Hitchen's Surplus of Evil makes methodological sense. The whole point of totalitarianism is the exercise of absolute power. Limiting brutality is tantamount to admitting limits to power, and to tacitly granting rights and protections to subjects. Constantly pushing power's envelope by committing new and ever more horrendous atrocities by contrast continually demonstrates that the regime in fact commands total control, and its subjects enjoy no privileges. Effective tyranny ever expands atrocity
Thanks for posting this. hard to believe anybody has sympathy for theocratic islam. I assume with tentative hope that it's because they just don't know what the fuck they are talking about, rather than because they are unable to comprehend evil.
@gaglir we don't need religion to tell us what morality is. The Bible tells you that if your daughter has sex before she marries, you have to stone her to death. That's not moral, and you know it, therefore you don't do it. Morality comes from an innate tendency to be fair and to help others, because as humans, when we see suffering, we see it as if it were happening to ourselves. We know how terrible it could be and we feel the need to change that. THAT is where morality comes from.
In my opinion everything went bad in Iraq after Sargon the Great since 2400 B.C. He was the first imperialist and war monger.
Original language of Iraq is Sumerian. Iraq should make Sumerian their official language beside Kurdish, because Iraqi Arabs (Sunni and Shias) are originally Sumerians who were arabized in 7. century.
In my opinion everything went bad in Iraq after Sargon the Great since 2400 B.C. He was the first imperialist and war monger.
Original language of Iraq is Sumerian. Iraq should make Sumerian their official language beside Kurdish, because Iraqi Arabs (Sunni and Shias) are originally Sumerians who were arabized in 7. century.
@Andybaby: We blow fascists up to rid the world of the sort of totalitarianism mentioned in the video. We listened to your anti war ideals on Darfur, and now theyre all dead. Way to go.
Hitchen's Surplus of Evil makes methodological sense. The whole point of totalitarianism is the exercise of absolute power. Limiting brutality is tantamount to admitting limits to power, and to tacitly granting rights and protections to subjects. Constantly pushing power's envelope by committing new and ever more horrendous atrocities by contrast continually demonstrates that the regime in fact commands total control, and its subjects enjoy no privileges. Effective tyranny ever expands atrocity.
"the word evil is morally too judgemental" says hitchens. That just shows how far moral relativism has permeated our culture. People are afraid to call totalitarianism evil.
@synkronyk: I agree there is no God, but i think there is such a thing of evil. Not a supernatural evil, but philosophical evil, because we know conscious beings, with the ability to sense, to feel, to experience, have a capacity to suffer, and suffering for these beings is highly unpleasant. Therefore i would say that suffering is a natural, materialist form of evil.
3) You can still call things evil, of course, but you really can't base it on anything but personal preference. So then it's the same problem: by what concrete standard do you call anything evil?
4) I think Saddam Hussein was a Muslim in the same way Hitler was a Chrisitan. i.e., he was a fruitcake who didn't really believe in anything but himself, but wore a religious garment to fool the suckers. This was Machiavelli's teaching: a good ruler must appear religious to appear righteous.
@gaglir hitler may not have been a real christian but he definitely used christianity to control the masses... however Saddam was definitely a secularist... he despised religious institutions... this is a documented fact. as far as evil goes - you can define things that are good for humanity's development, and you can define the reverse, ie evil.
1) If I were an atheist and you killed my daughter I'd call you an asshole and I would kill you; I'd have no dilusions about it being a matter of good and evil
2) I didn't say God was the only law giver but that in order for a universal, transcendent code of good and evil to exist he must exist, otherwise it's all relative. If GOd doesn't exist, law has nothing behind it but personal preference; so if a country does permit child rape by law, it's not evil.
The surest way to protect yourself from contrary opinions is to ignore them. Previous practitioners of such methods include: Inquisition, Ba'athists, Communists. It's what you do when you have no case.
Think about that: "things that are good for humanity's development" - From a Darwinian/evolutionary perspective, killing the unfit advances humanity's development. Keeping them alive, however, wastes resources and threatens the genes. Congrats, you just rediscovered Nazi logic.
sheer stupidity. u totally twist darwinism because you misunderstand what "fit" means. it's not just phys fitness but adaptability. spartans killed weak babies & missed out on a whole culture of philosphy science & art as a result. what ure describing isnt darwinism, its a more-cruel version of eugenics. the theory of survival of the fittest in nature is very different from murdering the weak, which btw, is historically mostly a religious practice. now go away, sunworshipper. ignored from now on
Is that why one of the first books the Nazi's banned in Germany was "The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin? And why Hitler (who was a creationist) made it explicitly clear that his eugenics program was based on Biblical biological ideas (Hitler believed in the "kins" that the Bible talks about)?
Let me guess: you didn't know any of that and you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.
law will be backed moral values that is already prevalent in the human mind. We don't make laws because god thinks that's good. If a country permits child rape, that doesn't mean everyone will rape anyone, it'll mean the people who will already rape can do it legally. I don't see what point 1 made, if you won't be mad at someone for raping or killing your child because of your religion, you wouldn't be mad without it, also you'd be a sick bastard. morals have NOTHING to do with god.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
But Hitchens is an atheist, which means he doens't even believe in evil. If there is no God there can't be any evil, because evil suggests the violation of a Moral Law, which cannot exist if there is no lawgiver. A true atheist would have to admit that there was nothing really wrong with anything Saddam did.
I agree that we atheists don't have a fully objective code of morality. However, we can still declare something to be evil. As Hitchens does very well.
@upandopen Fuck you. Speak for yourself. "Fully objective code of morality"? What kind of asshole statement is that? All you have to do is read Hitchens on how atheists in particular have high moral values without the threat of eternal hell. Since we do not have any evidence of the supernatural, we act morally of our own volition - because it is the right thing to do. Period. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
@upandopen I don't agree that Atheists don't have a full 'objective' code of morality. Morality comes from yourself, not from any holy book or law. Do you think that without religion or a code of laws, you'd murder and rape?
IF you are ignorant you simply don't know what the word objective means. In the way you use it objective means - based on fact. In that case only an Atheist (or Agnostic) has a completely objective morality.
Otherwise you are arguing against your own stance (you may label that action as you will.) If an Atheist's morality isn't based on fact what would it be based on (the writting of bronze age opium addicts)?
This is where you're wrong. You believe there cannot be a lawgiver other than God himself. Which means that you do not respect human laws (like laws that stipulate prohibition of child rape) are you a child rapist? No? The God is obviously not the only one you listen to. Ass.
Actually, in the Koran, I believe he condones it in the form of arranged marriages with extremely young girls.
The old testament, if I recall correctly, is bit less clear. Child Rape is certainly not forbidden in the ten commandments...Although I do think they forbid eating a certain type of food on a certain day. Priorities.
Morality MUST exist without religion. If it didn't, then civilization never would have developed.
@gaglir Umm so I guess you don´t get the irony of your comment: Hitchens IS an atheist and he IS against evil/bad acts and people. If you assume there is such a thing as dark you assume there is such a thing as night. By assuming there is night you assume there is such a thing as day. By assuming there is such a thing a day you assume there is such a thing as sunrise. If you accept that there is sunrise then you must accept that a supernatural all powerful being pulls the sun nto place each day.
@papasitoman The flaw of the argument is that he says that only god may be good, and those whom can decipher his words are good. That would assume that he separates light and darkness quite clearly. So, a more compelling argument would be,"If you assume that there is darkness, then the darkness would be finite. However, this means the light is finite as well. Being that they are both finite, they have no transition between the two. Therefore, god switches the lights on and off."
@gaglir 'A'theism. We don't believe in a god. Just because you associate a god with good, it does not mean that we associate everything we know with evil, as we do not have the good that is god. However, good is what a society explains to you. Obviously, Muslims say that a woman who is 'covered up' is good. Many in America would say it to be bad. Therefore, God is not good, but neutral. Society is good, yet bad. If a society is bad to us, it is good to them.
@gaglir You must be kidding. You simply must be. I refuse to accept that there could be a human being so fucking stupid and ignorant as your comment suggests. So you must not actually believe it. You must be kidding.
@frid9999 Nope, they weren't kidding! There are many many people that stupid, without even the ability to have the slightest clue of how stupid they are!
Yes, we can believe in evil, it's just not whatever your god says it is. Our morals are REAL. They're actually capable of reflecting what will help people everywhere lead happier lives. Your moral code doesn't even exist. Seriously, homosexuality is wrong? where do you get that from? Just because god says so? That's not a reason!
@gaglir How wrong you are. Good and evil are judged by society, and by personal feelings. Religion does not come into this - any morality from religion was given it by the society who wrote it. Which is why if you look at the Bible, you'll see that it is full of immortality and cruelty. These things would be considered evil now. But because its in a holy book, its seen as okay. Your argument is null, void and meaningless.
Moral codes are created by humans...not gods. Therefore there is such a thing as a violation of a moral code or law without the need for a god. To say that a true atheist would have to admit that there was nothing wrong with what Saddam did is beyond idiotic. I won't even go into the reasons why this is so and indeed why believers in a god are much more prone to evil. You can work it out for yourself if you chosse to think...or try reading!
my whole point was in argument at what hitchens said at 2:10. When people say that to use the word "evil" is somehow seen as simple minded or innapropriate. This to me shows far moral relativism has permeated our culture. ppl are afraid to call saddam hussein evil for fear of being labeled as bigoted or politically incorrect. When reagan made his evil empire speech he was also criticized for being a simple minded cowboy.
you may think that it's propesterous but its true, and yes my 11th grade teacher did call him a cowboy b/c he was simple minded enough to call something "evil"
He may be a cowboy, but there are lots of evil things out there. When Saddam raped thousands of innocent women because he suspected them of spying, was that not evil? When he gassed innocent kurds, was that not evil?
@twooffour And saying something is objectively evil using only the pettiness of YOUR standards and YOUR social/economic values is not pretentious ? Well you certainly don't look smart making a comment like that.
