Is Evil Necessary To Counter Evil?

[PoliticalChic]

1. What could be an example of 'evil'?
Atomic Bombs on two of Japan's cities has often been cited as 'evil'…and who can question that conclusion….
"Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. The two atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945 killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of people, and their effects are still being felt today."
Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings | ICAN


I know all of the justifications, and, I believe it was the correct action given the times, the situation, and the context.

But….judging by the results, with many innocents horrible killed, it fits any definition of 'evil.'

Perhaps, then, evil has a role to play in combating evil.




2. It would be a mistake to try to cover up the results of the atomic bombings behind 'justice,' as the concept 'justice' is even more subjective than 'evil.'


"…justice is not an absolute term, but a malleable idea, protean, flexible, changeable. Justice is at best a very distant ideal toward which different tribes aspire, moving by various, circuitous, and culturally determined routes."
Lance Morrow, "Evil: An Investigation," p. 196-197


And, before one gets too attached to the concept, recall the famous statement by J. Edgar Hoover: Justice is incidental to law and order.
We see that in the Mueller Investigation.


This axiom is even closer to the truth:
The only places one finds justice is the cemetery or the dictionary.



But 'evil,' well, to paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Potter, we know it when we see it.
Sooo once recognized....and assuming honorable folks agree that evil is to be combated…..how to go about that?



3. The stated aim of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, the creation of secularism, was to replace religion and morality with science and reason. If we judge by the millions who have died as a result of that new direction for society, it should be judged a huge mistake.
Use evil to fight evil?
…..it does seem to be way to respond to evil, e.g., the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
History seems to prove this axiom:

"Violence never solved anything. Except slavery, genocide, communism, fascism and nazism."
Thom Shea


Fight evil with evil?
Seems to fit with using 'reason'....


Agree?

 

[TNHarley]

Evil govts fighting evil govts more like it..
Innocent people shouldnt be caught in the line of fire. Maybe the govts should fight their own fucking wars...
Big government sucks a big one... I wonder when humanity will progress?

 

[G.T.]

I dont know to what extent Id call collateral damage "evil" ~ which is why its best to look at the set of circumstances in any particular case for thorough cross examination of implication and consequence....and not look to some narrow black and white rule book as a matter of course.

 

[Care4all]

Is that what God taught?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Sometimes a necessary evil is required. Proportional responses merely prolong war, at the expense of your own people.

 

[G.T.]

Evil govts fighting evil govts more like it..
Innocent people shouldnt be caught in the line of fire. Maybe the govts should fight their own fucking wars...
Big government sucks a big one... I wonder when humanity will progress?

When nations are a thing of the past, and "Earth" is where we live ~ as opposed to keplar xx, Mars, the moon or wherever else.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Is that what God taught?

Allah sure teaches that....

 

[JGalt]

Cancer can kill you, so it's evil. X-rays and gamma rays can kill you too, so they're evil. But X-rays and gamma rays can kill cancer, so they're good.

Evil things in the hands of good men and women being used against evil, is something people have necessarily had to do ever since creation. Like Orwell said, "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

 

[alang1216]

1. What could be an example of 'evil'?
Atomic Bombs on two of Japan's cities has often been cited as 'evil'…and who can question that conclusion….
"Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. The two atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945 killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of people, and their effects are still being felt today."
Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings | ICAN


I know all of the justifications, and, I believe it was the correct action given the times, the situation, and the context.

But….judging by the results, with many innocents horrible killed, it fits any definition of 'evil.'

Perhaps, then, evil has a role to play in combating evil.




2. It would be a mistake to try to cover up the results of the atomic bombings behind 'justice,' as the concept 'justice' is even more subjective than 'evil.'


"…justice is not an absolute term, but a malleable idea, protean, flexible, changeable. Justice is at best a very distant ideal toward which different tribes aspire, moving by various, circuitous, and culturally determined routes."
Lance Morrow, "Evil: An Investigation," p. 196-197


And, before one gets too attached to the concept, recall the famous statement by J. Edgar Hoover: Justice is incidental to law and order.
We see that in the Mueller Investigation.


This axiom is even closer to the truth:
The only places one finds justice is the cemetery or the dictionary.



