-stricken Congo. Kurtz is not a symbol of evil; he never was. He was a symbol of independent thought. He symbolized just how strong civilization's strangehold on humanity is.

This message is only strengthened in Apocalypse Now. Many criticize Marlon Brando's improvisations, but they often fail to realize that Brando achieved a character interpretation that further opens the window into Kurtz's mind. What may seem like some random interjection about a snail crawling on the edge of a razor blade is actually Kurtz's greatest fear. The "civilized" humanity is always crawling on the edge of a razor blade and surviving. But they shouldn't. That is a beauty of human existence, and yet it is a downfall. We survive by some...miracle, in a sense.

Perhaps, we are all still crawling on the razor blade, hoping to get to the end to fully live our lives. Kurtz has already done this. He has already been through the razor blade. That is why he cannot be viewed as evil. He is aware. If anything, Kurtz is a positive figure.

Marlowe sees Kurtz's freedom, desires it, and ultimately achieves it. But throughout the journey, the Odyssey ;), he is conflicted. He consistently wavers back and forth between civilization and freedom. He consistently goes along the gradation of corruption.

See? It's a matter of gradation; not black and white; not matter of perspective.

I hope I cleared a few things up.

[Adahn]

I believe evil is completely and utterly personal. Why can't animals be evil? A shark could kill a thousand people, and yet nobody would consider it as evil. Also, very young children cannot be considered evil. The reason for this is because they cannot distinguish between right and wrong. Evil is therefore conscience based. I, for one, can distinguish between right and wrong in every situation. By the way, there's fetus all over Drix's keyboard, so I'm going to make this short. Good is derived from the human conscience, it is the voice of God in our heads. If one's conscience is flawed, or one doesn't have a conscience, then one cannot be considered evil. One who knows the difference between right and wrong and still chooses to do the wrong thing can be considered evil. There really is no reasoning involved, there is no other opinion. Well, Drix is getting anxious, he just sprayed perfume all over me. Oh my lord, make him stop. Also, I've been IP banned, so if anyone could help me out, that would be great. My e-mail is [email]Adahn1986@aol.com[/email] , so if any mods could offer some aid, I'd be very appreciative. Also, I have e-mailed James, but have never gotten a response, so please don't yell at me in that respect.
Thank you.

[Justin]

[quote]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. [/quote]

Well, I suppose you could say that. Before my reply will go a little further:

1) You've been exposed to God, and for one reason or another, you've shut yourself off to Him. This is the only one I can relate to, as it's the only one I have ever experienced.
2) You've never been exposed to God, and so you wouldn't have any knowledge of Him in the first place. I find this scenario unlikely, considering your apparant position regarding God.

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

I say that you're wrong. And that I can logically prove that He is many more times likely to exist than not. I'll do it, if you want, but I doubt it would do me any good. The Pharisees were the first to disregard the logical evidence for Christ, and most other non-Christians tend to follow in their footsteps, no matter how infallible the proof may be.

[quote]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.[/quote]

Now, we truly see eye-to-eye. I have long lost all hope, except that which God gives.

[quote]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.
[/quote]
Eh, forgive me if I'm wrong, but I just skimmed over my post and didn't find anything about death, Heaven, or Hell. Perhaps it was in an earlier post.

I don't claim to know much about Heaven or Hell. Only that they exist. The only proof I can offer is God's Word, but I guess that does constitute proof for you, does it?

[quote]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. [/quote]

How many run-of-the-mill fanatics who believe they're God(of which there have been a few besides Christ) succeed in total domination of the earth as He has? Whether you like it or not, everything from the dating system to modern literature totally revolve around His coming, living, and dying.

[quote]He could've thought he saw God, but he didn't. [/quote]

All He had to do was look at His reflection.

[quote]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. [/quote]

Because I am human, I was born into a curse of sin. The only thing seperating me from that now is God. As I said earlier, evil only exist where good does not. Therefore, where there is but some evil, there is no good.