@twooffour oh insults, your smartness level just dropped further, I should've expected it. But well you ask a semi reverent question, witch can be answered quite easily. You say you need a standard to abide to know that a rapist is reprehensible? Well how about empathy ? That's a common feature that all humans posses. But I guess you need a god to tell you it is (by the way he seems pretty ok with rape and killing childs in the bible) and threaten you with eternal damnation if you do? I don't.
@twooffour I did I guess wrong ? Damn I usually nail it every times. You got me there :D. Well yes empathy is a fealing, ence the relativness of evil. See ? evil for you, not for the one violating it.
"Moral standards" are intellectual. The REALIZATION that you can't harm other people, because you're also one, you don't want to be harmed, and nothing makes you more worthy or better.
It's for whenever our imperfectly evolved empathy doesn't work - say, for people in other countries, for masses rather than individuals, etc..
"For the rapist he is doing good to himself, making his ego and his dominance shine. That's no evil for him."
@twooffour ""Moral standards" are intellectual. The REALIZATION that you can't harm other people, because you're also one, you don't want to be harmed, and nothing makes you more worthy or better."
What you described is the definition of empathy, more or less.
"Evil = doing bad to SOMEONE ELSE."
That's YOUR definition of evil. Others might say evil is when you are gay, or when you don't go to the church or etc. See more relativism and critical thinking :)
No one is ever called evil for committing suicide, or cutting oneself out of emo depression.
Only when you kill OTHER people, cut OTHER people, out of indifference, or indeed "for your own good", you're called evil because that's how our language defines such behavior.
Wow, you haven't thought much about this issue, have you?
So you say we should base that on "empathy". Well why don't you empathize with the rapists' needs instead? You can do that, but you'll cross the horizon of...
"No one is ever called evil for committing suicide, or cutting oneself out of emo depression."
That's a blatant lie and a utter indication that you are actually pretty worrisomely ignorant. Many people think that suicide is a one way ticket to hell.
The rest is also a lie for reasons I pointed out earlier (the whole your definition of evil thing if you don't know what I mean).
Well, congratulations, you take the opinions of crackpots, religious nuts, and violent psychopaths into account of what you claim to be a "critically thinking" discussion.
So others will say rock is evil.
Now you say insulting is evil.
I say wearing a toupe is evil, so you're evil.
Then someone will claim philosophy is wearing a toga and holding your right index finger up.
@twooffour You are already making some progress ! I certainly didn't expect that. You actually acknowledge that people albeit you don't like and albeit you believe their opinions are less valuables than yours, have different take on what evil is !
I knew that 5 years ago. You seem to be getting NOTHING out my posts, though.
You still don't get that it's a language issue.
You still don't get that most people disagreeing with the common definition, are disqualified for the mentioned reasons.
You still don't get that I was PARODYING the notion of relativism.
Because hey, if you sincerely think that insisting on evil to mean "harming of other people" rather than wearing black coats, you're beyond reasoning or hope.
@twooffour A language issue... Pretty much everything can be exactly that depending on the circumstance. That's why in a well constructed debate we usually begin by defining the terms that will be used in it. But you seam to ignore that the world evil is used by everyone differently, and for that reason an interpretation of it used by one person is not more valuable than another. That's the real issue. When dealing with evil and that why an inductive person, would say that there is no evil.
Please stop beating around and answer the question. I don't feel like being lectured about language by some I just had to tell the difference between language and essence. (People can disagree on either, independently).
What definition of evil is there outside of "harming other people" (leaving out the "justification" part for the sake of simplicity) that is SENSIBLE?
So far, you've only mentioned religious nuts and psychopaths.
"Agreeing on definitions" with a violent psychopath, is the least of my worries about a violent psychopath.
Religious nuts who believe "suicide will send you to hell" have so many problems in their thinking (including basing their morals on what "God" said, even leaving aside that they believe the religious claims in the first place), that what they call "evil" simply doesn't matter.
@twooffour That doesn't make their opinions on a philosophical issue moot. Many people are following religion, and the concept of Evil have evolved throughout the ages. Do you deny that ? You don't have an inductive reasoning so you prefer to use witch ever position suits you. That doesn't mean that other position are not to be taken into account. Why do you believe your concept of evil is more valuable ? That what made me call you presumptuous in my first post.
I told you to quit beating around the bush and give me an ANSWER. You can't.
That's because the only SENSIBLE definition of evil is the one I happen to agree with (because I've learned what it is from society).
For someone who just recently was ready to bash my stupid religious beliefs on God's moral standards, you're pretty quick to defend their right of opinion because there are "lots" of them and "they have said evil for ages".
black coats, is somehow "presumptuous" and "petty, *
Redundant to say, you're not in any way contributing to clarity, understanding or "critical thinking" by so blatantly confusing essence/meaning with language.
ALL language is relative, and yet there are presumptuous dictionaries forcing people to use words "correctly". Explain that, PLEASE.
@twooffour I was really under the impression that the sole purpose of language is to transmit essence and meaning. Do you think I might be wrong on that ?
Why there are dictionary ? to tell people what a table is for instance. Evil is a PHILOSOPHICAL term, and so CANNOT be defined clearly in a dictionary, contrary to a table. An encyclopaedia would be more appropriate for it.
Your problem is that you're confusing language with essence.
IF we define evil as "harming other people", as it happens most sensible people on the planet do, THEN we can apply this term to the violent murderer, but not the policeman who "harms" them by locking them up.
You can take the same word and make it mean wearing a goatee - but the essence above will remain. You'll just need to come up with a new word for it.
So how about "goatee". Wearing a toupe is goatee. You're done.
@twooffour "So how about "goatee". Wearing a toupe is goatee. You're done."
I'm I ? I certainly don't see more relevent points.
"IF we define evil as "harming other people",(..)policeman who "harms" them by locking them up."
Again that's a lie. or a blatant case of cherry picking. Certainly most people who harm others are considered evil, but that's far from being their only definition of evil.
@twooffour What would be sensible ? Something that don't counter your moral ? You would anyway say it is not evil by YOUR standards and YOUR social upbringing. So what's the point. I will try nonetheless.
Polygamy, is it evil for you ? it is for some because some think it is degrading and hurtful for women. But in my home country (talking about my grandma here) some woman demand of their husband that they mary another woman to help them in their daily task.
"What would be sensible? Something that don't counter your moral?"
I said what ISN'T sensible, for example religious opinions.
A sadistic murderer may have another definition of "evil", and I may even acknowledge that, but he's STILL harming other people other people for his own pleasure, and that is as well my definition of evil, and the definition of everyone who is NOT a sadistic psychopath or is capable of rational thought.
"it is for some because some think it is degrading and hurtful for women"
Well that isn't sensible, because it's a false crackpot opinion.
First of all, what kind of polygamy? Many men with one woman? Or many women with one man?
As it stands, though, it's only "degrading" and "hurtful" to a woman (or man) if it happens AGAINST HER WILL, if it hurts her in any way, or if the nature of that relationship somehow gives power over her to the man, forcing her to submit.
@twooffour polygamy is many women with one man. polyandry is the other way around. The debate on polygamy is long and I don't want to pursue it here, but has many philosopher tend to argue that those women don't know better because of education issue, so it remains a form of oppression. Is it evil ? no because I don't think a objective evil exist.
"polygamy is many women with one man. polyandry is the other way around."
Ah, sorry 'bout that, then.
"that those women don't know better because of education issue, so it remains a form of oppression. Is it evil ? no because I don't think a objective evil exist."
Or how about women who know everything, but have chosen it because they like it? Like the "Goddesses" of Charlie Sheen, although they left pretty quickly :D
And yes, if they "don't know better", and are somehow...
... coerced into it, or manipulated, or brainwashed, then obviously it's a problem, but NOT because it's polygamy per se. Same can apply to single marriage. Or washing the dishes.
Again, you're confusing basic things here.
"Is it evil ? no because I don't think a objective evil exist."
Really? Not because it's not a form of intentional harm, no?
There again, you're confusing language with essence.
You MAY say (although you have yet to back it up) that evil is too blurry of a term.
@twooffour I could return the essence and meaning argument to you there, but I will limit myself saying that you just proved great concepts always have shades of grey. That the same type of reasoning that I apply to evil.
I didn't provide you with my definition of evil because my definition would be as worthless as yours. But maybe you will understand better my position.
Evil is a concept that take it's reference from morals. a sort of one part of a consortium of rules of thumb to be avoided...
@twooffour to better serve the society and yourself. See ? no definite rules but an IDEA. So smoking is "evil" because it harms yourself. Throwing garbage into your neighbour lawn is "evil". Stealing is "evil", beating your wife is "evil", abusing someone is "evil" etc... You will always find people who think that what I mentioned is "evil". But I say there is always shades of gray when looking into everyone point of view.
@twooffour Well more of your presumptuousness. But you just proved that you can't read. I understand why you appeared so dense. My stance is that there is no such thing as evil, and you demand that I present to you something that's evil ? The most I can do is present to you that others don't think of the evil concept as you do, hence the fact that there is no de facto standard of what you call evil. What don't you understand in that, seriously ? You are reductive in your definition (continued)
@twooffour "What you have to provide is a SENSIBLE DEFINITION by other people, not what idiots think about God punishing them for suicide."
You ARE hopeless after all... Really ? sensible definition by OTHER people ? Does that even have a logic ? I presented to you examples, and you only used ad hominem attack on them to disprove them. Not a single shread of argument. And you demand sensible whatever ? Really ?
You can't disprove them anyway because different morals=different evil.
@twooffour I will loosely quote you then. "religious crackpot" not ad hominem ? because they are religious their world view doesn't count... not ad hominem and bigot ? What about atheist that consider suicide evil because it is cowardly and/or is only meant to hurt the people around them. Are they dogmatic in your view ?
