Is Evil Necessary To Counter Evil?

[Circe]

All respondents seem to agree that evil is necessary to counter evil.

Not me. I think evil is a silly concept. I can't even imagine what the word attaches to. I asked you a question about a definition, for a sentence that seemed incoherent, but you didn't answer it.

This is not a useful thread for me. Happy New Year, all.

 

[PoliticalChic]

.
Is Evil Necessary To Counter Evil?

the obvious answer is evil can not be used against itself.

Actually, far from obvious.

But, it depends on how 'evil' is defined, as I showed above.

 

[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?

Old news, fake news.

The two bombs saved the lives of hundreds of thousands, very possibly millions of military and civilian lives.

It was the civil and humane thing to do.

"...civil and humane thing...."

This is the silliest post you've ever authored.


'Necessary' would have been sufficient.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Have you considered that
'hardwired'
or
'reasoned'
or
'biblical'


...all provide the same answer.

No, of course not. That would be silly.

Not silly....accurate.

All three analyses would have recommended going to war.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Have you considered that
'hardwired'
or
'reasoned'
or
'biblical'


...all provide the same answer.

No, of course not. That would be silly.

It has become evident that those either too lazy, or cowardly, to confront the question of 'what is' or even 'is there' evil, feel it necessary to respond to this thread….


It seems the sort of inept response one finds in call-in political polls, where dolts put themselves in the 'no opinion' category.

Then why make the call at all????




In the same vein, we find these responses…


"I think evil is a silly concept."

or

Some who attempt to silence any discussion of the subject, ala…'those who stir up s**t.."


Clearly, not deep thinkers.



On a more positive note, I find that these individuals are akin to those who answer this query in the negative:

"If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?"


Of course it does.


And….not matte what you pretend about the definition or the existence of evil….it is and will always be an element in human relations, and, hence, a determiner of society's direction.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Arguendo....it involved the mass extermination of huge numbers of innocents.

Let's consider that as an 'evil.'

All respondents seem to agree that evil is necessary to counter evil.



And....Merry Christmas.

Who says they were innocent? They supported their emperor in his war effort. They worked in factories to produce fighter planes and bombs. They enlisted in the military for the glory of Japan. Those who did not join the war effort were in favor of it. In fact, if it had ever come to an invasion of Japan, it's citizens were willing to become cannon fodder to try to stop us...for their emperor. Those "innocents" could have stopped the war in it's tracks simply by doing nothing. So there were no innocents.

Arguendo is a Latin legal term meaning for the sake of argument.
Arguendo - Wikipedia
Arguendo - Wikipedia




Lets try again....
Arguendo....it involved the mass extermination of huge numbers of innocents.

Let's consider that as an 'evil.'

All respondents seem to agree that evil is necessary to counter evil.

If the collateral damage caused by war is to be considered 'evil,' is there agreement that evil is necessary to counter evil?

What would have been evil would have been allowing the war to go on instead of ending it when we could. Dropping those bombs was not evil, IMHO. Innocents on both sides die in war. The number is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is winning.

So, you'd rather avoid the question?

OK.

It has become evident that those either too lazy, or cowardly, to confront the question of 'what is' or even 'is there' evil, feel it necessary to respond to this thread….


It seems the sort of inept response one finds in call-in political polls, where dolts put themselves in the 'no opinion' category.

Then why make the call at all????




In the same vein, we find these responses…


"I think evil is a silly concept."

or

Some who attempt to silence any discussion of the subject, ala…'those who stir up s**t.."


Clearly, not deep thinkers.



On a more positive note, I find that these individuals are akin to those who answer this query in the negative:

"If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?"


Of course it does.


And….not matte what you pretend about the definition or the existence of evil….it is and will always be an element in human relations, and, hence, a determiner of society's direction.

 

[evenflow1969]

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?

Humanity will progress when we ditch the us vs. them mentality and realize we are all in this together. This likely will happen when Reagon said it will. When we must come together to take on an outside force. Maybe ET finding us and starting a war will be a good thing in the long run.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

Humanity will progress when we ditch the us vs. them mentality and realize we are all in this together. This likely will happen when Reagon said it will. When we must come together to take on an outside force. Maybe ET finding us and starting a war will be a good thing in the long run.

