Good vs Evil (why evil will win)

[rupol2000]

Good and evil we relate to morality but can still be seen as being positive and negative actions independently though. We can do good by rationalizing situations, do evil by being ignorant of them.

Yes, the morality of predator and parasite is evil

 

[rupol2000]

And the slave serves villainy

 

[Gregory A]

Are they? Are they not?
What is "conscious of life itself"? When was the last time you had a conversation with a cow?

They can't comprehend death so they don't spend any time stressing out over it.

And if we have humans who are unable to stress about life, is it okay to kill them?

I don't see how that follows. And we do kill people in war regardless of them being stressed.

 

[frigidweirdo]

They can't comprehend death so they don't spend any time stressing out over it.



I don't see how that follows. And we do kill people in war regardless of them being stressed.

So, if someone, like a FETUS or a baby, can't comprehend death, then they are a good source of food for us?

You don't see how this follows? It's pretty simple. If you make an argument that something has to be sentient in order to not kill it, then you have to follow this rule ALL THE WAY. Simple.

 

[Gregory A]

So, if someone, like a FETUS or a baby, can't comprehend death, then they are a good source of food for us?

If a source of food can't comprehend death is not saying that something that can't comprehend death is a source of food.

You don't see how this follows? It's pretty simple. If you make an argument that something has to be sentient in order to not kill it, then you have to follow this rule ALL THE WAY. Simple.

It follows that 'all birds have wings, therefore all creatures with wings are birds'?

I"ve said that an established source of food is not aware of it's impending demise and so does not suffer from that stress. And because one constraint is out of the way does not mean there are no other factors involved.

 

[frigidweirdo]

If a source of food can't comprehend death is not saying that something that can't comprehend death is a source of food.



It follows that 'all birds have wings, therefore all creatures with wings are birds'?

I"ve said that an established source of food is not aware of it's impending demise and so does not suffer from that stress. And because one constraint is out of the way does not mean there are no other factors involved.

What?

Anyway, this is about good and evil.
You're putting a lot of effort into trying to determine that killing something YOU THINK doesn't worry about death is fine and okay.

It goes back to my point that "evil" is a human based thing. Humans decide, in their heads, what they think is okay and what isn't, then label some things "evil" and other things "good".
Often these things will overlap. Like if WE do this, it's good, if THEY do the same thing, it's evil.
Like going around the world invading, bombing, killing. Russia does it, OH NO, IT'S EVIL.

 

[Gregory A]

What?

Anyway, this is about good and evil.

It's not actually about either.

You're putting a lot of effort into trying to determine that killing something YOU THINK doesn't worry about death is fine and okay.

Good and evil relate to morality but still represent positive and negative actions themselves, and these relate to pretty much all of the things we do. Fine and okay are your words. I'd said eating meat is the lessor of two evils.

This thread is about further defining good and evil and why evil will win and why it is inevetable that this will happen. And also why all attempts to prevent it from happening will run into barriers, in place as chronological protection factors

It goes back to my point that "evil" is a human based thing. Humans decide, in their heads, what they think is okay and what isn't, then label some things "evil" and other things "good".
Often these things will overlap. Like if WE do this, it's good, if THEY do the same thing, it's evil.
Like going around the world invading, bombing, killing. Russia does it, OH NO, IT'S EVIL.

Putin is a monster. The Left (represented militarily by NATO) is another monster is what you are saying. Well I agree.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's not actually about either.


Good and evil relate to morality but still represent positive and negative actions themselves, and these relate to pretty much all of the things we do. Fine and okay are your words. I'd said eating meat is the lessor of two evils.

This thread is about further defining good and evil and why evil will win and why it is inevetable that this will happen. And also why all attempts to prevent it from happening will run into barriers, in place as chronological protection factors


Putin is a monster. The Left (represented militarily by NATO) is another monster is what you are saying. Well I agree.

Thing is, evil will only ever win, if you define evil as something will always win.

You think eating meat is a lesser of two evils. Hitler might have thought the same about killing Jews. This is the problem, isn't it?

Evil for one, and evil for another can be different things.
Putin is a monster. What about Dubya? He invaded TWO COUNTRIES to Putin's one. Only he picked on countries with oil and not near countries who believe they're inherently civilized.