But 'evil,' well, to paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Potter, we know it when we see it.
Sooo once recognized....and assuming honorable folks agree that evil is to be combated…..how to go about that?



3. The stated aim of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, the creation of secularism, was to replace religion and morality with science and reason. If we judge by the millions who have died as a result of that new direction for society, it should be judged a huge mistake.
Use evil to fight evil?
…..it does seem to be way to respond to evil, e.g., the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
History seems to prove this axiom:

"Violence never solved anything. Except slavery, genocide, communism, fascism and nazism."
Thom Shea


Fight evil with evil?
Seems to fit with using 'reason'....


Agree?

The only other reasonable options, an invasion or blockade may have resulted in many more Japanese casualties so the A bomb was the lesser of two 'evils'. Is the lesser of two evils still an evil? I'd say it wasn't.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

1. What could be an example of 'evil'?
Atomic Bombs on two of Japan's cities has often been cited as 'evil'…and who can question that conclusion….
"Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. The two atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945 killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of people, and their effects are still being felt today."
Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings | ICAN


I know all of the justifications, and, I believe it was the correct action given the times, the situation, and the context.

But….judging by the results, with many innocents horrible killed, it fits any definition of 'evil.'

Perhaps, then, evil has a role to play in combating evil.




2. It would be a mistake to try to cover up the results of the atomic bombings behind 'justice,' as the concept 'justice' is even more subjective than 'evil.'


"…justice is not an absolute term, but a malleable idea, protean, flexible, changeable. Justice is at best a very distant ideal toward which different tribes aspire, moving by various, circuitous, and culturally determined routes."
Lance Morrow, "Evil: An Investigation," p. 196-197


And, before one gets too attached to the concept, recall the famous statement by J. Edgar Hoover: Justice is incidental to law and order.
We see that in the Mueller Investigation.


This axiom is even closer to the truth:
The only places one finds justice is the cemetery or the dictionary.



But 'evil,' well, to paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Potter, we know it when we see it.
Sooo once recognized....and assuming honorable folks agree that evil is to be combated…..how to go about that?



3. The stated aim of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, the creation of secularism, was to replace religion and morality with science and reason. If we judge by the millions who have died as a result of that new direction for society, it should be judged a huge mistake.
Use evil to fight evil?
…..it does seem to be way to respond to evil, e.g., the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
History seems to prove this axiom:

"Violence never solved anything. Except slavery, genocide, communism, fascism and nazism."
Thom Shea


Fight evil with evil?
Seems to fit with using 'reason'....


Agree?

The only other reasonable options, an invasion or blockade may have resulted in many more Japanese casualties so the A bomb was the lesser of two 'evils'. Is the lesser of two evils still an evil? I'd say it wasn't.

To the left any response to someone who wants to do harm to another person is like George Zimmerman(a gun carrying Democrat) was unjustified to defend himself while his(George's) head was being bashed into a sidewalk. The thug Travon was shot for his evil intent to kill a "Gay" white man, who was just doing his job with community watch program. There is justifiable death, when it definitely stops EVIL from passing on its gene pool.

 

[sealybobo]

1. What could be an example of 'evil'?
Atomic Bombs on two of Japan's cities has often been cited as 'evil'…and who can question that conclusion….
"Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. The two atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945 killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of people, and their effects are still being felt today."
Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings | ICAN


I know all of the justifications, and, I believe it was the correct action given the times, the situation, and the context.

But….judging by the results, with many innocents horrible killed, it fits any definition of 'evil.'

Perhaps, then, evil has a role to play in combating evil.




2. It would be a mistake to try to cover up the results of the atomic bombings behind 'justice,' as the concept 'justice' is even more subjective than 'evil.'


"…justice is not an absolute term, but a malleable idea, protean, flexible, changeable. Justice is at best a very distant ideal toward which different tribes aspire, moving by various, circuitous, and culturally determined routes."
Lance Morrow, "Evil: An Investigation," p. 196-197


And, before one gets too attached to the concept, recall the famous statement by J. Edgar Hoover: Justice is incidental to law and order.
We see that in the Mueller Investigation.


