Hey, we want to be part of the hate!

POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 02:14
VIEWED: 18566
PAGE 13 of 23

PREV PAGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NEXT PAGE

AGENTROUKA

Friday, January 16, 2009 8:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Evil is an absolute, irredeemable, destructive, conscious malice. It doesn't exist. Furthermore, it doesn't need to exist. Thoughtlessness, ignorance, fear, anger and desperation are each more than enough cause for regrettable things.
Do you think the Nazis did what they did because they were thoughtless, ignorant, afraid, angry or desperate? I don’t think so. I think there was something more. Something absolute, irredeemable, destructive and consciously malicious in their actions.

I absolutely think that they did what they did because they were hateful, powerhungry, callous, infused with a structive enthusiasm, indoctrined and yes, a lot of this was probably funded in fear - fear of losing power, fear of a world they didn't understand. What makes people want to control everything? Fear.

Calling it evil comes close to what I call Hitler-Demonization. Hitler wasn't a demon. He had no greater powers than any other person and it was human motivations that caused people to commit this atrocity with and for him.

Nazi-Germany, of all things, is what informs my opinion on the concept of evil because it seduces people into pushing it away from the territory of "what humans are capable of" into "what Nazis and Nazi's alone were capable of for dark, dark reasons" territory.

People don't identify with "evil". They can identify with hateful, powerhungry, callous, destructive and fearful. And then examine how far they would go to fight what they fear and recognize behavior patterns and just in general be far more effective in preventing such atrocities from happening again than they are when they get have absolute statements waved in front of them that don't really touch them except in vague terms of horror or disgust.

Quote:

What about a serial killer? Someone who kills for the shear enjoyment of it. Ted Bundy, for instance, was quite thoughtful and intelligent. While he was prone to fits of rage, this wasn’t why killed. He killed because he got sexual satisfaction from making people suffer.

And that's what I call a very very sick person who does horrible things because he's missing essential things like compassion and self-control.

I hope you aren't confusing my opinion on the word evil not with a stance against holding people accountable for their actions. They should be. But more than anything we should try to understand why things happen, and something like "evil" blurs everything.

AGENTROUKA

Friday, January 16, 2009 9:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Taoists do not believe in good and evil. I was stating Lao's premise for how the belief in good and evil comes about in the human mind, by the identification of one, the other ergo must be, hence the dichotomy is created.

Oookay, now I get that we actually hold a very similar opinion about the value of "evil" (Zero.)

We do, however, disagree on the origin of the concept.

I don't think that most people learn the concept of evil through a perceived dualism with the concept of good. I don't think most people defined evil as the opposite of good, either. I think most people have very specific, scary images in mind when they hear the word.

Children learn fear and pleasure and the big stretch of "okay" in between much earlier than they learn more abstract concepts. Everyone is capable of understanding what people mean by the word "evil" for precisely that reason. For children, their feelings are absolute. As we grow, we mature and our absolutes turn into more complex understanding.

It may be that some philosophies or belief systems hold on to the concept of evil to create this dualism with the concept of good. Actually, that's just the case, and it has informed much of western culture, perhaps other cultures, too. I'm not educated on the subject of theology enough to explore that in any meaningful way, though.

So, I still disgree with Lao Tzu, but I'm glad we cleared up that misunderstanding. :)

Quote:

Quote:
Then I disagree with Lao Tzu.

I think pancakes are good. I do NOT think that people who oppose pancakes are evil.

I'll ignore your trivializing of my faith and simply say, take his words, not mine. Translation from the ancient chinese is hard, but good and evil here are the epic ideals displayed in star wars, not the taste of pancakes.

I didn't mean to trivialize your faith, but I feel free to examine what you say about it. I also have a preference for easy and obvious examples.

Quote:

Firefly is one of a small set of shows that has ever stepped outside of this. The alliance is not evil. It is a group of people who have a perceived good, and so they perceive evil.

I'll disagree. I don't think the Alliance operates on terms of good and evil. I do think that the Operative did, and that the subset within the Alliance and Blue Sun who are involved in River's experiments and the Miranda project believe in good and evil.

I don't think, though, that the Alliance is in its origin or spirit an ideological system of the socialist kind, with a defined good and evil.

Quote:

Farscape is another outside the mold show. A few writers miss the point, and have Scorpius act in a way that makes him seem like a monster, but usually, he is simply treated as someone with a different point of view.