 

[Blues Man]

If you had any understanding of the actual situation you'd be aware that building on agricultural land costs lives. This is simple logic. Using methanol as fuel costs lives. Feeding corn to cattle costs lives. People in other countries die of starvation everyday.

So you say the land is marginal for farming but you don't want to use it for anything but farming?

Tell me what sense that makes.

 

[Gregory A]

So you say the land is marginal for farming but you don't want to use it for anything but farming?

Tell me what sense that makes.

Marginal land can still be used for grazing livestock. No livestock means a significant area of land can not be used for food production because it is unsuitable for anything else.

 

[Gregory A]

Thing is, evil will only ever win, if you define evil as something will always win.

We associate good and evil with morality, but these are still positive and negative actions regardless. So when I say evil will win it does not mean immorality will win, but instead means those forces that are negative will win.

Emotionality will win out over rationality for example.

You think eating meat is a lesser of two evils. Hitler might have thought the same about killing Jews. This is the problem, isn't it?

Yes, for the two reasons I've already mentioned. One is those native grazing animals will take the place of regular livestock and the second is that many people will die as a result of the reduction in land that was once used for food production.

Evil for one, and evil for another can be different things.
Putin is a monster. What about Dubya? He invaded TWO COUNTRIES to Putin's one. Only he picked on countries with oil and not near countries who believe they're inherently civilized.

We see dictators as a threat to world peace, but the reality is that democracy has led to more bloodshed than all of the dictatorships in history combined. Democracy is a 'soft' governing system, and our softside represented socio-politically by the Left has the worst track record for mass deaths as dictatorships too.

 

[frigidweirdo]

We associate good and evil with morality, but these are still positive and negative actions regardless. So when I say evil will win it does not mean immorality will win, but instead means those forces that are negative will win.

Emotionality will win out over rationality for example.



Yes, for the two reasons I've already mentioned. One is those native grazing animals will take the place of regular livestock and the second is that many people will die as a result of the reduction in land that was once used for food production.


We see dictators as a threat to world peace, but the reality is that democracy has led to more bloodshed than all of the dictatorships in history combined. Democracy is a 'soft' governing system, and our softside represented socio-politically by the Left has the worst track record for mass deaths as dictatorships too.

And what is negative.

Pessimism, is it negative?
An optimist crosses the road without looking, knowing he won't get run over.
A pessimist crosses the road and looks, thinking he might get run over.

Which is better? It's always give and take.

The reality is that "our side" is often seen as good.
People in the US, for example, think their own country is the best. A lot of people from outside the US think the US is the great evil.

Same with the eating meat concept.

Deciding whether democracy or dictators have led to more bloodshed is difficult to calculate. The US certainly has been involved in a lot of this. But then many democracies haven't. West Germany, post WW2 put a lot of effort into moving away from that. East Germany didn't. Austria didn't. I've lived in Germany and Austria, and you can see the difference, easily.
Sometimes it's about SIZE. The US is a huge country, China is a huge country, Russia is the largest in Europe. The bigger a country it is, the more asshole the leaders will be.

 

[Blues Man]

Marginal land can still be used for grazing livestock. No livestock means a significant area of land can not be used for food production because it is unsuitable for anything else.

There isn't enough space to graze enough livestock for the demand which is why most livestock are grain fed. Grain fed cows get fat faster and can be slaughtered sooner.

If it was more economical to have all cows be free range and grass fed that is what would be done.

 

[Gregory A]

And what is negative.

In context, the most negative action we face is democracy (democratic elections) because although it is inherently fair, it is also inherently flawed, and consequently inherently vulnerable.

Pessimism, is it negative?
An optimist crosses the road without looking, knowing he won't get run over.
A pessimist crosses the road and looks, thinking he might get run over.

It's for society's patriarchs to be pessimistic. They should feel the burden of negativity most.

And anyone crossing a road should be pessimistic about the risks but optimistic about successfully completing the task.

Which is better? It's always give and take.

Hard and soft emotions are needed and normally balanced out, but soft living has nurtured a soft outlook that has found a vector through the modern media creating a larger imbalance between the two.

The reality is that "our side" is often seen as good.
People in the US, for example, think their own country is the best. A lot of people from outside the US think the US is the great evil.