This axiom is even closer to the truth:
The only places one finds justice is the cemetery or the dictionary.



But 'evil,' well, to paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Potter, we know it when we see it.
Sooo once recognized....and assuming honorable folks agree that evil is to be combated…..how to go about that?



3. The stated aim of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, the creation of secularism, was to replace religion and morality with science and reason. If we judge by the millions who have died as a result of that new direction for society, it should be judged a huge mistake.
Use evil to fight evil?
…..it does seem to be way to respond to evil, e.g., the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
History seems to prove this axiom:

"Violence never solved anything. Except slavery, genocide, communism, fascism and nazism."
Thom Shea


Fight evil with evil?
Seems to fit with using 'reason'....


Agree?

On another thread we discusssed if nat turner was a hero. Whites say he isn’t because he killed children. I think you agree he was a hero

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Evil govts fighting evil govts more like it..
Innocent people shouldnt be caught in the line of fire. Maybe the govts should fight their own fucking wars...
Big government sucks a big one... I wonder when humanity will progress?

When nations are a thing of the past, and "Earth" is where we live ~ as opposed to keplar xx, Mars, the moon or wherever else.

 

[hobelim]

Fight evil with evil?
Seems to fit with using 'reason'....


Agree?

I think its time to try and find a better way where no one has to die. politics and religion are already the evil that fights evil.

Why let this two headed beast fuck up the planet for everyone?

Why not fight evil with good, lies with truth and have a Nicaea style gathering where all religions and political views are openly debated,one by one, to discover their merits or flaws.No sophisticated weaponry necessary.

For instance nations could take turns promoting whatever position, political or religious, and argue their case.


If the truth comes out that Mohammed was a mentally ill pervert and not a messenger of a holy God then islam should be wiped from the face of the earth.

If the truth comes out that Jesus was not God and is not edible then institutions that perpetuate such evil should be shut down.

If it comes out that Mao was an evil genocidal bastard then he should not be promoted as being some sort of hero,

etc. etc.

Maybe the answer is in building upon what isn't evil in all religions and political ideologies creating something new.

Not fighting what is evil..thats just more of the same old shit that only leads to destruction.


If much of what was received from the past from our respective forefathers was evil, we owe it to our respective children to rid the world of it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I dont know to what extent Id call collateral damage "evil" ~ which is why its best to look at the set of circumstances in any particular case for thorough cross examination of implication and consequence....and not look to some narrow black and white rule book as a matter of course.

You wrote:
"I dont know to what extent Id call collateral damage "evil" ....

The OP:
"But 'evil,' well, to paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Potter, we know it when we see it."



Always good to define terms.
How would you define, describe, 'evil'?

 

[G.T.]

I dont know to what extent Id call collateral damage "evil" ~ which is why its best to look at the set of circumstances in any particular case for thorough cross examination of implication and consequence....and not look to some narrow black and white rule book as a matter of course.

You wrote:
"I dont know to what extent Id call collateral damage "evil" ....

The OP:
"But 'evil,' well, to paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Potter, we know it when we see it."



Always good to define terms.
How would you define, describe, 'evil'?

To define it, Id simply go with its definition...I cant make up my own or else language is meaningless.

I can describe what I consider evil....though..i.e. "describe it"....gunna need a little time though.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Cancer can kill you, so it's evil. X-rays and gamma rays can kill you too, so they're evil. But X-rays and gamma rays can kill cancer, so they're good.

Evil things in the hands of good men and women being used against evil, is something people have necessarily had to do ever since creation. Like Orwell said, "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

Succinct.

So.....from your perspective, evil is necessary to fight evil.

Hard to argue with that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. What could be an example of 'evil'?
Atomic Bombs on two of Japan's cities has often been cited as 'evil'…and who can question that conclusion….
"Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. The two atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945 killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of people, and their effects are still being felt today."
Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings | ICAN


I know all of the justifications, and, I believe it was the correct action given the times, the situation, and the context.

But….judging by the results, with many innocents horrible killed, it fits any definition of 'evil.'

Perhaps, then, evil has a role to play in combating evil.