Just like light and darkness. Darkness does not exist unless there is no light. Where it is, light is not.

[quote]As for sins, I don't want my "sins" to be cleansed. [/quote]

Tell that to God, because He's the only one who can and will cleanse them.


[quote]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. [/quote]

Look past what my God says? Do you think I've always been the way that I am today? Do you think that I consider myself a person of great faith even now?

I've gone far beyond your level of doubt in my lifetime. And one thing I've learn between there and here: It's not all doubt. The drive I once had against Christ can't result from something as simple as doubt. After all, I have doubt now. If you ever decide that you care to look into the Christian thing, I suggest you search yourself in accordance with the Bible--it's a truly facinating book to read.

[quote]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.[/quote]

God=good. Evil=absence of good. God cannot be evil at all.

[quote]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.[/quote]

I didn't say that. I merely said they're of no use in the end. That statement was best read by other Christians, though. Since I think that's who it was meant for.

[quote]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. [/quote]

Can stones percieve? Because the Bible says that if men do not give God glory, the stones will.

[quote]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. [/quote]

Dan said something great on this exact subject a while back. Sad that I can't recall it...

God does have all the answers--He knows everything. But I don't expect for Him to give me them. Some things simply have to learned. Don't get me wrong, He's given me answers before. But by the same token, He's also told me to wait for it, or simply not answered.

[quote]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. [/quote]

I really don't give me thought to Heaven. Moreso recently than in the past, but still, not nearly as much as a lot seem to. As a matter of fact, I gave more thought to it when I was not a Christian.

Truthfully, yes. I suppose I did want a God to exist when I first began searching--whenever that truly was. But the God I got wasn't the one I wanted. The one I wanted would have been more like a grandparent. You know, staying after me about doing everything right, but not requiring that I really listen. Then, when it was all over, He'd let me in Heaven anyway. Just because He's that cool.

As I said, I didn't find the God I wanted. I found the God that existed. And after some serious kicking against everything I knew was right, I finally broke down and submitted. He never forced me to, all He did was let me know He existed.

Now I realize the real, living God is better than any god I could ever come up with. I simply can't understand Him, or figure Him out. But He's got a higher vantage point on this world than I do, and I guess I'm getting to a point where I've accepted that.

[quote]Well, let me tell you, as good as Heaven sounds, I'd rather just die and no longer exist. [/quote]
Heh, why would you want to spend eternity in worship of a God you don't believe in?

[quote]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. [/quote]
I know you don't intend to be harsh. Neither do I, so please forgive any harshness there was.

By stating the things the way I did, I was trying not to be imposing. I hate for others to feel like I'm trying to force them to accept something they don't want to. Afterall, someone's relationship with God is between the person and God. My only task is to introduce people to God, and show them why He's a good friend.

[quote]God isn't about church, 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.[/quote]

Of course God isn't about church. Church is about God, lol. The Church is just the body of believers. The act of going to church is just meeting for mass worship and hanging out. I'm not a Sunday Christian, lol. I go home and try my best to live God at all times.

But I should think that you would know that seeing is not always believing. Again, I can logically show the likeliness of God's existance, and the likeliness that the God that does is exist is the God of the Bible--but it's entirely up to you. I'll send it to you later, if that's what you want.

[quote]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. [/quote]

I apologize if the church treated you that way. I doubt that was their while intention, but then again, I don't know you. Personally, my childhood background in the church made me feel the same way. No matter what the intention of the people teaching was, God used what they taught me for His own purposes later on.

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

I'd like to think I have zeal for God. Whether that makes me a religious zealot doesn't really matter to me.

[quote]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.[/quote]

Again, forcing others to believe the Gospel is not my intent. I apologize if anyone feels as though I have.

[quote]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. [/quote]

There you're assuming again that I've always been this way. That this has always been my standpoint. I must stress again that it hasn't. God called me one and a half years ago to start on the path I am on today.