We all think of democracy as being kind of sacred, the Americans more so because they introduced it to the rest of world. That said they also gave us the lightbulb (and millions of other things). We still have light bulbs too, but they have been modified over time. But the same can't be said for democracy and it still is there as a springboard to power for those who want it. Unfortunately, these aren't the same people with solutions to anyone's problems.

Democracy is an effective way to create a government but is an ineffective way to create an effective government.

Same with the eating meat concept.

It is a two-way thing.

Deciding whether democracy or dictators have led to more bloodshed is difficult to calculate. The US certainly has been involved in a lot of this. But then many democracies haven't. West Germany, post WW2 put a lot of effort into moving away from that. East Germany didn't. Austria didn't. I've lived in Germany and Austria, and you can see the difference, easily.
Sometimes it's about SIZE. The US is a huge country, China is a huge country, Russia is the largest in Europe. The bigger a country it is, the more asshole the leaders will be.

Dictatorships naturally occur, whereas democracies are expedient ways to create governments.

Allowing Germany and Japan to re-arm (defensively) would have made the world a more secure place, instead, our soft side, the one that finds weapons abhorrent has won out, the world's a more dangerous place because of that now.

As big and as powerful as some countries are they are not ready for the next phase, what I see as the terminal phase of history. The 'X' factor you could say, and it will take over the world and eventually destroy it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

In context, the most negative action we face is democracy (democratic elections) because although it is inherently fair, it is also inherently flawed, and consequently inherently vulnerable.




It's for society's patriarchs to be pessimistic. They should feel the burden of negativity most.

And anyone crossing a road should be pessimistic about the risks but optimistic about successfully completing the task.



Hard and soft emotions are needed and normally balanced out, but soft living has nurtured a soft outlook that has found a vector through the modern media creating a larger imbalance between the two.

We all think of democracy as being kind of sacred, the Americans more so because they introduced it to the rest of world. That said they also gave us the lightbulb (and millions of other things). We still have light bulbs too, but they have been modified over time. But the same can't be said for democracy and it still is there as a springboard to power for those who want it. Unfortunately, these aren't the same people with solutions to anyone's problems.

Democracy is an effective way to create a government but is an ineffective way to create an effective government.



It is a two-way thing.


Dictatorships naturally occur, whereas democracies are expedient ways to create governments.

Allowing Germany and Japan to re-arm (defensively) would have made the world a more secure place, instead, our soft side, the one that finds weapons abhorrent has won out, the world's a more dangerous place because of that now.

As big and as powerful as some countries are they are not ready for the next phase, what I see as the terminal phase of history. The 'X' factor you could say, and it will take over the world and eventually destroy it.

No, I disagree that democracy is the most negative. Genocide, ethnic cleansing.... these are two examples of something way, way more negative.

 

[Gregory A]

No, I disagree that democracy is the most negative. Genocide, ethnic cleansing.... these are two examples of something way, way more negative.

Genocide and ethnic cleansing's effect on the world could be compared to the threat serial killers pose to a nation. Whereas democracy on the other hand might cause the world's population to be wiped out tomorrow.

Conceivable I've had sixty-two years to come to my conclusions whereas presumably you've only had a few hours to dismiss them. The point is that a person making a claim is more likely to be right than the person dismissing that claim. What are the chances you've put a lot of thought into a topic that I've not by chance raised here today.

I don't adlib much and have been pushing this same stuff for years now. And as I'd said in the opening post my efforts to do something about a pending crisis, one that leads to an impending catastrophe, have had no success whatsoever. It's as though these things have already happened in the future and there is no way of changing things now beforehand.

I'm hoping it's not those people who claim to care most that are also those that care least.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Genocide and ethnic cleansing's effect on the world could be compared to the threat serial killers pose to a nation. Whereas democracy on the other hand might cause the world's population to be wiped out tomorrow.

Conceivable I've had sixty-two years to come to my conclusions whereas presumably you've only had a few hours to dismiss them. The point is that a person making a claim is more likely to be right than the person dismissing that claim. What are the chances you've put a lot of thought into a topic that I've not by chance raised here today.