2. It would be a mistake to try to cover up the results of the atomic bombings behind 'justice,' as the concept 'justice' is even more subjective than 'evil.'


"…justice is not an absolute term, but a malleable idea, protean, flexible, changeable. Justice is at best a very distant ideal toward which different tribes aspire, moving by various, circuitous, and culturally determined routes."
Lance Morrow, "Evil: An Investigation," p. 196-197


And, before one gets too attached to the concept, recall the famous statement by J. Edgar Hoover: Justice is incidental to law and order.
We see that in the Mueller Investigation.


This axiom is even closer to the truth:
The only places one finds justice is the cemetery or the dictionary.



But 'evil,' well, to paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Potter, we know it when we see it.
Sooo once recognized....and assuming honorable folks agree that evil is to be combated…..how to go about that?



3. The stated aim of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, the creation of secularism, was to replace religion and morality with science and reason. If we judge by the millions who have died as a result of that new direction for society, it should be judged a huge mistake.
Use evil to fight evil?
…..it does seem to be way to respond to evil, e.g., the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
History seems to prove this axiom:

"Violence never solved anything. Except slavery, genocide, communism, fascism and nazism."
Thom Shea


Fight evil with evil?
Seems to fit with using 'reason'....


Agree?

The only other reasonable options, an invasion or blockade may have resulted in many more Japanese casualties so the A bomb was the lesser of two 'evils'. Is the lesser of two evils still an evil? I'd say it wasn't.

The OP:
1. What could be an example of 'evil'?
Atomic Bombs on two of Japan's cities has often been cited as 'evil'…and who can question that conclusion….
"Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. The two atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945 killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of people, and their effects are still being felt today."
Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings | ICAN


I know all of the justifications, and, I believe it was the correct action given the times, the situation, and the context.


So, you agree with the OP?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Fight evil with evil?
Seems to fit with using 'reason'....


Agree?

I think its time to try and find a better way where no one has to die. politics and religion are already the evil that fights evil.

Why let this two headed beast fuck up the planet for everyone?

Why not fight evil with good, lies with truth and have a Nicaea style gathering where all religions and political views are openly debated,one by one, to discover their merits or flaws.No sophisticated weaponry necessary.

For instance nations could take turns promoting whatever position, political or religious, and argue their case.


If the truth comes out that Mohammed was a mentally ill pervert and not a messenger of a holy God then islam should be wiped from the face of the earth.

If the truth comes out that Jesus was not God and is not edible then institutions that perpetuate such evil should be shut down.

If it comes out that Mao was an evil genocidal bastard then he should not be promoted as being some sort of hero,

etc. etc.

Maybe the answer is in building upon what isn't evil in all religions and political ideologies creating something new.

Not fighting what is evil..thats just more of the same old shit that only leads to destruction.


If much of what was received from the past from our respective forefathers was evil, we owe it to our respective children to rid the world of it.

"Why not fight evil with good,...."

And the 'good response' to slavery, genocide, communism, fascism and nazism would be......

....what?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I dont know to what extent Id call collateral damage "evil" ~ which is why its best to look at the set of circumstances in any particular case for thorough cross examination of implication and consequence....and not look to some narrow black and white rule book as a matter of course.

You wrote:
"I dont know to what extent Id call collateral damage "evil" ....

The OP:
"But 'evil,' well, to paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Potter, we know it when we see it."



Always good to define terms.
How would you define, describe, 'evil'?

To define it, Id simply go with its definition...I cant make up my own or else language is meaningless.

I can describe what I consider evil....though..i.e. "describe it"....gunna need a little time though.

"....I can describe what I consider evil.."

Sounds a lot like the Justice Potter response.

 

[JGalt]

Cancer can kill you, so it's evil. X-rays and gamma rays can kill you too, so they're evil. But X-rays and gamma rays can kill cancer, so they're good.

Evil things in the hands of good men and women being used against evil, is something people have necessarily had to do ever since creation. Like Orwell said, "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

Succinct.

So.....from your perspective, evil is necessary to fight evil.

Hard to argue with that.

Well you don't defend yourself, your family, and your home with flowers and dildos, that's why they made firearms. And according to the left, firearms are evil.