""religious crackpot" not ad hominem ? because they are religious their world view doesn't count... not ad hominem and bigot ?"
Ok, let me break this down to you:
Ad hominem = trying to discredit the point, by discrediting the person.
Calling the opinion of a religious crackpot about an issue that has to do with their religion, wrong, because it's BASED on their religious beliefs (which they hold because they're religious crackpots)... is attacking the point, not the person.
@twooffour No you are basicely disregarding their point of view because of their belief. that's exactly "Ad hominem = trying to discredit the point, by discrediting the person.", person being extended to what defines them. The source of their opinion is not in any way shape or form a reason to calling their view worthless. Even more so on social standing because like everyone else they are part of society. If you said disregarding their "science" you'd have a point.
"No you are basicely disregarding their point of view because of their belief. that's exactly "Ad hominem = trying to discredit the point, by discrediting the person.", person being extended to what defines them."
Because of their belief =/= because of the person.
Their BELIEF is BASED ON FALSE GROUND. Therefore, the BELIEF IS WRONG.
Your MORON.
"The source of their opinion is not in any way shape or form a reason to calling their view worthless"
Their opinion is wrong because of how it's FORMED. Because of how they form their opinions... they are religious crackpots.
Not the other way round.
Gee, do you have a lot to learn...
"What about atheist that consider suicide evil because it is cowardly and/or is only meant to hurt the people around them. Are they dogmatic in your view?"
Well there again, it's argued as evil based on the... harm inflicted on others. Just like I SAID.
@twooffour You also are two faced. Earlier you said that NO one would call suicide evil. why should I have to prove to you now that it is logically evil.
@twooffour I certainly didn't expect to have to defend religious people. But discarding their all world-view because they believe in a fairy tale is not sensible in my view. You say evil is to hurt others yes ? And only that, really ? to live is to hurt people have you ever encountered this concept ? just by having powerful countries means that they prey on the resource of the weakest ones, because resources are not distributed equaly. So then does that mean living is evil ?
Having that said, there is such a thing as a "moral dilemma".
If your only choice is between making a decent living for your own people, and preserving that of others, what's the right decision?
But then again, it's only a moral dilemma in the first place, because it forces one to chose between TWO EVILS.
Powerful countries are capable of reaching out and HELPING the weakest, in a way weak countries obviously can't. So this dilemma isn't as simplistic as you're trying to portray.
@twooffour FINALLY ! thank you ! you are finally incorporating shades of grey. But you say it's choosing between two different evil I only go as far as saying choosing between different morals. Choosing between your own people and the other. No choice is stricly evil because both insure the survival of a part of humanity. You think negatively I don't put emotion in any of the choice.
For the question mark thing, I'm a francophone primirely and it is acceptable in french to do so.
"No choice is stricly evil because both insure the survival of a part of humanity"
Yes, and torturing people under your own regime, or murdering a person on the street, does none of that. Which is why you can call it evil without hesitation.
"it is acceptable in french to do so."
I'm a German and we spell substantives with a capital.
"I beleive that their moral it's not entirely based on fairy tales."
LOL WUT?
I never said EVERYTHING THEY EVER BELIEVED is false... I said
"But discarding their all world-view because they believe in a fairy tale is not sensible in my view."
Um, what? Discarding the PARTS of their worldview... that's BASED on fairytales... is not sensible?
You MORON. You're just a MORON. I have no idea why I'm even arguing with you.
Hitchens talks about dictators subjugating and torturing their prop citizens and you try to look smart by bringing up "philosophical relativism"... which is awesome, except you have no point ANYWHERE.
@twooffour I beleive that their moral it's not entirely based on fairy tales. Don't kill is pretty much a no brainer for the human specie and religions accept that rule of thumb. And your argument was "oh that's not evil because they believe in fairy tail so I will discard that example". And why do you bring Hitchens ? what does it have to do with evil. Dictatorship is morally wrong yes ? Is it Evil no because no thinker/phlosopher I known have a consensus on evil.
"And why do you bring Hitchens ? what does it have to do with evil."
How about.. because this video is about Hitchens, talking about evil, and people started questioning his "childish" use of the word??
"Dictatorship is morally wrong yes ? Is it Evil no because no thinker/phlosopher I known have a consensus on evil."
So... so morality is clearly defined, but evil (which is actually just the name for the lowest form of morality) is "debated by philosophers".. yea? You're losing me.
@twooffour Morality as a concept is clearly defined. Morality in practice is not however. And as evil derive from the practice of morality it is itself not clearly defined.
And lol I actually forgot that It was a video of hitchens. I was reading one of his books right now and researching him at the same time when you replied to my first comment.
@twooffour Morality is a set of rule a society gives itself to live together. that's the concept. Evil is a concept derived from the practice of morality witch is not clearly define because it is dependent of the society witch birth it.
"Morality is a set of rule a society gives itself to live together. that's the concept. Evil is a concept derived from the practice of morality witch is not clearly define because it is dependent of the society witch birth it."
No... no... I've just debunked this. You're a brickwall. You're a moron. I'm done.
@twooffour I really encourage you to look up evil in wikipedia. I helped writing it. The article is far from being perfect but it put into perspective the difficulty in defining evil. I previously asked if you think if evil didn't evolve through the ages. I won't demand like you do an answer but I would really be interested of your input.
@twooffour That there is no such thing as evil ? That it is just an idea ? a rule of thumb ? That their is no consensus and therefore no objective definition. You can pick what you will.
So language evolved over millennia, and it's still not objective in the strict sense, yet we don't just get to take words and apply them to whatever meaning we so please.
So this objection is STUPID.
You haven't got ANYTHING in my response.
Just took the "what does this have to do with anything" part, completely ignoring what came right before.
Seriously, arguing with you is like arguing with a retard. Oh wait.
"So language evolved over millennia, and it's still not objective in the strict sense, yet we don't just get to take words and apply them to whatever meaning we so please."
Of course we get to take them and use them as we see fit. But saying Evil exist objectively when you use your moral to define it does not mean it does exist as an objective term.
"Saying that there is no "evil" because the human nature is so, so complex, is pretentious bullshit in an attempt to look smart." That was the start of the discussion and the premise I objected had nothing to do with Hitchen.
That means you believe that there is an objective standard that defines evil. You also acknowledged that evil derives from morals, more or less. That's a contradiction at best.
Ok, this is my last response to you, because I honestly can't take it any longer.
"That means you believe that there is an objective standard that defines evil."
There is a COMMON DEFINITION of it in our language (you tried to debunk it, but failed repeatedly).
INDEPENDENTLY of that, there exists a certain concept, or form of act, of intentional severe harming of another person for one's own pleasure or curiosity, which we call evil, but doesn't change if we invented another word.
@twooffour Oh well I was getting bored too. You said a dictionary was enough to define it, I said an encyclopaedia would give you a better judgement, because the subject is complex and you try to minimize it to your own set of moral rules. I'm just saying your definition is not the only one so chill out :). Your dogma rest in the fact that you think you are objective witch is not true because evil is a part philosophy, not just a simple word.
Saying that "to the psychopath, it's good", is just ridiculous. As that's obviously INCLUDED in the definition. If to him, is doing something good to his victim, he obviously has lost any touch with reality.
"that evil derives from morals, more or less. That's a contradiction at best."
No... it's not. Moral statements and values derived from benefitting and harming other people, are just as objective as "evil".
"No... it's not. Moral statements and values derived from benefitting and harming other people, are just as objective as "evil"."
yes but what is considered from benefiting or harming other people is subjective, not objective. Aztech believed that ripping the heart from the chest of people would benefit the community. But I guess you would use again YOUR moral standing and say they were evil.
There is NO dilemma with an oppressive dictator, or a psychopathic murderer.
Whatever "reasons" a regime may have to do what it does, the evil THEY perpetrate far outweighs the benefit, it's like mudering a person so another one can get his DVD player.
Harming for pure pleasure, i.e. sadism, is evil by definition. No preventing of famine there, you fucking MORON.
See, that's why I'm giving up on you. You simply can't read, and you can't comprehend. Anything.
@twooffour don't want to acknowledge others opinion. That's the definition of bigotry. And the proof that it is not only reserved for religious crackjobs as you so put it. The concept of harming people is NOT the only way to do evil for many people, that's why evil is considered a psychological and philosophic issue. If you don't want to see that, take it on every philosopher that have debated on this subject for centuries.
Try some critical thinking yourself for a change, quit tossing accusations for no reason whatsoever, and just quit being such a fucking dolt. That is all.
@twooffour And notice I haven't included a single insult in my responses. You know why ? because I think insulting someone is evil in MY book. See there ANOTHER definition of evil. Damn you are lucky to have been discussing with me you just learned many things today. Well I'm probably kidding myself on that point
@twooffour But well evil remains a relative issue. For the rapist he is doing good to himself, making his ego and his dominance shine. That's no evil for him. But it is for society. You see ? that's relativism. the society condemn the conduct of the rapist because it tries to have a cohesive group with the least violence possible.
What I did is called observation and critical thinking. you should try it sometimes.
i remember my 11th grade highschool teacher once called bush a cowboy because he said that iraq was an evil country, well i suppose to label a dictator who put up mass graves and torture rooms etc. isn't evil? Well if she considers that innapropriate then by her retarded logic she has absolutely no right to call nazism evil. This concept about how it is oh so innapropriate to label things as evil just shows how far moral relativism has permeated our trash culture.
First off, I think it's utterly preposterous to suggest people avoid the term "evil" out of political correctness. Secondly, although your teacher may well have been under-informed on the activities of Hussein, I'm quite confident she labelled him a cowboy for using the word "evil" simply because of his mannerisms, accent and attitude. His thick Texan drawl, his seemingly (and actually) limited intellect, his undignified antics - it's difficult to take such a man seriously. He is ridiculous.
