Good/Evil? pft..

[dirka dirka]

http://img311.imageshack.us/img311/8691/yea5vd.jpg

Who is with me?

[Xenon]

This was for what?

Another pc+1 thread in GD?

[dirka dirka]

This was for what?

Another pc+1 thread in GD?
Too confusing for you? Its an actual topic, but I want to open it up like this.

[russian]

Does up exist without down?

[dirka dirka]

Does up exist without down?
A valid point. However, it *could* if the situation was right.

[Xenon]

A valid point. However, it *could* if the situation was right.

Heh...:dry: True.

[russian]

A valid point. However, it *could* if the situation was right.

how?

[dirka dirka]

how?

Confined experiments. We've sent many rockets to space that arn't coming back down.

[Learz]

Maybe I'm missing something, but huh?
:huh:

[dirka dirka]

Maybe I'm missing something, but huh?
:huh:
Look at that first image for long enough. Think about what the things symbolize. I don't want to come right out and say it yet.

[Learz]

Okay..
hm...

No Good/Evil, just getting high....

:confused:

[dirka dirka]

Okay..
hm...

No Good/Evil, just getting high....

:confused:
Close.. more or less.... I wouldn't word it like that, but okay.

[Snork]

I don't want to come right out and say it yet.

I have 3 possible conclusions to your post.

1) You don't want to say because you got this off a web page or something and can't figure it out so you sent it here to be figured out.

2) As I often suspect, you don't know what you're talking about.

3) Up and down always exist. They're relative terms to each other. Whenever one way is up, the opposite is down. A rocket doesn't have to come back to earth for that direction to be down. The direction the rocket went is considered up in that situation. The opposite direction is down. The rocket need not interact with that direction in any way. It exists because its counterpart exists.

So, am I close to solving anything?

[dirka dirka]

1) You don't want to say because you got this off a web page or something and can't figure it out so you sent it here to be figured out.

2) As I often suspect, you don't know what you're talking about.
Both wrong, #2 is just completely dumb. Good try. Actually, I got the idea from a recent english discussion. I believe there is even a name for it.

3) Up and down always exist. They're relative terms to each other. Whenever one way is up, the opposite is down. A rocket doesn't have to come back to earth for that direction to be down. The direction the rocket went is considered up in that situation. The opposite direction is down. The rocket need not interact with that direction in any way. It exists because its counterpart exists.
Thats not exactly the point. The point isn't to deny down's existance. The point is to not allow down to happen, or deny/ban down's presence.

So, am I close to solving anything?
No.. but, its a start.

[Krome]

I thought Snork left?

[Snork]

That's a slightly evil looking happy face.

Are you saying that good and evil do not exist as polar opposites, that they are part of each other and are always present together?

Example: Tonight is cheap chicken night at KFC. You have the joy of cheap, great tasting chicken that comes with the evil of getting fat and sucking down bad chemicals.

Is that close?

[dirka dirka]

That's a slightly evil looking happy face.

Are you saying that good and evil do not exist as polar opposites, that they are part of each other and are always present together?

Example: Tonight is cheap chicken night at KFC. You have the joy of cheap, great tasting chicken that comes with the evil of getting fat and sucking down bad chemicals.

Is that close?
No, not what I was getting at.. Although, thats another debate, that I like. The smile face is apose to just be a smile face, nothing more.

[Krome]

Well, this all depends on hwo you actually define good and evil doesn't it.

[Snork]

I thought Snork left?


Are you glad to see me?

Am I close?

[Krome]

My snorky is home :cool:
That what you want me to say? :p

[bobdagangsta]

I don't quite get this.

[dirka dirka]

Well, this all depends on hwo you actually define good and evil doesn't it.
Lets define it the normal way. Thats also another debate.

[Snork]

No, not what I was getting at.. Although, thats another debate, that I like. The smile face is apose to just be a smile face, nothing more.


Oh. I misunderstood the intendions of the second smiley.

Good and evil don't have to exist together. In yin/yang, they're polar opposites, always together. Where there is one, so must the other be. Or something.
But that's false. The smiley indicates you can have jiggy good times, all good, without evil kickin' it old school near you.

That right?

[Snork]

My snorky is home :cool:
That what you want me to say? :p

YESSS!!
I got something right.
I'm gonna count that as a victory. :D

[Krome]

Lets define it the normal way.

Okay.

Thats also another debate.

Well, yes.

[dirka dirka]

Oh. I misunderstood the intendions of the second smiley.

Good and evil don't have to exist together. In yin/yang, they're polar opposites, always together. Where there is one, so must the other be. Or something.
But that's false. The smiley indicates you can have jiggy good times, all good, without evil kickin' it old school near you.

That right?
Ahh.. yea, lol..

Yin/Yang = Good & Evil Coexistence
The Smile = Good Dominance, Evil Repressed to Null

Why not?

[Cuathon]

are you saying that they dont exist or dont matter?

[dirka dirka]

are you saying that they dont exist or dont matter?
I'm asking why? Why can't it just be all good? Actually, can it just be all good? Is evil only a product of what we think must happen? Why can't we change it?

The answer I'm not looking for is "thats just the way it is."

[CRATER]

There is only the present.
You cannot compare it with itself. When it is the past, then you can judge it as neg/pos or good/evil in relation to the situation.
The present (here and now) is nothing and everything, it can't be qualified.

How about you take your little social distraction of a debate and figure out how you can start making a difference?

[dirka dirka]

There is only the present.
You cannot compare it with itself. When it is the past, then you can judge it as neg/pos or good/evil in relation to the situation.
The present (here and now) is nothing and everything, it can't be qualified.
Uhhkay.. so random? or just an intro to the next part? Definitly has nothing to do with the thread.