[quote]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. [/quote]

Jesus said that [i]He[/i] is the truth. So, if you want all the truth you can get, get more of Him.

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

I thank you for the blessing. Sometimes mutual blessings are the only common ground to people can find. Again, I don't really mean to offend anyone. But when you preach a message that says the things people do and think may be wrong, you're bound to step on some toes. Forgive me, everyone.

Whew, that was a doozy...

-Justin

[DeathBug]

[color=indigo][font=century][size=1][QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PoisonTongue [/i]
[B]DeathBug, you tend to view things in only black and white, and have done so in the early half of your discussion here. Now, however, you are beginning to adopt matter of perspective. I'd clean up your contradictions before you decide to post again. [/B][/QUOTE]

Begging your pardon, but I did not contradict. I used Mitch's word "perspective" to make a point that (I thought) detracted from his argument.

In fact, my initial post in this thread was fairly ambiguious; there are only two things that I have stated in black and white terms: that I believe there is a definite meaning of "[b]evil[/b]" that can be applied universally, and that Hitler was an [b]evil[/b] man.

However, the actual "line in the sand" where one can say "These things are [b]evil[/b], unforgivable acts, and we all agree that they are" is unknown to me. The acts I critisized were the murder of children and Hitler's actions.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PoisonTongue [/i]
[B]On the subject of Hitler, DeathBug, know your history. The German populace did not agree with Hitler on their own free will. They did not flock to him because they agreed on wiping out the world's populace. They supported him because he gave them false hopes of economic stability. You said so yourself. "Socioeconomic pressures." On top of that, Hitler was a very charismatic guy. Watch old footage of him. He knows how to work a crowd. That's why he came into power. Because he knew how to get people on his side. He saw opportunity and grabbed it. Desperation causes people to do bizarre things, even on OB. Don't play off the German following of Hitler as some...mass independently-derived support or consensual agreement. [/B][/QUOTE]

I am aware of that. However, it seems you misunderstood the point; Mitch made the point that Hitler himself did not physically kill, but had others do the actions under his command. (Who shared his perspective, was Mitch's point.)

Hitler made a point of eliminating (in various forms) his political opposition during his rise to power. There was dissent, but not enough to make a sizeable dent in his opperations.

You say that they flocked to Hitler because of his promises to raise them out of depression. (Which I totally agree with.) However, to support someone and to continue to support them are different things.

Although I am not sure what to classify the phenomena as, those who knew of Hitler's practices still followed his orders without fault. There are almost no cases of dissent. One of his camps (I cannot recall which) was located a mile from a civilian town. They knew what was happening and did nothing.

A government cannot function without the consent of the governed. They gave him their concensus. However, all of this is tangenial.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PoisonTongue [/i]
[B]But back to gradation. HoD strongly emphasizes gradation of corruption. Come to think of it, "evil" should not be used. "Corruption" should be its common-day replacement. [/B][/QUOTE]

If [b]evil/corruption[/b] is gradation, what is the final destination of the gradation? I'm not arguing, per sae, but you don't say where it leads.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PoisonTongue [/i]
[B]Marlowe sees Kurtz's freedom, desires it, and ultimately achieves it. But throughout the journey, the Odyssey ;), he is conflicted. He consistently wavers back and forth between civilization and freedom. He consistently goes along the gradation of corruption.. [/B][/QUOTE]

i find it interesting that you should speak of Kurtz as "free", while I always thought his freedom was one of the biggest ironic twists of the book.

Yes, kurtz is free, as was stated; he was free of the false trappings of civilization, and is now free to think, but what does he do with that freedom?

He squanders it. He is now imprisoned by himself. He has the natives get more ivory, but he never puts it to use. He doesn't want to return to civilization, yet at the same time, he is disgusted by the people that surround him. ("Exterminate all the brutes", or something to that effect.)

Everyone Marlowe speaks with thinks highly of Kurtz or his abilities; he could have been anything he wanted. In fact, it was Marlowe's curiosity with Kurtz that drives him to locate him. Kurtz could have been anything. Kurtz could have changed the world.