This notion about how evil is too simplistic just shows how far moral relativism has permeated our culture. Since when has totalitarianism not been evil? People are so afraid to even call iran, iraq and North korea as evil because for whatever reason they will be labeled as intolerant bigots.
chomsky hasn't made a valid point since the early 90's all he has really done is constantly repeat himself such as siding with FARG and the chechnian jihadist. Oh and let's not forget North Korea.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Fascinating all the negatives for my comment. Just can't handle the truth. "We are the Athiests" you think "we can do no wrong". How DARE I reveal the truth that Hitchens is an utter failure at any kind of debtate except mocking Christians (as he does often, especially when his views in that debate run out of ammo). Cowardly Athiests and you heroize this man while he gives a speech propping up the policy of Bush / Cheney / PNAC / Etc. Do you even know what PNAC means? No. Nor does he, ovbiously.
IS there some neo-left theocratic bully apologist paycheck Chomsky is waiting to be approved for cashing?
WHAT form, but theocratic bigotry, and imperialism does the left prefer to its own constructed phantasmagorical "bigotry" and "imperialism" of which Chomsky accuses pro Westerners like HItchens?
You do know that Hitchens used to bootlick Chomsky at every given opportunity? He was embarrassingly sycophantic towards him for the longest time until he decided to change tact to sell more books.
WHY is it unacceptable to change ones opinion about someone who decides to align themselves with theocratic sociopaths, as Chomsky and the multicultural fascists have done?
IS there any value to Chomski licking the bootstraps of the Mohammedan imperialist machine?
WHAT other claims would a Chomski sycophant like you wish to assert without a lick of evidence besides your fatuous opinions?
When you accuse others of bigotry, yet employ such terms as "multicultural fascists" and the contemptuous and archaic "Mohameddan", you really come across as a bigoted hypocrite.
This has been flagged as spam show
Hitchen's Surplus of Evil makes methodological sense. The whole point of totalitarianism is the exercise of absolute power. Limiting brutality is tantamount to admitting limits to power, and to tacitly granting rights and protections to subjects. Constantly pushing power's envelope by committing new and ever more horrendous atrocities by contrast continually demonstrates that the regime in fact commands total control, and its subjects enjoy no privileges. Effective tyranny ever expands atrocity
Hottides 7 months ago
Thanks for posting this. hard to believe anybody has sympathy for theocratic islam. I assume with tentative hope that it's because they just don't know what the fuck they are talking about, rather than because they are unable to comprehend evil.
2ravens2wolves 9 months ago
The more and more history i read of the life of Muhammad the more this sounds like a description of him....it seems history keeps repeating
lyntonio 9 months ago
@gaglir we don't need religion to tell us what morality is. The Bible tells you that if your daughter has sex before she marries, you have to stone her to death. That's not moral, and you know it, therefore you don't do it. Morality comes from an innate tendency to be fair and to help others, because as humans, when we see suffering, we see it as if it were happening to ourselves. We know how terrible it could be and we feel the need to change that. THAT is where morality comes from.
panamanian911 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In my opinion everything went bad in Iraq after Sargon the Great since 2400 B.C. He was the first imperialist and war monger.
Original language of Iraq is Sumerian. Iraq should make Sumerian their official language beside Kurdish, because Iraqi Arabs (Sunni and Shias) are originally Sumerians who were arabized in 7. century.
milekrizman 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In my opinion everything went bad in Iraq after Sargon the Great since 2400 B.C. He was the first imperialist and war monger.
Original language of Iraq is Sumerian. Iraq should make Sumerian their official language beside Kurdish, because Iraqi Arabs (Sunni and Shias) are originally Sumerians who were arabized in 7. century.
milekrizman 1 year ago
talking about the mass graves is the first time i have ever seen him show an emotion other than anger or scorn!!
Kennaderwaals 1 year ago
Evil is a word.
Noun - Evil - something that brings sorrow, distress or calamity.
Adjective - Evil - Morally reprehensible. arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct.
.....See no religion or HooDoo necessary. But fighting with the Trolls is awesome huh?
Bucksramek 1 year ago
I suppose the US is less evil because it blows people up from afar, with clean, modern technology.
Andybaby 1 year ago
@Andybaby: We blow fascists up to rid the world of the sort of totalitarianism mentioned in the video. We listened to your anti war ideals on Darfur, and now theyre all dead. Way to go.
athabascka 1 year ago
Hitchen's Surplus of Evil makes methodological sense. The whole point of totalitarianism is the exercise of absolute power. Limiting brutality is tantamount to admitting limits to power, and to tacitly granting rights and protections to subjects. Constantly pushing power's envelope by committing new and ever more horrendous atrocities by contrast continually demonstrates that the regime in fact commands total control, and its subjects enjoy no privileges. Effective tyranny ever expands atrocity.
Hottides 1 year ago
"the word evil is morally too judgemental" says hitchens. That just shows how far moral relativism has permeated our culture. People are afraid to call totalitarianism evil.
eugdog106 1 year ago
The Heart of Darkness, once they start, they can't stop themselves.
deceptivepanther 1 year ago
In my opinion the fact that people are so afraid to use the word evil just shows how far moral relativism has permeated our culture.
eugdog106 2 years ago 17
This comment has received too many negative votes show
bullshit.
Morals are relative.
evil doesn't exist. There is only choice. Evil is an emotive, useless, word used to create religious moral panic.
synkronyk 2 years ago
Do you believe that Nazism is evil?
eugdog106 2 years ago
No.
I believe it's stupid, naive, pathetic and destructive.
Evil doesn't exist. Nor did the jewish exodus from egypt. Nor does the imaginary sky daddy, nor the imaginary naughty sky daddy's enemy.
synkronyk 2 years ago
@synkronyk: I agree there is no God, but i think there is such a thing of evil. Not a supernatural evil, but philosophical evil, because we know conscious beings, with the ability to sense, to feel, to experience, have a capacity to suffer, and suffering for these beings is highly unpleasant. Therefore i would say that suffering is a natural, materialist form of evil.
athabascka 1 year ago
3) You can still call things evil, of course, but you really can't base it on anything but personal preference. So then it's the same problem: by what concrete standard do you call anything evil?
4) I think Saddam Hussein was a Muslim in the same way Hitler was a Chrisitan. i.e., he was a fruitcake who didn't really believe in anything but himself, but wore a religious garment to fool the suckers. This was Machiavelli's teaching: a good ruler must appear religious to appear righteous.
gaglir 2 years ago
@gaglir hitler may not have been a real christian but he definitely used christianity to control the masses... however Saddam was definitely a secularist... he despised religious institutions... this is a documented fact. as far as evil goes - you can define things that are good for humanity's development, and you can define the reverse, ie evil.
PRIMEx420 2 years ago
Yeesh! I hit a nerve with this crowd.
1) If I were an atheist and you killed my daughter I'd call you an asshole and I would kill you; I'd have no dilusions about it being a matter of good and evil
2) I didn't say God was the only law giver but that in order for a universal, transcendent code of good and evil to exist he must exist, otherwise it's all relative. If GOd doesn't exist, law has nothing behind it but personal preference; so if a country does permit child rape by law, it's not evil.
gaglir 2 years ago
@gaglir ridiculous... without god you can't have universal law? LOL don't reply i just figured out you're a simpleton and will ignore your posts
PRIMEx420 2 years ago
@PRIMEx420
The surest way to protect yourself from contrary opinions is to ignore them. Previous practitioners of such methods include: Inquisition, Ba'athists, Communists. It's what you do when you have no case.
Think about that: "things that are good for humanity's development" - From a Darwinian/evolutionary perspective, killing the unfit advances humanity's development. Keeping them alive, however, wastes resources and threatens the genes. Congrats, you just rediscovered Nazi logic.
gaglir 2 years ago
sheer stupidity. u totally twist darwinism because you misunderstand what "fit" means. it's not just phys fitness but adaptability. spartans killed weak babies & missed out on a whole culture of philosphy science & art as a result. what ure describing isnt darwinism, its a more-cruel version of eugenics. the theory of survival of the fittest in nature is very different from murdering the weak, which btw, is historically mostly a religious practice. now go away, sunworshipper. ignored from now on
PRIMEx420 2 years ago
Is that why one of the first books the Nazi's banned in Germany was "The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin? And why Hitler (who was a creationist) made it explicitly clear that his eugenics program was based on Biblical biological ideas (Hitler believed in the "kins" that the Bible talks about)?
Let me guess: you didn't know any of that and you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.
BRtankbuster 1 year ago
law will be backed moral values that is already prevalent in the human mind. We don't make laws because god thinks that's good. If a country permits child rape, that doesn't mean everyone will rape anyone, it'll mean the people who will already rape can do it legally. I don't see what point 1 made, if you won't be mad at someone for raping or killing your child because of your religion, you wouldn't be mad without it, also you'd be a sick bastard. morals have NOTHING to do with god.
konothecook 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
But Hitchens is an atheist, which means he doens't even believe in evil. If there is no God there can't be any evil, because evil suggests the violation of a Moral Law, which cannot exist if there is no lawgiver. A true atheist would have to admit that there was nothing really wrong with anything Saddam did.
gaglir 2 years ago
I agree that we atheists don't have a fully objective code of morality. However, we can still declare something to be evil. As Hitchens does very well.
upandopen 2 years ago 8
@upandopen Fuck you. Speak for yourself. "Fully objective code of morality"? What kind of asshole statement is that? All you have to do is read Hitchens on how atheists in particular have high moral values without the threat of eternal hell. Since we do not have any evidence of the supernatural, we act morally of our own volition - because it is the right thing to do. Period. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
beeroosterm 1 year ago
@upandopen I don't agree that Atheists don't have a full 'objective' code of morality. Morality comes from yourself, not from any holy book or law. Do you think that without religion or a code of laws, you'd murder and rape?