That is very true! I like how towards the end, even John himself becomes entirely morally ambiguious!

Quote:

Seriously, check out the Tao te Ching, it's one of the better works. As I always say, Taoism doesn't seek converts, so I make the recommendation in the same sense I would the Bible, or Nietzsche, but a great deal shorter.

Editing other texts to extract their intended meaning in fewer words is a project I'd like to get involved in at some point.

I'll file it away. One day (in 2010) I may find the time to read for pleasure again.

DREAMTROVE

Friday, January 16, 2009 1:28 PM

Quote:
AGENTROUKA
We do, however, disagree on the origin of the concept.

I'm gonna deal with this in just a sec.

First, I'm avoiding responding to Finn's inane post, I want to respond to some responses.

1. Chris, you actually posted an opinion.

Okay, now that I hve the snark over with, I'm not sure I totally agree with you on that last issue, but your answer is better,

2. I haven't seen the other ones. I remember the books. I resent the christianity in both Harry Potter and Narnia, though I'll admit it was more blatant in the latter, which is probably a good thing. But I like pure fantasy. I think someone said something about a right to culture, which I agree with, and faerie tales are just so utterly pagan. LoTR et al more. Still, back to Harry Potter and Narnia: We know that both author's deliberately said they were trying to deliver the christian message to an audience that wouldn't here it otherwise, at least C.S. Lewis had the courage to admit it *before* publishing. I found it obvious in HP, but she didn't admit it until she was done. She actually said she wasn't big into fantasy, but found it was a venue to reach the people. True, the same could be said about fiction in general, everyone has a stealth message, Matrix betrays its cult of Messianic Judaism very early on, even though they didn't admit it until they were done. For Joss' I am thankful, even though I never admit that he's to the left of me.

3. I think most nazis were doing what they generally thought was right. The SS and elite were all issued steroids and amphetamines as regimen. That affects human thinking, actually, it shuts down higher thinking and reverts us to animals. But Nazi Germany is far more complex than it seems on the surface. I see them as a trainwreck drug case, manipulated by the international MIC, who sought so see a war, and by greed from govt. and people, who didn't value life of peasants and inferiors, and so used slave labor, and killed people. They created a sense of superiority, creating "inferiors." There was a lot of feeling that "jews were evil" which had its reasons in real life, and has through history, that some jewish leaders ran credit economy, provoked wars, and blitzed Gaza. But much of Nazi Germany was also outside opportunists. Companys and govts. getting in on the act. But the pages of history show the nazis as far from unique. I'm going to go with the cats an mice idea. But it hadn't been so long since some of those mice were in govt, aiding and supporting WWI on multiple sides, not necessarily the same mice, but if you look at the collectively as group, that's wht you see. Finally, a lot of outside string pullers manipulating German. It's way too complex a situation to boil down to evil.

I worry about the messianic message inherent in terminator. It potentially undermines the premise. Also, like Buffy, there is a clear good/evil line that writers occassionally try to blur.

Okay, back to this:

Quote:
AGENTROUKA
We do, however, disagree on the origin of the concept.

I think he's talking more culturally, and with a specific value of evil. I can be afraid of bears as a child without thinking that bears were evil.

I thought I had more to say. Suffice it to say, in fiction, it is a common device, as it is in politics. America the Good, and those who oppose America, egro, the evil. But fictionally, the heroes have some assumed or defining good, but your right that evil is often defined first.

LoTR concept of evil as a dark inner nature of over reaching ambition within us all is interesting. More interesting than most.

Quote:
That is very true! I like how towards the end, even John himself becomes entirely morally ambiguious!

Today I dropped a bomb into a field of flowers.

Some of the characters fascinate me. Chiana in particular. I find Aeryn very annoying, esp. in her relationship with John, but in her relationship with her parents she becomes intensely interesting. My fave ep. was probably the one at the sleezebag hotel. I was also fond

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, January 16, 2009 3:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Tortured peeps don't do what they do for fun, they do what they do for the voices in their heads provided by chemical imbalances, brain deficiencies, and/or effed-up parenting styles.