Soooo.....when will you be celebrating your seventh birthday???

 

[evenflow1969]

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?

Humanity will progress when we ditch the us vs. them mentality and realize we are all in this together. This likely will happen when Reagon said it will. When we must come together to take on an outside force. Maybe ET finding us and starting a war will be a good thing in the long run.

Soooo.....when will you be celebrating your seventh birthday???

Likely when you find your 7th IQ point. Silly twat!

 

[PoliticalChic]

.
Is Evil Necessary To Counter Evil?

the obvious answer is evil can not be used against itself.

"....evil can not be used against itself."

And actual attempt to answer the question!
Bravo!
Not a very thoughtful answer, but an answer nonetheless.



Like the mosquito in the nudist colony....I have to figure out where to begin.

Let's begin here:
"Violence never solved anything. Except slavery, genocide, communism, fascism and nazism."
Thom Shea

And let's replace 'violence' with the synonym 'war.'


Next, post this insightful query....'would humanity be better served if war could be obviated?'

Have I ever mentioned that I read Erich Maria Remarque's "Im Westen nichts Neues"...that's 'All Quiet On The Western Front.'

Sitting with a dictionary, I read it in the original German.
It paints a picture of warfare consistent with my position.....war is an evil. A necessary one at times, but an evil.


I recommend Desmond Morris' book...

...so you will understand why there will never be any end to war as a tool of human political diplomacy.



QED....your statement "....evil can not be used against itself" lacks scholarly ....or, in fact, any insight at all.

 

[Crixus]

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?

Depends on the evil people. What’s evil to one person ain’t eivel to another. So really it comes down to what one is willing to do to come out on top, and how butthurt the guy is who didn’t. Losers always tend to call winners evil.

 

[evenflow1969]

.
Is Evil Necessary To Counter Evil?

the obvious answer is evil can not be used against itself.

"....evil can not be used against itself."

And actual attempt to answer the question!
Bravo!
Not a very thoughtful answer, but an answer nonetheless.



Like the mosquito in the nudist colony....I have to figure out where to begin.

Let's begin here:
"Violence never solved anything. Except slavery, genocide, communism, fascism and nazism."
Thom Shea

And let's replace 'violence' with the synonym 'war.'


Next, post this insightful query....'would humanity be better served if war could be obviated?'

Have I ever mentioned that I read Erich Maria Remarque's "Im Westen nichts Neues"...that's 'All Quiet On The Western Front.'

Sitting with a dictionary, I read it in the original German.
It paints a picture of warfare consistent with my position.....war is an evil. A necessary one at times, but an evil.


I recommend Desmond Morris' book...

...so you will understand why there will never be any end to war as a tool of human political doctrine.



QED....your statement "....evil can not be used against itself" lacks scholarly ....or, in fact, any insight at all.

Yes, unfortunately evil is some times necissary to combat evil. The real question is how do we know which time and how do we know when to stop using evil to combat evil?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

Humanity will progress when we ditch the us vs. them mentality and realize we are all in this together. This likely will happen when Reagon said it will. When we must come together to take on an outside force. Maybe ET finding us and starting a war will be a good thing in the long run.

Soooo.....when will you be celebrating your seventh birthday???

Likely when you find your 7th IQ point. Silly twat!

Oooo.....quite the come-back!

Seems my zinger burned you worse than Edgar Winter on an Ecuadorian beach!

Excellent.


In the future you might be well advised to refrain from posting the sort of drivel that identifies you as a six-year old mentality.


Oh....and Happy New Year.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
Is Evil Necessary To Counter Evil?

the obvious answer is evil can not be used against itself.

Actually, far from obvious.

But, it depends on how 'evil' is defined, as I showed above.

.

Actually, far from obvious.

But, it depends on how 'evil' is defined, as I showed above.

no, the metaphysical axiom, evil is inviolable, additional fuel only exacerbates the flame.

what is "showed above" deliberately distorts the axiom by its inaccuracy, the predominate trait PC employs in their deliberation to confuse the distinctions to satisfy their inordinate objectives, evil begetting 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?