And what happens? Kurtz dies ignobly, virtually unknown outside of the Company. Perhaps it is a difference of opinion, but that hardly seems the death fitting of a man who held such potential.

Marlowe actually fairs worse than Kurtz, because he is forced to retun to society. He is disgusted and dissillusioned, and his independence and intellectual freedom has brought nothing but eternal dissatisfaction.

I don't think that HoD is entirely relevant to good and [b]evil[/b], since it dealt with civilization and savagrey, and those are entirely subjective.[/color][/font][/size]

[Harry]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DeathBug [/i][/QUOTE]
Could you PLEASE change your font and color, or atleast make it bigger? It's nearly impossible for me to read and I"m only at 1024x 768

[Katana]

Well than, make it to 800x600 or somethin'.
Also, I wanted to comment on this whole stinkin' debate...would you guys just stop arguing about it? You're not going to stop and are only just going to poke something a person said at them like a threat. Just give it a rest and go on with your lives, alright? Sheesh.

[Brasil]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DeathBug [/i]
[B]Begging your pardon, but I did not contradict. I used Mitch's word "perspective" to make a point that (I thought) detracted from his argument.

In fact, my initial post in this thread was fairly ambiguious; there are only two things that I have stated in black and white terms: that I believe there is a definite meaning of "[b]evil[/b]" that can be applied universally, and that Hitler was an [b]evil[/b] man.

However, the actual "line in the sand" where one can say "These things are [b]evil[/b], unforgivable acts, and we all agree that they are" is unknown to me. The acts I critisized were the murder of children and Hitler's actions. [/quote]

You can always beg; but that doesn't mean you're going to get it.

Oh, your initial post, eh? Did you write this?

[quote] I'm not going to define evil, because everyone's exact definition is different. You will know something's evil when you see it. If something is so depraved it makes you vomit, if a scene is so incredibly violent that you have to look away, if an action is so wrong you have to ask yourself how anyone could possibly do something like that...that's evil.[/quote]

DeathBug, do enlighten us how you did not contradict your statement there. From how that excerpt looks, your initial post was far from ambiguous?in fact, stating [i]precisely[/i] what Mitch has been saying all along, and you even had the gall to accuse him of using a cop-out.

[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]

Your argument died right there.

You can try to rationalize your way out of this one, honey, but you?ve just lost all credibility here, and frankly, I don?t even need to go through the rest of your rebuttal, but let?s do so anyway.

[quote]I am aware of that. However, it seems you misunderstood the point; Mitch made the point that Hitler himself did not physically kill, but had others do the actions under his command. (Who shared his perspective, was Mitch's point.)

Hitler made a point of eliminating (in various forms) his political opposition during his rise to power. There was dissent, but not enough to make a sizeable dent in his opperations.

You say that they flocked to Hitler because of his promises to raise them out of depression. (Which I totally agree with.) However, to support someone and to continue to support them are different things.

Although I am not sure what to classify the phenomena as, those who knew of Hitler's practices still followed his orders without fault. There are almost no cases of dissent. One of his camps (I cannot recall which) was located a mile from a civilian town. They knew what was happening and did nothing.

A government cannot function without the consent of the governed. They gave him their concensus. However, all of this is tangenial.[/quote]

?A government cannot function without the consent of the governed.?

That?s the most intelligent thing you?ve said so far in this thread. Cheers.

You?re agreeing with me a lot here, too. Interesting.

?There are almost no cases of dissent. One of his camps (I cannot recall which) was located a mile from a civilian town. They knew what was happening and did nothing.?

Perhaps they finally had something? Stability? They had no reason to do anything. You, for example. Say your government decides to invade Canada, and you live in Wisconsin, which is a prime location for the war on Canada. Let?s take this even further, and say that the Canadians wiped out the National Treasury. Now, your government says there is a need to establish containment areas for Canadians living in Wisconsin, and that containment area happens to be in the next town over. What do you do? You have no means of supporting yourself, and the government offers to protect you, to aide you, to help you rebuild your life, if you agree to assist them in their war on Canadians.

