Evil
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Sunday, October 29, 2006 14:39
VIEWED: 8182
PAGE 8 of 14
Quote:
No it isn't.
Sometimes I wonder if you post just to argue :)
Quote:
Sure, there is a competition, a race to provide even better services to help more people.
Bollocks.
Quote:
Corporations have no interest in 'helping people'.
Then why does money exist? Money is a representation of payment for services rendered. If no services are rendered, then why does money exist?
Quote:
fuzzy-happy altruistic organisations as you'd like to paint them.
It's not altruism, it's a functioning society, designed to reward people who help people by providing goods and services. This is what economics is. That's not an opinion, but an understanding, money was created for this purpose. If it were not so, nothing in economics would make sense.
Quote:
But it's not to stomp out competition. That happens, sure, but it's a corruption, it's not the core idea. In a healthy capitalistic society like we used to have, when someone behaves in this manner, the system pulls them back into line or breaks them up.
Quote:
Large Multinational Corporations have no place in a healthy Capitalist society,
I wouldn't accept a generalization this size, but sure, in general, most of the large corporations we have do not belong in a healthy capitalistic society. Something like Cisco systems belongs, because it's a self-build giant which provides a service in the absence of serious original competitors meaning competitors who have their own way of doing things. Cisco's competitors basically work by copying cisco products and reproducing them. For a long time it was like this with intel also, but lateyl intel competitors are coming up with unique ideas, and intel is losing field dominance, the market is moving to a healthier place.
Quote:
but they and the Corporatist society they foster are the enevitable result of Capitalism,
Capitalism evolves, it sets new rules which change where its headed. At the moment, some has been changing rules to engineer capitalism to head towards this goal. I suspect this someone is a Fascist Corporatist Shachtmanite cabal, which believe in a form of trotsky socialism which they want to morph capitalism into. I'm damn near sure of it. But I accept that there are other types of socialism which are not as bad.
Quote:
No to characterize social programs as less charity than a terrorist organisation is a gross distortion. Actually it's more than that, its utter lunacy.
Al Qaeda is a charity. read up on it. It's also a terrorist organization, it's all in the way in which it is used. But as a charity, it is a real charity. it's not a cover or a money laundering organization, it's actually a charity. Al Qaeda is a communication network, as such, it is neither good nor evil, it is only a tool. It can, and is, used for both good and evil, hence charity and terrorism.
I think I backed the dole. But we don't have it. The dole is my favorite social program I said., logical simple. No problems, unless it funds illicit drug trade. But the dole is hardly a social program at all. When I think social programs I think about govt. agents coming to better people's lives, social workers, head starts, etc. Not evil, that's a stretch, but they are about control, about affecting change in the social order towards a desired goal. So is the employment office.
Quote:
The gross distortion is trying to portray corporations as perfectly altruistic happy bunnies hop hop hopping through happy capitalist land helping people and handing out 'wowy-pops'.
LOL. couldn't stop laughing. with you, not at you. but still, you're a trip. The corporation, sure, is a flawed economic institution, and the human being is a flawed animal. Things evolve. Socialism still looks like intelligent design to me, and I don't see a reason to compromise with it. Yet. I'm not ruling it out, but at the moment I see a long history of liberal academics seeking control over society to mold it into their world view. Mind you, I'm one of the poor rural folk they try to 'h
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hmm,
No one sees the beauty in the Schweitzer definition.
Snark,
Sure, it's the sort of thing that would make sense to a Taoist I guess. Fire doesn't have a will, it's not evil. Starting wildfires is evil. I think that a small dose of common sense is needed to understand the world. Those who argue without it operate in a fog of confusion, and use rhetorical devices to pull others into their fog. Common sense tells you that guns kill people, regardless of the semantic arguments used by people against the idea.
In the Yin/Yang the light and dark are complimentary phases, neither right nor wrong. Everything is a balance.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Righteous,
Waco, Somalia, the Iraqi Seige, vetoing the Rwanda resolution, these were all early year things. Directly, I'm not sure that control of congress helped Clinton achieve these things, but a president with control of congress is cocky, because he knows he's not going to get impeached. So he does things he might not. Also, the selling our military bases to china and the quartermaster's corps to Halliburton were in this period I believe. I think these all boil down to 1) killing people and 2) betraying america, duties of his job, those who voted for him, etc.
I think we're talking about objective evil. On reason I don't go "democrats equal clinton" is that honestly, there's not a whole lot of clinton policy I can peg down as being arch-typical of democrats. If I think democrats lean towards social programs, liberal values, institutional education, organized labor, state regulation, etc. then it's real hard to look at clinton from an outside perspective, knowing nothing about him other than the policies he actually enacted and say, without question "There's a democrat." If Clinton had been a republican, you guys would not be looking at him and saying "by that guys policies, he should be a democrat" in the very same way that if Bush were a democrat, no one on this side looking at him would say "by that guy's policies, he should be a republican." There's nothing pro-business fiscally conservative, internationalist, limited govt., libertarian or morally upright about george w. bush.