Depends on the evil people. What’s evil to one person ain’t eivel to another. So really it comes down to what one is willing to do to come out on top, and how butthurt the guy is who didn’t. Losers always tend to call winners evil.

"What’s evil to one person ain’t eivel (sic) to another."

Interesting.



Of course, we should always find a definition to agree on....but I oppose the Boas view of reality....

1. "The roots of postmodernism can be traced to the anthropologist Franz Boas, who, in an effort to study exotic cultures without prejudice, found it useful to take the position that no culture is superior to any other. Thus was born the idea of cultural relativity.

The idea spread like wildfire through the universities, catapulted by the radical impetus of the sixties, ready and willing to reject "the universality of Western norms and principles."
Bawer, "The Victim's Revolution"


a. "Cultural relativism is the principle that an individual human's beliefs and activities should be understood by others in terms of that individual's own culture. This principle was established as axiomatic in anthropological research by Franz Boas in the first few decades of the 20th century and later popularized by his students. Boas first articulated the idea in 1887: "...civilization is not something absolute, but ... is relative, and ... our ideas and conceptions are true only so far as our civilization goes."[1] but did not actually coin the term "cultural relativism."
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/t...elativism.html





Nonsense, I say.

We judge actions and events through the prism of our own culture....and, although I would rather leave this example out of my memory......I challenge you to say it isn't 'evil.'

I was revolted when I read what I am about to post....but....to end any claims about evil being 'subjective'....



"...if you look closely at evil- the Bosnian kind....You want to resign from the race of devils that do such things....As a tactic of that war, the Serbian soldiers gang-raped Muslim women....If a Serb soldier refused to rape, he could be shot by his comrades....Some Serb men forced Muslim men to use their teeth to castrate their own sons, and the sons to castrate their fathers."
Lance Morrow, "Evil: An Investigation,"p.67

That is evil.

 

[PoliticalChic]

.
Is Evil Necessary To Counter Evil?

the obvious answer is evil can not be used against itself.

"....evil can not be used against itself."

And actual attempt to answer the question!
Bravo!
Not a very thoughtful answer, but an answer nonetheless.



Like the mosquito in the nudist colony....I have to figure out where to begin.

Let's begin here:
"Violence never solved anything. Except slavery, genocide, communism, fascism and nazism."
Thom Shea

And let's replace 'violence' with the synonym 'war.'


Next, post this insightful query....'would humanity be better served if war could be obviated?'

Have I ever mentioned that I read Erich Maria Remarque's "Im Westen nichts Neues"...that's 'All Quiet On The Western Front.'

Sitting with a dictionary, I read it in the original German.
It paints a picture of warfare consistent with my position.....war is an evil. A necessary one at times, but an evil.


I recommend Desmond Morris' book...

...so you will understand why there will never be any end to war as a tool of human political doctrine.



QED....your statement "....evil can not be used against itself" lacks scholarly ....or, in fact, any insight at all.

Yes, unfortunately evil is some times necissary to combat evil. The real question is how do we know which time and how do we know when to stop using evil to combat evil?

1. Yes.....there are times when it is necessary to use what is viewed as evil to fight evil.

2. In order not to make deadly errors...i.e., "how do we know when to stop using evil to combat evil?" we carefully reevaluate the errors of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution.

3. The error was the attempt....still in effect....to replace religion and morality with science and reason.
Science and reason tell us what we can do....but not what we should do.

4. That's why it is written, incidentally, in Leviticus, "Love your neighbor as yourself, I am God." I, God, tell you to be decent to other people.

 

[PoliticalChic]

.
Is Evil Necessary To Counter Evil?

the obvious answer is evil can not be used against itself.

Actually, far from obvious.

But, it depends on how 'evil' is defined, as I showed above.

.

Actually, far from obvious.

But, it depends on how 'evil' is defined, as I showed above.

no, the metaphysical axiom, evil is inviolable, additional fuel only exacerbates the flame.

what is "showed above" deliberately distorts the axiom by its inaccuracy, the predominate trait PC employs in their deliberation to confuse the distinctions to satisfy their inordinate objectives, evil begetting evil.