What do you do? Do you fight those helping you? Do you bite the hand that feeds you? Certainly not.

That would be an example of challenging authority, which translates to challenging a teacher.

[quote]If [b]evil/corruption[/b] is gradation, what is the final destination of the gradation? I'm not arguing, per sae, but you don't say where it leads.[/quote]

Oh?so here is your ?Absolute? ideal, even though you declined to define evil in your initial post because everyone had their own definitions.

Gradation is the gray area, which you have consistently failed to acknowledge, DeathBug, both in this thread and in others of recently. I see no need to further explain myself, as you refuse to acknowledge the gray area.

Come to think of it, in the NCLB thread, when you could not keep denying the gray area, you resorted to ?it?s my opinion.?

Do tell me if I?m wrong, but that?s ?a matter of perspective,? now isn?t it? You fell back on ?a matter of perspective.? Why are you so quick to criticize others for using it, when you fail to criticize yourself in this very thread?

[quote]i find it interesting that you should speak of Kurtz as "free", while I always thought his freedom was one of the biggest ironic twists of the book.

Yes, kurtz is free, as was stated; he was free of the false trappings of civilization, and is now free to think, but what does he do with that freedom?

He squanders it. He is now imprisoned by himself. He has the natives get more ivory, but he never puts it to use. He doesn't want to return to civilization, yet at the same time, he is disgusted by the people that surround him. ("Exterminate all the brutes", or something to that effect.)

Everyone Marlowe speaks with thinks highly of Kurtz or his abilities; he could have been anything he wanted. In fact, it was Marlowe's curiosity with Kurtz that drives him to locate him. Kurtz could have been anything. Kurtz could have changed the world.

And what happens? Kurtz dies ignobly, virtually unknown outside of the Company. Perhaps it is a difference of opinion, but that hardly seems the death fitting of a man who held such potential.

Marlowe actually fairs worse than Kurtz, because he is forced to retun to society. He is disgusted and dissillusioned, and his independence and intellectual freedom has brought nothing but eternal dissatisfaction.

I don't think that HoD is entirely relevant to good and [b]evil[/b], since it dealt with civilization and savagrey, and those are entirely subjective.[/QUOTE]

Kurtz died of Malaria. Malaria can change a person?s destiny.

Squanders it? Hardly. He builds an empire. He changes the world. Are you concentrating solely on his sickness? Are you suggesting that a man on his deathbed squandered his life?

?And what happens? Kurtz dies ignobly, virtually unknown outside of the Company. Perhaps it is a difference of opinion, but that hardly seems the death fitting of a man who held such potential.?

Did you not read the passage about the papers? He had written memoirs so that his message will live on.

Marlow is not disillusioned. He is wise:

[quote]Marlow ceased, and sat apart, indistinct and silent, in the pose of a meditating Buddha.[/quote]

Are you suggesting Conrad wrote that passage simply for the hell of it? What does Buddha symbolize? Wisdom, peace, tranquility, and knowledge.

Marlow does not reveal the truth to Kurtz?s fiancée because the truth is too much for her. It would destroy her, as she is not yet ready to know. Marlow?s fabrication is not a sign of disgust; it is a sign of applied logic. It is a sign of clarity of situation.

DeathBug, do not write off the ending to Heart Of Darkness as meaningles[b]s[/b] or trite, or filt[b]h[/b]y, simply beca[b]u[/b]se you fail [b]t[/b]o read it fully, with yo[b]u[/b]r mind o[b]p[/b]e[b]n[/b] t[b]o[/b] the experience, [b]w[/b]onder and language[b].[/b]

[Drix D'Zanth]

And with that brilliant, as usual, post from PT. This thread of religious debate, crappy posts, and offtopic-ness is dead.