Bush/Clintonism is at the very least something else. I think it's one ideology, neither democrat or republican, but some third thing that lately i've taken to calling 'globalist'.
Quote:
Right now the democratic party is far more progressive than the Republican party
I would definitely question this claim. I see nothing progressive about the current democratic party other than that they use the word a lot.
The current GOP has its head up its ass, no argument there. But I don't see a lot of evidence that the current democratic party does not. I'm not sure the democrats have ever done anything for the poor.
I don't see this historic switch of the roles of the parties, I think it's a myth. I just see a GOP which eventually decayed into mediocrity, and a DNC which attempted to pick up the ball in 1968 and then dropped it in 1992 after getting sick of losing elections. Even the Carter admin, the sole accomplishment of so called progressive dems, was seriously flawed and riddled with neocon influence. Still, Carter i will grant is the best democrat.
I'm not sure civil rights are an issue, but then i'm not black. economically and socially, I don't see blacks as being disadvantaged, certainly around where i live. You go into the really poor places and you can be sure people will be 100% white, the richer you go, the more blacks you see. I realize it's not like that everywhere, but still, nationally I'd be very surprised if when you remove those top few %there is any remaining difference between blacks and whites. I think that like the feminists, at some point the civil rights crowd has to accept that they've won.
Johnson lost support over Vietnam not because it was a war, but because he had run on the platform of not going to war. "I'm no going to send american boys ..." sound familiar? Well., he lied. Continuously. It's hard to get support from that. Unless your constituency thinks your the son of god apparently.
Quote:
You can only stray so far from your platform.
Maybe at some point, but the new technique is to run on nothing but air. Obama's interviews on oprah and all seemt o be about cookies and argyle socks. If Obama ends up running on a ticket of cookies and argyle socks, how can his constiuency complain if he bombs Iran or Venezuela? He just has to say, "yeah, but I had my cookies in the war room and was wearing my argyle socks."
The Bush admin's platform seems to be "I'm the son of God"
What was he going to run on? "I attacked y'all on nine-eleven!" ? Not a winning platform.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So, you used the word "evil" a couple of dozen times
Interesting. I feel like I've gotten a good bit out of it. I noted coming in that I had plenty of questions and not many answers. Now I still have questions but also have more perspectives to consider.-Geezer
Quote:throwing it in the direction of anti-Bush posters, and you have no idea what it means?
The reason you and I argue is that I don't see Bush as the source of all woe and an evil mastermind with an evil plot for world domination. I just see a President who won't go down as great, but won't be the worst either. This disrespects your Bush-is-evil belief system, so like a good jihadist you spread your hatred of Bush to include me. I'm usually responding to a "Bush is Total Evil bent on World Domination!" Just because someone disagrees with you over policy does not make them evil. Misguided maybe, wrong, foolish, supporting different values. But "evil" implies.. Hitler evil?
Wow.
Interesting.
---------------------------------
You're a lying sack of crap.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Geezer: The reason you and I argue is that I don't see Bush as the source of all woe and an evil mastermind with an evil plot for world domination.
Geezer,
I think a confusion has happened here. Both of you are actually right.
The evil plot of world domination is that the neocons are part of a globalist circle. They are not "all" of the globalist circle.
The globalist agenda is pretty simple:
1. Establish unaccountable multinational unions
2. Dissolve the nation states within those unions
3. Merge those unions into a global alliance
This is *not* a conspiracy, everyone knows they are doing this, and they say they are doing this.
This is *why* the Iraq war. It was necessary to get the missing pieces of the middle east to agree to the MEFTA concept, hence, Iraq, Afgh, Iran, Syria and Lebanon were "needed"
Meanwhile, some oil companies sought to profit, some anti-socialist sought reform, and some religious nuts on all sides sought to go ape on their ape on their enemies. All are basically opportunists of the plan, but not the raison d'etre to the plan. Sure, they contribute to campaigns, because they wanted to see it happen. But they didn't write the agenda.
So, in one respect Bush *is* part of an evil plot to rule the world, but not as such. He's not necessarily a witting part, or even more of a part than anyone else. He's just maybe not a genius, and he's getting played more than other people. I think he's a bad person, on a personal level, a flawed individual, morally bankrupt even. But that's just my personal opinion. But he's not alone in that either.
But this isn't a "Bush Plan". It was a Clinton plan before it was a Bush plan, and it will be an Obama plan afterwords.