MrLemex 1 year ago
@upandopen There are two possibilities here:
IF you are ignorant you simply don't know what the word objective means. In the way you use it objective means - based on fact. In that case only an Atheist (or Agnostic) has a completely objective morality.
Otherwise you are arguing against your own stance (you may label that action as you will.) If an Atheist's morality isn't based on fact what would it be based on (the writting of bronze age opium addicts)?
TGAPOO 10 months ago
I challenge that point of view. A 'Moral Code' is developed by a group of people leaving together, it is not given by a superior being.
Surely you don't believe in stoning your mother to death if she works on the sabbath. And "God's moral code" is very clear on that.
marius1ro 2 years ago 3
This is where you're wrong. You believe there cannot be a lawgiver other than God himself. Which means that you do not respect human laws (like laws that stipulate prohibition of child rape) are you a child rapist? No? The God is obviously not the only one you listen to. Ass.
akallabror 2 years ago
God isn't against child rape, either.
Actually, in the Koran, I believe he condones it in the form of arranged marriages with extremely young girls.
The old testament, if I recall correctly, is bit less clear. Child Rape is certainly not forbidden in the ten commandments...Although I do think they forbid eating a certain type of food on a certain day. Priorities.
Morality MUST exist without religion. If it didn't, then civilization never would have developed.
caltrop69 2 years ago 4
"actually in the Koran..."
ahhh, no, you're wrong.
The Koran doesn't talk about arranged marriages; you need to read shit before talking nonsense.
Zackerybob 2 years ago
imagine your where an atheist and i killed your daughter in cold blood, wouldn't you call me evil?
SirKanti1 2 years ago
And Saddam Hussein was a muslim, yet did that make him behave any better?
darkhyena 2 years ago
@gaglir Umm so I guess you don´t get the irony of your comment: Hitchens IS an atheist and he IS against evil/bad acts and people. If you assume there is such a thing as dark you assume there is such a thing as night. By assuming there is night you assume there is such a thing as day. By assuming there is such a thing a day you assume there is such a thing as sunrise. If you accept that there is sunrise then you must accept that a supernatural all powerful being pulls the sun nto place each day.
papasitoman 1 year ago
@papasitoman The flaw of the argument is that he says that only god may be good, and those whom can decipher his words are good. That would assume that he separates light and darkness quite clearly. So, a more compelling argument would be,"If you assume that there is darkness, then the darkness would be finite. However, this means the light is finite as well. Being that they are both finite, they have no transition between the two. Therefore, god switches the lights on and off."
-Spahghettiman
FlyingSpahghettiMan 1 year ago
@gaglir 'A'theism. We don't believe in a god. Just because you associate a god with good, it does not mean that we associate everything we know with evil, as we do not have the good that is god. However, good is what a society explains to you. Obviously, Muslims say that a woman who is 'covered up' is good. Many in America would say it to be bad. Therefore, God is not good, but neutral. Society is good, yet bad. If a society is bad to us, it is good to them.
FlyingSpahghettiMan 1 year ago
@gaglir You must be kidding. You simply must be. I refuse to accept that there could be a human being so fucking stupid and ignorant as your comment suggests. So you must not actually believe it. You must be kidding.
frid9999 1 year ago
@frid9999 Nope, they weren't kidding! There are many many people that stupid, without even the ability to have the slightest clue of how stupid they are!
comanchio1976 1 year ago
Yes, we can believe in evil, it's just not whatever your god says it is. Our morals are REAL. They're actually capable of reflecting what will help people everywhere lead happier lives. Your moral code doesn't even exist. Seriously, homosexuality is wrong? where do you get that from? Just because god says so? That's not a reason!
RaustBD 1 year ago
@gaglir How wrong you are. Good and evil are judged by society, and by personal feelings. Religion does not come into this - any morality from religion was given it by the society who wrote it. Which is why if you look at the Bible, you'll see that it is full of immortality and cruelty. These things would be considered evil now. But because its in a holy book, its seen as okay. Your argument is null, void and meaningless.
andromidius 1 year ago
@gaglir
Moral codes are created by humans...not gods. Therefore there is such a thing as a violation of a moral code or law without the need for a god. To say that a true atheist would have to admit that there was nothing wrong with what Saddam did is beyond idiotic. I won't even go into the reasons why this is so and indeed why believers in a god are much more prone to evil. You can work it out for yourself if you chosse to think...or try reading!
ferkinskin 1 year ago
@gaglir Hm, strawman, circular reasoning,argument from ignorance...... wow. Great argument.
Azrhei 7 months ago
@gaglir
No. Evil has nothing to do with any "Law".
If the Moral Law is kill all the Asians you see, then disobeying it wouldn't be "evil".
Evil has to do with harming other people.
twooffour 7 months ago
my whole point was in argument at what hitchens said at 2:10. When people say that to use the word "evil" is somehow seen as simple minded or innapropriate. This to me shows far moral relativism has permeated our culture. ppl are afraid to call saddam hussein evil for fear of being labeled as bigoted or politically incorrect. When reagan made his evil empire speech he was also criticized for being a simple minded cowboy.
eugdog106 2 years ago
that was exactly the point i was making. You paraphrased my argument.
eugdog106 2 years ago
you may think that it's propesterous but its true, and yes my 11th grade teacher did call him a cowboy b/c he was simple minded enough to call something "evil"
eugdog106 2 years ago
He may be a cowboy, but there are lots of evil things out there. When Saddam raped thousands of innocent women because he suspected them of spying, was that not evil? When he gassed innocent kurds, was that not evil?
upandopen 2 years ago 12
@eugdog106
Saying that there is no "evil" because the human nature is so, so complex, is pretentious bullshit in an attempt to look smart.
twooffour 7 months ago
@twooffour And saying something is objectively evil using only the pettiness of YOUR standards and YOUR social/economic values is not pretentious ? Well you certainly don't look smart making a comment like that.
assalane 6 months ago
@assalane
And who else's standards am I supposed to be using?
Someone abducts, rapes and kills a child. With full intent. "Oh, but it's just your standards, how can you say he's evil?" Fuck you.
twooffour 6 months ago
@twooffour oh insults, your smartness level just dropped further, I should've expected it. But well you ask a semi reverent question, witch can be answered quite easily. You say you need a standard to abide to know that a rapist is reprehensible? Well how about empathy ? That's a common feature that all humans posses. But I guess you need a god to tell you it is (by the way he seems pretty ok with rape and killing childs in the bible) and threaten you with eternal damnation if you do? I don't.
assalane 6 months ago
@assalane
And there you go again, demonstrating your sheer idiocy.
When did I ever, ever claim to believe in a god? Oh wait, I just mentioned a "moral law", so I guess I must be a Christian. FUCK YOU stupid cunt.
"You say you need a standard to abide to know that a rapist is reprehensible? Well how about empathy?"
So if someone violates my empathy, he's evil. Is that good enough for you? Calling it that is a feature all humans possess.
Having that said, empathy is an emotion.
twooffour 6 months ago
@twooffour I did I guess wrong ? Damn I usually nail it every times. You got me there :D. Well yes empathy is a fealing, ence the relativness of evil. See ? evil for you, not for the one violating it.
assalane 6 months ago
@assalane
"Moral standards" are intellectual. The REALIZATION that you can't harm other people, because you're also one, you don't want to be harmed, and nothing makes you more worthy or better.
It's for whenever our imperfectly evolved empathy doesn't work - say, for people in other countries, for masses rather than individuals, etc..
"For the rapist he is doing good to himself, making his ego and his dominance shine. That's no evil for him."
Evil = doing bad to SOMEONE ELSE.
twooffour 6 months ago
@twooffour ""Moral standards" are intellectual. The REALIZATION that you can't harm other people, because you're also one, you don't want to be harmed, and nothing makes you more worthy or better."
What you described is the definition of empathy, more or less.
"Evil = doing bad to SOMEONE ELSE."
That's YOUR definition of evil. Others might say evil is when you are gay, or when you don't go to the church or etc. See more relativism and critical thinking :)
assalane 6 months ago
@assalane
No one is ever called evil for committing suicide, or cutting oneself out of emo depression.
Only when you kill OTHER people, cut OTHER people, out of indifference, or indeed "for your own good", you're called evil because that's how our language defines such behavior.
Wow, you haven't thought much about this issue, have you?
So you say we should base that on "empathy". Well why don't you empathize with the rapists' needs instead? You can do that, but you'll cross the horizon of...
twooffour 6 months ago
@twooffour
"No one is ever called evil for committing suicide, or cutting oneself out of emo depression."
That's a blatant lie and a utter indication that you are actually pretty worrisomely ignorant. Many people think that suicide is a one way ticket to hell.
The rest is also a lie for reasons I pointed out earlier (the whole your definition of evil thing if you don't know what I mean).
assalane 6 months ago
@assalane
Well, congratulations, you take the opinions of crackpots, religious nuts, and violent psychopaths into account of what you claim to be a "critically thinking" discussion.
So others will say rock is evil.
Now you say insulting is evil.
I say wearing a toupe is evil, so you're evil.
Then someone will claim philosophy is wearing a toga and holding your right index finger up.
Who am I to say they're wrong??
I'm done with this nonsense.
twooffour 6 months ago
@twooffour You are already making some progress ! I certainly didn't expect that. You actually acknowledge that people albeit you don't like and albeit you believe their opinions are less valuables than yours, have different take on what evil is !
assalane 6 months ago
@assalane
I knew that 5 years ago. You seem to be getting NOTHING out my posts, though.
You still don't get that it's a language issue.
You still don't get that most people disagreeing with the common definition, are disqualified for the mentioned reasons.
You still don't get that I was PARODYING the notion of relativism.