Maybe it was a chemical imbalance or brain deficiency, but that would just prove my point. Bundy did what he did because he received satisfaction for it. Something specific about him loved making women suffer to their death. He wasn’t afraid or sick. That was the way his brain worked. It was absolute, irredeemable, destructive. It seems to me that you’re the one trying to find a comfortable view of humanity. I hate it when people say serial killers are “sick.” It’s like they have the flu. The raping-women-to-their-death flu.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, January 16, 2009 3:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
And that's what I call a very very sick person who does horrible things because he's missing essential things like compassion and self-control.

What you’re calling sick is not the same thing as having a disease. What you’re calling sick is nothing more then a fundamental difference in the way his brain worked compared to yours or mine. In other words, he had a different point of view. A point of view in which murdering people for his own enjoyment was perfectly acceptable.

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I hope you aren't confusing my opinion on the word evil not with a stance against holding people accountable for their actions. They should be. But more than anything we should try to understand why things happen, and something like "evil" blurs everything.

This has nothing to do with accountably. That’s not what we’re talking about. But I don’t think calling Bundy evil is any hindrance to understanding why things happen, any more then calling mother Theresa good. No one is arguing that criminal psychology should be done away or that a single term can adequately distinguish individuals. But consider this, a lot of people in this world have chemical imbalances or brain deficiencies, but never rape 35 women to their death. So what makes Bundy different? Maybe all those others with chemical imbalances are just time bombs waiting to go off; Bundy went off and that made all the difference in the world.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, January 16, 2009 4:16 PM

Imma go with simple, and borrow a quote from the books of Andrew Vachss.

"Know what it takes to sit across from somebody, hear them speak, look them in the eyes, and blow their brains out ?

Nothing.

And the more of it you have, the easier it gets.

-F

CHRISISALL

Friday, January 16, 2009 4:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Maybe it was a chemical imbalance or brain deficiency, but that would just prove my point. Bundy did what he did because he received satisfaction for it.

No argument there.

Quote:
He wasn’t afraid or sick.

BIG disagreement there.

Quote:
That was the way his brain worked. It was absolute, irredeemable, destructive.

More agreement.

Quote:
It seems to me that you’re the one trying to find a comfortable view of humanity.

No, it's actually easier to see things in terms of good & evil.
Just wondering, is a rabid dog that horribly kills a child evil?
Sure, it needs to be put down, but is it evil?

The not-so-simple-sometimes Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Friday, January 16, 2009 4:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

"Know what it takes to sit across from somebody, hear them speak, look them in the eyes, and blow their brains out ?

Nothing.

And the more of it you have, the easier it gets.

Scary & true.

The chilled Chrisisall

AGENTROUKA

Friday, January 16, 2009 4:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
And that's what I call a very very sick person who does horrible things because he's missing essential things like compassion and self-control.
What you’re calling sick is not the same thing as having a disease. What you’re calling sick is nothing more then a fundamental difference in the way his brain worked compared to yours or mine. In other words, he had a different point of view. A point of view in which murdering people for his own enjoyment was perfectly acceptable.

Fine, call it an abnormality, if the likening to illness bothers you. Just like being born blind is an abnormality.

IF this is what made him do it, actually. I don't know much about Ted Bundy, in particular.

Ultimately, what he does is a very extreme version of something many people like to do. Getting away with something, dominating someone, exerting control. Coupled with extreme callousness and, apparently, extreme arrogance. It's all about power. And it's remorseless.

I understand that this combination in particular is what most people associate with evil and I find it much more appropriate here than in combination with Nazi atrocities, which weren't just individual crimes but a huge social subversion of human compassion.

Still I prefer not to use the term evil but the more clinical descriptions of Bundy's motives because I find it strips a few inches of awe-inspiring power from him, or those like him.

Quote:

But I don’t think calling Bundy evil is any hindrance to understanding why things happen, any more then calling mother Theresa good.

It can be, though. This is one hell of an extreme case, but people apply the word to a LOT of horrible things that they do not care about understanding. When I heard the term "axis of evil" used in reference to global politics I could feel nothing but absolute disgust. What a blatant attempt at getting people to stop thinking.

I don't think not using the word would be any hindrance toward recognizing that certain actions or attitudes are fundamentally wrong.

CHRISISALL

Friday, January 16, 2009 4:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
When I heard the term "axis of evil" used in reference to global politics I could feel nothing but absolute disgust. What a blatant attempt at getting people to stop thinking.

Zactly.

The thinking Chrisisall

PREV PAGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NEXT PAGE