Is war evil....or was Genghis Khan simply sightseeing, you dunce.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
Is Evil Necessary To Counter Evil?

the obvious answer is evil can not be used against itself.

Actually, far from obvious.

But, it depends on how 'evil' is defined, as I showed above.

.

Actually, far from obvious.

But, it depends on how 'evil' is defined, as I showed above.

no, the metaphysical axiom, evil is inviolable, additional fuel only exacerbates the flame.

what is "showed above" deliberately distorts the axiom by its inaccuracy, the predominate trait PC employs in their deliberation to confuse the distinctions to satisfy their inordinate objectives, evil begetting evil.

Is war evil....or was Genghis Khan simply sightseeing, you dunce.

.

Is war evil....or was Genghis Khan simply sightseeing, you dunce.

no, war is not necessarily evil the conflagration's resolution equally may be similarly one or the other, deliberate use of one or the other can only result in the axioms employment being the same - "additional fuel only exacerbates the flame".

2. In order not to make deadly errors...i.e., "how do we know when to stop using evil to combat evil?" we carefully reevaluate the errors of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution.

In order not to make deadly errors ...

what is "showed above" deliberately distorts the axiom by its inaccuracy, the predominate trait PC employs in their deliberation to confuse the distinctions to satisfy their inordinate objectives, evil begetting evil.

again PC it is your disposition that is the error.

 

[PoliticalChic]

.
Is Evil Necessary To Counter Evil?

the obvious answer is evil can not be used against itself.

Actually, far from obvious.

But, it depends on how 'evil' is defined, as I showed above.

.

Actually, far from obvious.

But, it depends on how 'evil' is defined, as I showed above.

no, the metaphysical axiom, evil is inviolable, additional fuel only exacerbates the flame.

what is "showed above" deliberately distorts the axiom by its inaccuracy, the predominate trait PC employs in their deliberation to confuse the distinctions to satisfy their inordinate objectives, evil begetting evil.

Is war evil....or was Genghis Khan simply sightseeing, you dunce.

.

Is war evil....or was Genghis Khan simply sightseeing, you dunce.

no, war is not necessarily evil the conflagration's resolution equally may be similarly one or the other, deliberate use of one or the other can only result in the axioms employment being the same - "additional fuel only exacerbates the flame".

2. In order not to make deadly errors...i.e., "how do we know when to stop using evil to combat evil?" we carefully reevaluate the errors of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution.

In order not to make deadly errors ...

what is "showed above" deliberately distorts the axiom by its inaccuracy, the predominate trait PC employs in their deliberation to confuse the distinctions to satisfy their inordinate objectives, evil begetting evil.

again PC it is your disposition that is the error.

Yet, you haven't been able to show any.

The best you've offered is 'is not....issssss nooootttttttt!!!!'



Let's continue with your re-education, vis-a-vis the Enlightenment.

The Enlightenment, as a case in point. So thrilled with the explanations that science could provide, the intelligentsia jumped to the conclusion that it should be used as the guide for society…..reason and science to replace religion and morality.

"With the Enlightenment…evil was increasingly exiled to the realm of the exotic, the glamorous, the alien- the luridly supernatural, the unreasonable, the irrational and the superstitious zones beyond the reach of science."
Lance Morrow, "Evil: An Investigation," p. 99


"The Enlightenment has been squandering its prestige for the last century of more in a murderous irrationality , such as nuclear bombs and other weapons…"
Lance Morrow, Op.Cit., p. 251

 

[G.T.]

I think that evil's distinction from good has to involve intent, and not just a black and white description of an action itself. Seems like common sense. It is ~ of course, relative. Saying "universal" and "Western" in the same sentence is an oxymoron ~ if it's "Western," then its .......apparently NOT "universal," unless you're practiced in the redundant art of redundancy, redundantly.

In the land of combating factions of sky pixies, if one deluded human thinks that an all loving God which they've got a solid faith in reveals to them to kill 5 of "the other guys" or else Satan wins something - that act is good and righteous if he's correct, evil from the perspective of the 5 murdered folks - - - and misguided if the guy is wrong, but has ACTUAL faith that he was correct and doing it for ultimate "good" according to his sky pixie.