Because hey, if you sincerely think that insisting on evil to mean "harming of other people" rather than wearing black coats, you're beyond reasoning or hope.
twooffour 6 months ago
@twooffour A language issue... Pretty much everything can be exactly that depending on the circumstance. That's why in a well constructed debate we usually begin by defining the terms that will be used in it. But you seam to ignore that the world evil is used by everyone differently, and for that reason an interpretation of it used by one person is not more valuable than another. That's the real issue. When dealing with evil and that why an inductive person, would say that there is no evil.
assalane 6 months ago
@assalane
Please stop beating around and answer the question. I don't feel like being lectured about language by some I just had to tell the difference between language and essence. (People can disagree on either, independently).
What definition of evil is there outside of "harming other people" (leaving out the "justification" part for the sake of simplicity) that is SENSIBLE?
So far, you've only mentioned religious nuts and psychopaths.
twooffour 6 months ago
@twooffour You have missed my reply there. I just finished posting it. Langage is there to transmit meaning and essence.
assalane 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@assalane
"You have missed my reply there. I just finished posting it. Langage is there to transmit meaning and essence."
I have REPLIED to that post.
twooffour 6 months ago
@assalane
"Agreeing on definitions" with a violent psychopath, is the least of my worries about a violent psychopath.
Religious nuts who believe "suicide will send you to hell" have so many problems in their thinking (including basing their morals on what "God" said, even leaving aside that they believe the religious claims in the first place), that what they call "evil" simply doesn't matter.
So please.
twooffour 6 months ago
@twooffour That doesn't make their opinions on a philosophical issue moot. Many people are following religion, and the concept of Evil have evolved throughout the ages. Do you deny that ? You don't have an inductive reasoning so you prefer to use witch ever position suits you. That doesn't mean that other position are not to be taken into account. Why do you believe your concept of evil is more valuable ? That what made me call you presumptuous in my first post.
assalane 6 months ago
@assalane
I told you to quit beating around the bush and give me an ANSWER. You can't.
That's because the only SENSIBLE definition of evil is the one I happen to agree with (because I've learned what it is from society).
For someone who just recently was ready to bash my stupid religious beliefs on God's moral standards, you're pretty quick to defend their right of opinion because there are "lots" of them and "they have said evil for ages".
twooffour 6 months ago
@twooffour I may be a little bit confused there.. answer to what question ? I think I replied to every one of them
assalane 6 months ago
@assalane
Yes, BADLY. Answer properly.
twooffour 6 months ago
@assalane
Creationists should be taken into account, because they're there. Their definition of "transitionary forms" are vapid air, though.
So one last time, answer my question, or be gone with you.
twooffour 6 months ago
@twooffour Creationist want to be considered a scientific theory witch it is not. Evil Is a philosophical concept. Apple and orange
assalane 6 months ago
@assalane
black coats, is somehow "presumptuous" and "petty, *
Redundant to say, you're not in any way contributing to clarity, understanding or "critical thinking" by so blatantly confusing essence/meaning with language.
ALL language is relative, and yet there are presumptuous dictionaries forcing people to use words "correctly". Explain that, PLEASE.
twooffour 6 months ago
@twooffour I was really under the impression that the sole purpose of language is to transmit essence and meaning. Do you think I might be wrong on that ?
Why there are dictionary ? to tell people what a table is for instance. Evil is a PHILOSOPHICAL term, and so CANNOT be defined clearly in a dictionary, contrary to a table. An encyclopaedia would be more appropriate for it.
assalane 6 months ago
@assalane
"I was really under the impression that the sole purpose of language is to transmit essence and meaning. Do you think I might be wrong on that ?"
Ok, you're an idiot.
You can theoretically SWAP WORDS AROUND, while retaining the same meaning.
And the same goes the other round. Can you get that or not?
Please answer the question already.
twooffour 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@twooffour "You can theoretically SWAP WORDS AROUND, while retaining the same meaning."
Yes... so what ?
assalane 6 months ago
@assalane
Your problem is that you're confusing language with essence.
IF we define evil as "harming other people", as it happens most sensible people on the planet do, THEN we can apply this term to the violent murderer, but not the policeman who "harms" them by locking them up.
You can take the same word and make it mean wearing a goatee - but the essence above will remain. You'll just need to come up with a new word for it.
So how about "goatee". Wearing a toupe is goatee. You're done.
twooffour 6 months ago
@twooffour "So how about "goatee". Wearing a toupe is goatee. You're done."
I'm I ? I certainly don't see more relevent points.
"IF we define evil as "harming other people",(..)policeman who "harms" them by locking them up."
Again that's a lie. or a blatant case of cherry picking. Certainly most people who harm others are considered evil, but that's far from being their only definition of evil.
assalane 6 months ago
@assalane
What else? No stupid crackpot people, please. I don't want to hear about blasphemy being evil, or what makes me feel good is good.
SENSIBLE definitions, please.
twooffour 6 months ago
@twooffour What would be sensible ? Something that don't counter your moral ? You would anyway say it is not evil by YOUR standards and YOUR social upbringing. So what's the point. I will try nonetheless.
Polygamy, is it evil for you ? it is for some because some think it is degrading and hurtful for women. But in my home country (talking about my grandma here) some woman demand of their husband that they mary another woman to help them in their daily task.
assalane 6 months ago
@assalane
"What would be sensible? Something that don't counter your moral?"
I said what ISN'T sensible, for example religious opinions.
A sadistic murderer may have another definition of "evil", and I may even acknowledge that, but he's STILL harming other people other people for his own pleasure, and that is as well my definition of evil, and the definition of everyone who is NOT a sadistic psychopath or is capable of rational thought.
Nothig presumptuous about that.
twooffour 6 months ago
@assalane
"it is for some because some think it is degrading and hurtful for women"
Well that isn't sensible, because it's a false crackpot opinion.
First of all, what kind of polygamy? Many men with one woman? Or many women with one man?
As it stands, though, it's only "degrading" and "hurtful" to a woman (or man) if it happens AGAINST HER WILL, if it hurts her in any way, or if the nature of that relationship somehow gives power over her to the man, forcing her to submit.
twooffour 6 months ago
@twooffour polygamy is many women with one man. polyandry is the other way around. The debate on polygamy is long and I don't want to pursue it here, but has many philosopher tend to argue that those women don't know better because of education issue, so it remains a form of oppression. Is it evil ? no because I don't think a objective evil exist.
assalane 6 months ago
@assalane
"polygamy is many women with one man. polyandry is the other way around."
Ah, sorry 'bout that, then.
"that those women don't know better because of education issue, so it remains a form of oppression. Is it evil ? no because I don't think a objective evil exist."
Or how about women who know everything, but have chosen it because they like it? Like the "Goddesses" of Charlie Sheen, although they left pretty quickly :D
And yes, if they "don't know better", and are somehow...
twooffour 6 months ago
@assalane
... coerced into it, or manipulated, or brainwashed, then obviously it's a problem, but NOT because it's polygamy per se. Same can apply to single marriage. Or washing the dishes.
Again, you're confusing basic things here.
"Is it evil ? no because I don't think a objective evil exist."
Really? Not because it's not a form of intentional harm, no?
There again, you're confusing language with essence.
You MAY say (although you have yet to back it up) that evil is too blurry of a term.
twooffour 6 months ago
@assalane
What you CAN'T say, is that it may harm or not harm women, because ultimately everyone has a different opinion. THAT'S asinine.
And you still have to provide a different sensible defininition of evil.
twooffour 6 months ago
@twooffour I could return the essence and meaning argument to you there, but I will limit myself saying that you just proved great concepts always have shades of grey. That the same type of reasoning that I apply to evil.
I didn't provide you with my definition of evil because my definition would be as worthless as yours. But maybe you will understand better my position.
Evil is a concept that take it's reference from morals. a sort of one part of a consortium of rules of thumb to be avoided...
assalane 6 months ago
@twooffour to better serve the society and yourself. See ? no definite rules but an IDEA. So smoking is "evil" because it harms yourself. Throwing garbage into your neighbour lawn is "evil". Stealing is "evil", beating your wife is "evil", abusing someone is "evil" etc... You will always find people who think that what I mentioned is "evil". But I say there is always shades of gray when looking into everyone point of view.
assalane 6 months ago
@assalane
"So smoking is "evil" because it harms yourself. Throwing garbage into your neighbour lawn is "evil""
You fail to take into account two vital factors:
Intent. And extent.
Doing something that harms others, has to be INTENTIONAL in order to pass as evil.
Poisoning someone with nicotine is evil, smoking because you kinda don't think about it, is not.
Driving drunnk is a condemnable, contemptible form of CARELESSNESS, but it's not an evil act, because there is zero intent to harm.
twooffour 6 months ago
@assalane
Second is extent, or degree (what you like mentioning, "shades" of evil).
Throwing garbage into someone's lawn, is nasty, but not yet evil.
Stealing? If it's meds, perhaps, but it's just "bad".
Sending millions to concentration camps? Now THAT is evil.
What is the criterion? The harm caused (intentionally) has to qualify as PAIN AND SUFFERING.
Getting a car stolen when you can more or less live without one, is a major inconvenience, an annoyance, but no suffering.
twooffour 6 months ago
@assalane
Being raped violently IS.
Someone perpetrating such an act with full intent and realization, does commit an evil act.
And with all the trivial or accidental/careless stuff out, that's pretty much what remains.
So I guess my definition was correct, and you have nothing to add to it. Glad we could resolve this!
twooffour 6 months ago
@assalane
Any kind of psychological abuse and dominance would be harmful and degrading to ANYONE, though, so it has nothing to do with polygamy.
Polygamy? Seriously? That's the best example you could think of? Of what can be sensibly defined as "evil"?
Even then, the reasoning you brought up is a form of HARM inflicted on the "woman". Only that the reasoning is seldomly flawed and dumb.
One last chance, pal. One last chance.
twooffour 6 months ago
@twooffour Well more of your presumptuousness. But you just proved that you can't read. I understand why you appeared so dense. My stance is that there is no such thing as evil, and you demand that I present to you something that's evil ? The most I can do is present to you that others don't think of the evil concept as you do, hence the fact that there is no de facto standard of what you call evil. What don't you understand in that, seriously ? You are reductive in your definition (continued)
assalane 6 months ago
@assalane
"Well more of your presumptuousness. But you just proved that you can't read."