To see what's going on, its really informative to look at the whole history. In the Bush Sr. Admin there was a total struggle for influence, as the globalists tried to use the Bush Sr. presidency to forward the globalist agenda. There were intense struggles between Bush and the globalists, leading to a huge fight between Cheney, a member of the globalist camp, and Bush Sr.
The globalists, whether they "created" candidates, or simply helped the along or just joined their campaigns, or even just rode on their coat-tails - they went candidate hopping. They've been candidate hopping for a while, and you can tell because they show up, and their agenda shows up.
My analysis of the situation is that after Bush Sr. they decided "We need corrupt" and so they went with Clinton. Next they decided that Clinton was too crafty and decided "We need stupid" and went with Bush Jr. Now I think they're thinking "Stupid was a mistake, we need charismatic but politically naive" which is what I think they think they've found in Obama.
Globalists support Obama, make no mistake of it. This doesn't mean "Obama is evil" or even "Obama will be a bad president" it doesn't even mean "Obama will forward the globalist agenda." It means "Globalists think that Obama will forward the globalist agenda."
Now, the final piece of the puzzle is "Why is the globalist agenda evil?"
The globalists deeply believe that they are doing the right thing, and that it is for the greater good. The line between that and "evil plot for global domination" is very thin. I don't think that they are sitting their going "Muahahaha! We will rule the world!" At least, not in their inner circle. I think sometimes they get allies who think that way. I think they think that this will put an end to war, injustice etc. I also think they happen to be wrong. I think internal struggles in large empires such as the USSR show that. But that's not why its evil.
It's evil because it cannot accept compromise. The world govt model *forces* everyone to fall in line, and doesn't allow them wriggle room to be independent. There will be no independence when the agenda is complete, and I assure you, there will be no personal freedom on the level we have now, because this level of freedom is considered dangerous, and a threat. ID cards and person tracking will be
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
double post
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'll go all simple here.
If it's done out of love, with the intent to make better and do no harm, it's good.
If it's done out of hate or neglect, it's evil.
As bottom line as I can get Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, you used the word "evil" a couple of dozen times... and you have no idea what it means?
Wow.
Interesting.
I have an idea of what it means to me. What I have a hard time with is describing my definition of "Evil" in objective and unambiguous terms - so that anyone with that description could always apply it to a certain person or situation and say (edit to add)correctly, "Geezer would consider that evil". And, once again, I think that the problem isn't at the Ghandi---Hitler ends of the scale of good and evil, but in the cloudy middle.
I think this is because deciding what's evil to an individual is in some part an emotional decision, like deciding what is beautiful. I think John Singer Sargent's painting Repose is beautiful, but Jackson Pollock leaves me cold. Another person might believe the opposite, but we both might think a sunset is beautiful. Can either choice of beauty be objectively considered the proper one?
One thing I've figured out from this discussion, (or at least brought to the surface to the point of being able to articulate it), Is that one's decision about what to consider evil depends a great deal on what one decides to consider the "Truth" of an event. Each person will have a differing perception of the truth, based on their own particular circumstances which have shaped their decision-making process. And again, there will be instances where almost everyone agrees on the truth, and instances where they don't. There will be cases where there isn't enough clear evidence about an event and the motivations behind it to allow a hypothetical impartial judge to determine the truth.
Oh, I've also decided that motives and motivations do matter, at least in my determination of evil. A person who wants to blow up a kindergarten just to collect insurance on his kid is still evil, in my book, even though the police stop him prior to the event.
So, yeah, this whole excercise has allowed me to clarify my thoughts about how I (and, I suspect, most other people) decide what is evil to me, about whether evil is relative(Y) or absolute, about whether the identification of evil by each different person is objective or subjective(Y).
Interesting, indeed.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
If it's done out of love, with the intent to make better and do no harm, it's good.
If it's done out of hate or neglect, it's evil.
Okay, wild hypothetical:
Let's say a US soldier from NY, who lost a family member on 9/11, happens upon Bin Laden somewhere in Afghanistan.
He hates Bin Laden and kills him.
Does his hate and harm done (to Bin Laden and those that love him) make this act evil or do the resulting lives saved make his act good?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The act may be 'justifiable', but I'd still call it evil.
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
Let's say a US soldier from NY, who lost a family member on 9/11, happens upon Bin Laden somewhere in Afghanistan.
He hates Bin Laden and kills him.
Does his hate and harm done (to Bin Laden and those that love him) make this act evil or do the resulting lives saved make his act good?
Bombing civilians in Nagasaki was evil, even though it ended a war, saving other lives.
Good people can sometimes do evil things.
The sometimes evil Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME