Christopher Hitchens - Axis of Evil (2 of 7) - Saddam Hussein's Iraq

July 9, 2009. Commonwealth Club. . .

search keywords: noam chomsky george galloway andrew sullivan bill maher real time new rules keith olbermann rachel maddow glenn beck rush limbaugh sean hannity o'reilly dennis prager hugh hewitt michael medved thomas sowell john stossel interview debate speech

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• noam
• chomsky
• george
• galloway
• andrew
• sullivan
• bill
• maher
• real
• time
• new
• rules
• keith
• olbermann
• rachel
• maddow
• glenn
• beck
• rush
• limbaugh
• sean
• hannity
• o'reilly
• dennis
• prager
• hugh
• hewitt
• michael
• medved
• thomas
• sowell
• john
• stossel
• interview
• debate
• speech

[assalane]

@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.

[twooffour]

@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.

[assalane]

@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.

[twooffour]

@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]

@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.

[assalane]

@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.

[twooffour]

@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.

[assalane]

@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.

[twooffour]

@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]

@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.