LOL, the IRONY of that.
"My stance is that there is no such thing as evil, and you demand that I present to you something that's evil?"
Wow... YOU. ARE. a fucking IDIOT.
I can't read... I can't believe this.
No, not something that's evil, A SENSIBLE DEFINITION OF THE WORD THAT GOES BEYOND MY STATED DEFINITION, you dyslexic, pseudo-intellectual buffoon.
twooffour 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@assalane
"The most I can do is present to you that others don't think of the evil concept as you do"
No, that's NOT the most, that's the LEAST.
What you have to provide is a SENSIBLE DEFINITION by other people, not what idiots think about God punishing them for suicide.
What's so hard to understand about THAT?
twooffour 6 months ago
@twooffour "What you have to provide is a SENSIBLE DEFINITION by other people, not what idiots think about God punishing them for suicide."
You ARE hopeless after all... Really ? sensible definition by OTHER people ? Does that even have a logic ? I presented to you examples, and you only used ad hominem attack on them to disprove them. Not a single shread of argument. And you demand sensible whatever ? Really ?
You can't disprove them anyway because different morals=different evil.
assalane 6 months ago
@assalane
No, you moron, calling a definition, worldview or opinion nonsensical because it's based on religious dogma, is NOT an ad hominem.
You don't know what an ad hominem is, PLEASE do look up.
twooffour 6 months ago
@twooffour I will loosely quote you then. "religious crackpot" not ad hominem ? because they are religious their world view doesn't count... not ad hominem and bigot ? What about atheist that consider suicide evil because it is cowardly and/or is only meant to hurt the people around them. Are they dogmatic in your view ?
assalane 6 months ago
@assalane
""religious crackpot" not ad hominem ? because they are religious their world view doesn't count... not ad hominem and bigot ?"
Ok, let me break this down to you:
Ad hominem = trying to discredit the point, by discrediting the person.
Calling the opinion of a religious crackpot about an issue that has to do with their religion, wrong, because it's BASED on their religious beliefs (which they hold because they're religious crackpots)... is attacking the point, not the person.
twooffour 6 months ago
@twooffour No you are basicely disregarding their point of view because of their belief. that's exactly "Ad hominem = trying to discredit the point, by discrediting the person.", person being extended to what defines them. The source of their opinion is not in any way shape or form a reason to calling their view worthless. Even more so on social standing because like everyone else they are part of society. If you said disregarding their "science" you'd have a point.
assalane 6 months ago
@assalane
"No you are basicely disregarding their point of view because of their belief. that's exactly "Ad hominem = trying to discredit the point, by discrediting the person.", person being extended to what defines them."
Because of their belief =/= because of the person.
Their BELIEF is BASED ON FALSE GROUND. Therefore, the BELIEF IS WRONG.
Your MORON.
"The source of their opinion is not in any way shape or form a reason to calling their view worthless"
Actually... it PRECISELY is.
twooffour 6 months ago
@assalane
The ONLY reason to ever call an opinion wrong, or worthless... is by discrediting the BASIS on which those opinions are formed.
You're such an incredible idiot.
twooffour 6 months ago
@assalane
Their opinion is wrong because of how it's FORMED. Because of how they form their opinions... they are religious crackpots.
Not the other way round.
Gee, do you have a lot to learn...
"What about atheist that consider suicide evil because it is cowardly and/or is only meant to hurt the people around them. Are they dogmatic in your view?"
Well there again, it's argued as evil based on the... harm inflicted on others. Just like I SAID.
twooffour 6 months ago
@assalane
Cowrdly, however? Please present me with a reasonable construct that can equate "cowardly" to "evil". Please, do so. You can't. It's bullshit.
twooffour 6 months ago
@twooffour You would think it's bullshit, I do not. Cowardliness is evil in my book just as much as lying.
Cowardliness as a soldier for exemple when trying to take down a dictator is evil. Is it "construct" enough for you.
Please read an essay on evil and it's concepts. You only have one part of it down.
assalane 6 months ago
@assalane
"Cowardliness is evil in my book just as much as lying."
Lying can be beneficial to other people. It's only evil when it HARMS, and that SEVERELY.
"Cowardliness as a soldier for exemple when trying to take down a dictator is evil. "
Not really, because even then, there is no intent to harm, and no ACT of harming.
Having that said, you're still basing this on the potential severe harm inflicted on others. FAIL.
twooffour 6 months ago
@twooffour You also are two faced. Earlier you said that NO one would call suicide evil. why should I have to prove to you now that it is logically evil.
assalane 6 months ago
@assalane
ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT'S KILLING YOURSELF.
Not leaving a starving baby alone.
You're stupid, you can't think, you don't know anything. Please, stop posting.
"Attacking the point is an ad hominem"... just fuck you.
How about cowardliness when you AREN't taking down a dictator?_
How about suicide committing NOT out of cowardliness, with no harm done to anyone other than yourself?
Moron.
twooffour 6 months ago
@twooffour I certainly didn't expect to have to defend religious people. But discarding their all world-view because they believe in a fairy tale is not sensible in my view. You say evil is to hurt others yes ? And only that, really ? to live is to hurt people have you ever encountered this concept ? just by having powerful countries means that they prey on the resource of the weakest ones, because resources are not distributed equaly. So then does that mean living is evil ?
assalane 6 months ago
@assalane
"And only that, really? to live is to hurt people have you ever encountered this concept?"
First of all, there is no space bar before a question mark. Please stop doing that.
Second, you haven't understood a single shred of what I said.
"just by having powerful countries means that they prey on the resource of the weakest ones"
Powerful countries don't HAVE to prey on the weakest ones to exist. If it involves causing famine and suffering, obviously it IS evil.
twooffour 6 months ago
@assalane
Having that said, there is such a thing as a "moral dilemma".
If your only choice is between making a decent living for your own people, and preserving that of others, what's the right decision?
But then again, it's only a moral dilemma in the first place, because it forces one to chose between TWO EVILS.
Powerful countries are capable of reaching out and HELPING the weakest, in a way weak countries obviously can't. So this dilemma isn't as simplistic as you're trying to portray.
twooffour 6 months ago
@twooffour FINALLY ! thank you ! you are finally incorporating shades of grey. But you say it's choosing between two different evil I only go as far as saying choosing between different morals. Choosing between your own people and the other. No choice is stricly evil because both insure the survival of a part of humanity. You think negatively I don't put emotion in any of the choice.
For the question mark thing, I'm a francophone primirely and it is acceptable in french to do so.
assalane 6 months ago
@assalane
"No choice is stricly evil because both insure the survival of a part of humanity"
Yes, and torturing people under your own regime, or murdering a person on the street, does none of that. Which is why you can call it evil without hesitation.
"it is acceptable in french to do so."
I'm a German and we spell substantives with a capital.
"I beleive that their moral it's not entirely based on fairy tales."
LOL WUT?
I never said EVERYTHING THEY EVER BELIEVED is false... I said
twooffour 6 months ago
@assalane
THOSE OPINIONS that are BASED ON THE FAIRTALES, are wrong because they have a false basis.
Like that if God said suicide is evil.
Boy, you're just a permanent dumbass aren't you?
twooffour 6 months ago
@assalane
"But discarding their all world-view because they believe in a fairy tale is not sensible in my view."
Um, what? Discarding the PARTS of their worldview... that's BASED on fairytales... is not sensible?
You MORON. You're just a MORON. I have no idea why I'm even arguing with you.
Hitchens talks about dictators subjugating and torturing their prop citizens and you try to look smart by bringing up "philosophical relativism"... which is awesome, except you have no point ANYWHERE.
twooffour 6 months ago
@twooffour I beleive that their moral it's not entirely based on fairy tales. Don't kill is pretty much a no brainer for the human specie and religions accept that rule of thumb. And your argument was "oh that's not evil because they believe in fairy tail so I will discard that example". And why do you bring Hitchens ? what does it have to do with evil. Dictatorship is morally wrong yes ? Is it Evil no because no thinker/phlosopher I known have a consensus on evil.
assalane 6 months ago
@assalane
"And why do you bring Hitchens ? what does it have to do with evil."
How about.. because this video is about Hitchens, talking about evil, and people started questioning his "childish" use of the word??
"Dictatorship is morally wrong yes ? Is it Evil no because no thinker/phlosopher I known have a consensus on evil."
So... so morality is clearly defined, but evil (which is actually just the name for the lowest form of morality) is "debated by philosophers".. yea? You're losing me.
twooffour 6 months ago
@twooffour Morality as a concept is clearly defined. Morality in practice is not however. And as evil derive from the practice of morality it is itself not clearly defined.
And lol I actually forgot that It was a video of hitchens. I was reading one of his books right now and researching him at the same time when you replied to my first comment.
assalane 6 months ago
@assalane
"Morality as a concept is clearly defined."
Not any more than evil, ESPECIALLY not if you take into account all the religious fundamentalists and crazy psychopaths you're so fond of bringing up.
"And as evil derive from the practice of morality it is itself not clearly defined."
No. Just like there is "morality as a concept" and "morality in practice", so is there "evil as a concept" and "evil in practice". Please make sense.
twooffour 6 months ago
@twooffour Morality is a set of rule a society gives itself to live together. that's the concept. Evil is a concept derived from the practice of morality witch is not clearly define because it is dependent of the society witch birth it.
assalane 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@assalane
"Morality is a set of rule a society gives itself to live together. that's the concept. Evil is a concept derived from the practice of morality witch is not clearly define because it is dependent of the society witch birth it."
No... no... I've just debunked this. You're a brickwall. You're a moron. I'm done.
twooffour 6 months ago
@twooffour I really encourage you to look up evil in wikipedia. I helped writing it. The article is far from being perfect but it put into perspective the difficulty in defining evil. I previously asked if you think if evil didn't evolve through the ages. I won't demand like you do an answer but I would really be interested of your input.
assalane 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@assalane
"I really encourage you to look up evil in wikipedia. I helped writing"
LOL!
As for your question, EVERYTHING evolved through ages. Language, definitions, knowledge, public opinion. Baroque was once a negative term.
What does that have to do with anything?
twooffour 6 months ago
@twooffour That there is no such thing as evil ? That it is just an idea ? a rule of thumb ? That their is no consensus and therefore no objective definition. You can pick what you will.
assalane 6 months ago
@assalane
So language evolved over millennia, and it's still not objective in the strict sense, yet we don't just get to take words and apply them to whatever meaning we so please.
So this objection is STUPID.
You haven't got ANYTHING in my response.
Just took the "what does this have to do with anything" part, completely ignoring what came right before.
Seriously, arguing with you is like arguing with a retard. Oh wait.
twooffour 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@twooffour hun ?
"So language evolved over millennia, and it's still not objective in the strict sense, yet we don't just get to take words and apply them to whatever meaning we so please."
Of course we get to take them and use them as we see fit. But saying Evil exist objectively when you use your moral to define it does not mean it does exist as an objective term.
assalane 6 months ago
@twooffour You said
"Saying that there is no "evil" because the human nature is so, so complex, is pretentious bullshit in an attempt to look smart." That was the start of the discussion and the premise I objected had nothing to do with Hitchen.
That means you believe that there is an objective standard that defines evil. You also acknowledged that evil derives from morals, more or less. That's a contradiction at best.
assalane 6 months ago
@assalane
Ok, this is my last response to you, because I honestly can't take it any longer.
"That means you believe that there is an objective standard that defines evil."
There is a COMMON DEFINITION of it in our language (you tried to debunk it, but failed repeatedly).
INDEPENDENTLY of that, there exists a certain concept, or form of act, of intentional severe harming of another person for one's own pleasure or curiosity, which we call evil, but doesn't change if we invented another word.
twooffour 6 months ago
@twooffour Oh well I was getting bored too. You said a dictionary was enough to define it, I said an encyclopaedia would give you a better judgement, because the subject is complex and you try to minimize it to your own set of moral rules. I'm just saying your definition is not the only one so chill out :). Your dogma rest in the fact that you think you are objective witch is not true because evil is a part philosophy, not just a simple word.
assalane 6 months ago
@assalane
"I'm just saying your definition is not the only one so chill out"
You haven't provided any other that is valid.
"Your dogma rest in the fact that you think you are objective witch is not true because evil is a part philosophy, not just a simple word."
Idiot.
Bai.
twooffour 6 months ago
@assalane
Saying that "to the psychopath, it's good", is just ridiculous. As that's obviously INCLUDED in the definition. If to him, is doing something good to his victim, he obviously has lost any touch with reality.
"that evil derives from morals, more or less. That's a contradiction at best."
No... it's not. Moral statements and values derived from benefitting and harming other people, are just as objective as "evil".
twooffour 6 months ago
@twooffour My last comment :
"No... it's not. Moral statements and values derived from benefitting and harming other people, are just as objective as "evil"."
yes but what is considered from benefiting or harming other people is subjective, not objective. Aztech believed that ripping the heart from the chest of people would benefit the community. But I guess you would use again YOUR moral standing and say they were evil.
assalane 6 months ago
@assalane
Wow... wow... you're getting stupider and stupider with each new bullshit comment you're posting.
No, they were WRONG to think that in the first place. It's not TRUE. They had no evidence for it. It was a cult. False. Are you STUPID?
As for morals, well, if it WERE true, it would be a DILEMMA, because either you rip the heart out, or people with starve.
And who would be the perpetrator of such a dilemma? I'm guessing some kind of IMMORAL deity.
twooffour 6 months ago
@assalane
There is NO dilemma with an oppressive dictator, or a psychopathic murderer.
Whatever "reasons" a regime may have to do what it does, the evil THEY perpetrate far outweighs the benefit, it's like mudering a person so another one can get his DVD player.
Harming for pure pleasure, i.e. sadism, is evil by definition. No preventing of famine there, you fucking MORON.
See, that's why I'm giving up on you. You simply can't read, and you can't comprehend. Anything.
twooffour 6 months ago
@twooffour You didn't have to reply to that I knew what you would think, since you seem to be unable to think outside of your perspective.
assalane 6 months ago
@assalane
No,this has nothing to do with perspective.
I can form a coherent argument, you get lost in fallacies and self-contradictions. Utterly pathetic.
I still like how you called "arguing against a point" ad hominem... that alone should've got you in the loony bin.
twooffour 6 months ago
@twooffour
"No,this has nothing to do with perspective."
lol so you say kid. But really, it was fun, it really was but I have to scram.
assalane 6 months ago
@twooffour don't want to acknowledge others opinion. That's the definition of bigotry. And the proof that it is not only reserved for religious crackjobs as you so put it. The concept of harming people is NOT the only way to do evil for many people, that's why evil is considered a psychological and philosophic issue. If you don't want to see that, take it on every philosopher that have debated on this subject for centuries.
assalane 6 months ago
@assalane
"The concept of harming people is NOT the only way to do evil for many people"
So again, provide a sensible definition that goes beyond that. You've failed with the polygamy, HARD.
Put up first, then go on cring about "bigotry".
If you can't come up with a decent answer, my ONLY conclusion is that your opinion is invalid, which isn't bigoted, but reasonable.
So go ahead, PROVIDE A DEFINITION. I'm tired of asking.
twooffour 6 months ago
@assalane
of evil in my book.
Try some critical thinking yourself for a change, quit tossing accusations for no reason whatsoever, and just quit being such a fucking dolt. That is all.
twooffour 6 months ago
@twooffour And notice I haven't included a single insult in my responses. You know why ? because I think insulting someone is evil in MY book. See there ANOTHER definition of evil. Damn you are lucky to have been discussing with me you just learned many things today. Well I'm probably kidding myself on that point
assalane 6 months ago
@twooffour But well evil remains a relative issue. For the rapist he is doing good to himself, making his ego and his dominance shine. That's no evil for him. But it is for society. You see ? that's relativism. the society condemn the conduct of the rapist because it tries to have a cohesive group with the least violence possible.
What I did is called observation and critical thinking. you should try it sometimes.
assalane 6 months ago
i remember my 11th grade highschool teacher once called bush a cowboy because he said that iraq was an evil country, well i suppose to label a dictator who put up mass graves and torture rooms etc. isn't evil? Well if she considers that innapropriate then by her retarded logic she has absolutely no right to call nazism evil. This concept about how it is oh so innapropriate to label things as evil just shows how far moral relativism has permeated our trash culture.
eugdog106 2 years ago
First off, I think it's utterly preposterous to suggest people avoid the term "evil" out of political correctness. Secondly, although your teacher may well have been under-informed on the activities of Hussein, I'm quite confident she labelled him a cowboy for using the word "evil" simply because of his mannerisms, accent and attitude. His thick Texan drawl, his seemingly (and actually) limited intellect, his undignified antics - it's difficult to take such a man seriously. He is ridiculous.
gloomyoutlook 2 years ago
This notion about how evil is too simplistic just shows how far moral relativism has permeated our culture. Since when has totalitarianism not been evil? People are so afraid to even call iran, iraq and North korea as evil because for whatever reason they will be labeled as intolerant bigots.
eugdog106 2 years ago
chomsky hasn't made a valid point since the early 90's all he has really done is constantly repeat himself such as siding with FARG and the chechnian jihadist. Oh and let's not forget North Korea.
smrkkrenz 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Fascinating all the negatives for my comment. Just can't handle the truth. "We are the Athiests" you think "we can do no wrong". How DARE I reveal the truth that Hitchens is an utter failure at any kind of debtate except mocking Christians (as he does often, especially when his views in that debate run out of ammo). Cowardly Athiests and you heroize this man while he gives a speech propping up the policy of Bush / Cheney / PNAC / Etc. Do you even know what PNAC means? No. Nor does he, ovbiously.
markdown01 2 years ago
You want to step into a debate with Hitchens? By choice? Good luck with that.
EvoV19 2 years ago 31
Chomsky would slay him.
kidofalbion 2 years ago
WHY hasn't Chomsky slain him yet?
IS there some neo-left theocratic bully apologist paycheck Chomsky is waiting to be approved for cashing?
WHAT form, but theocratic bigotry, and imperialism does the left prefer to its own constructed phantasmagorical "bigotry" and "imperialism" of which Chomsky accuses pro Westerners like HItchens?
whyiswhat 2 years ago
Your ridiculous rants are nonsensical.
You do know that Hitchens used to bootlick Chomsky at every given opportunity? He was embarrassingly sycophantic towards him for the longest time until he decided to change tact to sell more books.
And he's already been slain...twice.
kidofalbion 2 years ago
WHY is it unacceptable to change ones opinion about someone who decides to align themselves with theocratic sociopaths, as Chomsky and the multicultural fascists have done?
IS there any value to Chomski licking the bootstraps of the Mohammedan imperialist machine?
WHAT other claims would a Chomski sycophant like you wish to assert without a lick of evidence besides your fatuous opinions?
whyiswhat 2 years ago
Learn to spell the name 'Chomsky' correctly and I might deem your nonsensical rant to be worthy of a response.
Also, you might try looking up the definition of 'sycophant' to ensure you avoid using the word in the wrong context again.
If you can't grasp elementary English, we're in real trouble here :)
kidofalbion 2 years ago
Comment removed
whyiswhat 2 years ago
When you accuse others of bigotry, yet employ such terms as "multicultural fascists" and the contemptuous and archaic "Mohameddan", you really come across as a bigoted hypocrite.
gloomyoutlook 2 years ago