I don't adlib much and have been pushing this same stuff for years now. And as I'd said in the opening post my efforts to do something about a pending crisis, one that leads to an impending catastrophe, have had no success whatsoever. It's as though these things have already happened in the future and there is no way of changing things now beforehand.

I'm hoping it's not those people who claim to care most that are also those that care least.

Well, the problem is you only posted a very, very small part of what you've been thinking about. I can't understand what you don't write.

From this post I can see more of what you're saying, but I'm still no sure I agree.
Firstly it depends on your view of "democracy".
I'd say the US is not democratic. Too many people are disenfranchised because of the FPTP political system.
Germany has BETTER democracy, people have an equal say in the country on voting day, unlike the US, and Germany is a far better country for the world than the US is.

East Germany, under the USSR's control, was a polluted hell hole in 1990. Many of the Soviet countries were.

Democracy is merely a way of choosing people to be leaders. China doesn't have it, and yet is increasing pollution, made the coronavirus worse, along with other possibilities that are much worse. There's another new virus that's appeared in China.

So, I'm going to disagree with you. And I do think about things a lot. I'm not the sort that comes on forums like this for shits and giggles, I do it to keep my brain going, to increase my understanding of the world.

But I do disagree with what you've posted so far.

 

[Gregory A]

Well, the problem is you only posted a very, very small part of what you've been thinking about. I can't understand what you don't write.

From this post I can see more of what you're saying, but I'm still no sure I agree.
Firstly it depends on your view of "democracy".
I'd say the US is not democratic. Too many people are disenfranchised because of the FPTP political system.
Germany has BETTER democracy, people have an equal say in the country on voting day, unlike the US, and Germany is a far better country for the world than the US is.

Democracy is an effective way to elect an administration but is an ineffective way to elect an effective administration. The majority of the voters having average intelligence resulting in an average government. This average then turning to bad when faced with the complexities of running a country. Nature would have the best people in any field in charge. Instead we have the all men are created equal, almost biblical tenet in place. Democracy is a soft form of government a political system representative of the 'X' factor. Dictatorships representing the 'Y'. So, regardless of the form democracy takes it is a flawed and ineffective way of running any country. It also has an inherent vulnerability that ironically allows it to one day soon become the ultimate dictatorship, with the most dangerous Trojan Horse in history set to be drawn into the city, and very little time left to stop this happening.

East Germany, under the USSR's control, was a polluted hell hole in 1990. Many of the Soviet countries were.

Democracy is merely a way of choosing people to be leaders. China doesn't have it, and yet is increasing pollution, made the coronavirus worse, along with other possibilities that are much worse. There's another new virus that's appeared in China.

Democratic elections allow people who have no idea of how to run a country to elect other people who also know nothing of what it takes to run a country. Why should lawyers know anything about what it takes to run a country successfully for example. They might be inclined to take on those positions but that is all it is an inclination or at most a concern for justice.

Like anyone else I was in awe of political leaders when I was young, these educated people who run our countries. But then one day it occurred to me that I had something in common with these greats, and that was that I am too a human being, so not so much separation there. Further along, and losing any self-esteem gained, I become aware of the alarming fact that I might actually know more about what they do than they do themselves. That is the chance of a leader being the same person as the one that has the solutions would be the number of potential candidates over the chance of becoming leader. One in many millions as those that have the solutions can never overcome the barriers the democratic election system poses to anyone really. And if somehow they did, then have only half a chance of becoming leader due to a two party system of government.

So, I'm going to disagree with you. And I do think about things a lot. I'm not the sort that comes on forums like this for shits and giggles, I do it to keep my brain going, to increase my understanding of the world.

But I do disagree with what you've posted so far.

You are here to disagree. Forums are in some ways like stagnant ponds full of piranhas just waiting for someone to come along and fall in. I'm here with a cause, and that's not to raise awareness but to organize those that are obliged to do something to avert a social disaster, society's patriarchs, to prepare for battle. It is the natural order, those who see things that are wrong being carried out need to act. And, sure it's okay to be philosophic but not to neglect our obligations when they confront us.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Democracy is an effective way to elect an administration but is an ineffective way to elect an effective administration. The majority of the voters having average intelligence resulting in an average government. This average then turning to bad when faced with the complexities of running a country. Nature would have the best people in any field in charge. Instead we have the all men are created equal, almost biblical tenet in place. Democracy is a soft form of government a political system representative of the 'X' factor. Dictatorships representing the 'Y'. So, regardless of the form democracy takes it is a flawed and ineffective way of running any country. It also has an inherent vulnerability that ironically allows it to one day soon become the ultimate dictatorship, with the most dangerous Trojan Horse in history set to be drawn into the city, and very little time left to stop this happening.



Democratic elections allow people who have no idea of how to run a country to elect other people who also know nothing of what it takes to run a country. Why should lawyers know anything about what it takes to run a country successfully for example. They might be inclined to take on those positions but that is all it is an inclination or at most a concern for justice.

Like anyone else I was in awe of political leaders when I was young, these educated people who run our countries. But then one day it occurred to me that I had something in common with these greats, and that was that I am too a human being, so not so much separation there. Further along, and losing any self-esteem gained, I become aware of the alarming fact that I might actually know more about what they do than they do themselves. That is the chance of a leader being the same person as the one that has the solutions would be the number of potential candidates over the chance of becoming leader. One in many millions as those that have the solutions can never overcome the barriers the democratic election system poses to anyone really. And if somehow they did, then have only half a chance of becoming leader due to a two party system of government.



You are here to disagree. Forums are in some ways like stagnant ponds full of piranhas just waiting for someone to come along and fall in. I'm here with a cause, and that's not to raise awareness but to organize those that are obliged to do something to avert a social disaster, society's patriarchs, to prepare for battle. It is the natural order, those who see things that are wrong being carried out need to act. And, sure it's okay to be philosophic but not to neglect our obligations when they confront us.

Well, the problem with effective administrations is, someone has to do it, and there isn't a good system.

Take China. China has a system where in order to get to the top job, you have to join the government then work your way up to the top. Only, in order to be able to get to the top, you have to literally BUY a higher position. In order to be able to afford to buy said position, you need to take bribes.

Yes, democracy has flaws, Proportional Representation has less flaws, and if people put more effort into tweaking Proportional Representation then it might work even better.

Who knows anything about running a country? The reality is that running a country is an immense task. You're dealing with issues that will impact other issues.

Take China again. They had the one child policy to deal with a huge population. In doing so they've now created a pension crisis for themselves in 20 years time. Along with a lot of other social problems that were inevitable because western countries have been suffering these problems for half a century, and yet, these people who are professional politicians, couldn't see it coming.

So what is better than democracy?

 

[Gregory A]

Well, the problem with effective administrations is, someone has to do it, and there isn't a good system.

Take China. China has a system where in order to get to the top job, you have to join the government then work your way up to the top. Only, in order to be able to get to the top, you have to literally BUY a higher position. In order to be able to afford to buy said position, you need to take bribes.

China has strong government something not allowed under democracy, and fascism does work. But is unacceptable because of the damage it does to society and violation of the rights of individuals

Yes, democracy has flaws, Proportional Representation has less flaws, and if people put more effort into tweaking Proportional Representation then it might work even better.

Democracy has several flaws, including one really big one, and it presents as a vulnerability, which by its nature is set to be exploited.

Who knows anything about running a country? The reality is that running a country is an immense task. You're dealing with issues that will impact other issues.

We come up with ideas all of the time but we are not in any position to try them out, and worse still can't submit them for any assessment. A modified democracy would allow this. A board of logicians, ethicists, scientists, engineers, etc. to decide the value of the ideas submitted.

Take China again. They had the one child policy to deal with a huge population. In doing so they've now created a pension crisis for themselves in 20 years time. Along with a lot of other social problems that were inevitable because western countries have been suffering these problems for half a century, and yet, these people who are professional politicians, couldn't see it coming.

So what is better than democracy?

We have modified the light bulb, we can modify democracy, And we need to do it soon.

We see democracy as a system of government when in fact it is a political representation of the Left. As dictatorships are of the Right. Soft living shifts us (society) left. And the problem is that the Left has a far worse record when it comes to bloodshed than do the Right. And we agree that democratization is happening in the world and if so accept that if the above line is accurate, then the summarization in the title of the OP "why evil will win" is correct.