How about you take your little social distraction of a debate and figure out how you can start making a difference?
I want answers first.


More or less, a utopia!

[S_K_O_F]

Uhhkay.. so random? or just an intro to the next part? Definitly has nothing to do with the thread.


I want answers first.


More or less, a utopia!

You and everybody else!
I for one look at Good and Evil as direct opposites, and without 1, you cannot have the other. So, if you are missing one, then you have to be missing both.

[Cosmo88]

I'm asking why? Why can't it just be all good? Actually, can it just be all good? Is evil only a product of what we think must happen? Why can't we change it?

The answer I'm not looking for is "thats just the way it is."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the point of this thread is all about why there is evil and good signs, and why there is evil signs, and why can't it all just be good? If that's the case, then here is my answer:

People like the thought of chaos, demons, cruelness, evil, demonic, all that stuff, they consider it "cool", or some just consider it as stylish. You have to admit the world has very much changed. People don't usually walk around expressing their happiness all the time. They like to be "cool", silent, smart, and wear the latest bling. That's just how I see it, people have changed, the world isn't filled with happy, cheery, and overall good people, there are alot of bad apples out there that like the feeling of being evil or maybe they just like the feel of killing or being a criminal, if I'm wrong please point me in the right direction, drika.
Thanks.

[Cuathon]

the reason it is that way is that evil and good, even minimal are judged on eachother. If you havent experienced bad times you can realize how good you have it as you are used ot it and it is "normal." one of America's roblems today.

so if you dont have donuts you think it is unfair. since you have never starved petty wants like this control a large amount of your life. injustice is magnified if you have never felt a more extreme version.

[dirka dirka]

the reason it is that way is that evil and good, even minimal are judged on eachother. If you havent experienced bad times you can realize how good you have it as you are used ot it and it is "normal." one of America's roblems today.

so if you dont have donuts you think it is unfair. since you have never starved petty wants like this control a large amount of your life. injustice is magnified if you have never felt a more extreme version.
Thats just a silly cliche. You can know and appreciate good things, without knowing what the bad times are like.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the point of this thread is all about why there is evil and good signs, and why there is evil signs, and why can't it all just be good? If that's the case, then here is my answer:
Wrong.

[Cuathon]

sometimes. but not when you are used to things. americans whine and complain all the time because they cant have what they want for christmas or some such thing.

[Cosmo88]

Wrong.

This is all very confusing >.>
I've read every post in this thread but can't figure out what we're suppose to discuss >.>
So what are we suppose to talk about??:huh:

[dirka dirka]

sometimes. but not when you are used to things. americans whine and complain all the time because they cant have what they want for christmas or some such thing.
some americans

[dirka dirka]

This is all very confusing >.>
I've read every post in this thread but can't figure out what we're suppose to discuss >.>
So what are we suppose to talk about??:huh:
its not about sumbolism, its about what those symbols represent

[Cuathon]

that's called an example dirka. good and evil exist because some time in the past people personified natuaral things as eveil because thye were harmed by them. since we made them up they are subjective. you can really get an exact reason.

perhaps this example will assist you. if you had machines doing everything for you and suddenly someone took that away or the machines themelves quit, kinda like the matrix but without the hatred, you would think the machines or beings were evil. if there is no natural selection which now incldes war and such things, everything wiould be good, but only till we no longer had to do anything. then without anything to work for we would stagnate.

[dirka dirka]

that's called an example dirka. good and evil exist because some time in the past people personified natuaral things as eveil because thye were harmed by them. since we made them up they are subjective. you can really get an exact reason.
Thats not the point. Good and evil exist. Why? I want just good.

perhaps this example will assist you. if you had machines doing everything for you and suddenly someone took that away or the machines themelves quit, kinda like the matrix but without the hatred, you would think the machines or beings were evil. if there is no natural selection which now incldes war and such things, everything wiould be good, but only till we no longer had to do anything. then without anything to work for we would stagnate.
Natural selection? Intelligent design.

[Office_Shredder]

Thats not the point. Good and evil exist. Why? I want just good.


Natural selection? Intelligent design.

I'm going to ignore the intelligent design part of this post, and move right along to the real stuff ;)

Evil exists in the world because everyone wants to feel superior even you have to admit you'd rather be smarter, stronger, better looking etc. than the average person). Most people see the realpurpose of life as gathering as much wealth and power as possible (despite all the religious crap everyone loves to spout... on the subconcious level, most everyone wants to be "better"). Obviously, it's tough to be the most powerful kid on the block through merit alone.... there are 6.2 billion people in the world, and everyone is potential competition. So people look for ways to gain an advantage.

What is considered "good" is playing by the rules, and most people are willing to play by the rules because if you break them and don't get a lot of wealth or power, you pretty much f*cked yourself up the ass. However, there are people willing to break the rules and be "evil", either because they're retarded, they see a way to hide their evilness until it's too late for anyone to stop them, or because they see a way to a lot of power by acting evil (to clarify... wealth and power essentially go hand in hand)... and enough power can stop any attempt by someone to call you out for being evil. So evil exists because, despite breaking the rules of society on how to get ahead, it's such a quick fix to power that people are willing to take the risk on the bt that they don't get called out for being evil

[Snork]

You and everybody else!
I for one look at Good and Evil as direct opposites, and without 1, you cannot have the other. So, if you are missing one, then you have to be missing both.


Yes, that's the concept of yin/yang that he had in a no sign at the start.

Since it's tuesday, I'd like to get back to talking about Chicken. There's many facets of good and evil centered around the finger lickin' goodness of KFC, and I think we should discuss it extensively. And we should all go buy some later so we can reference the experience of buying and eating the chicken. And we can discuss the box a bit too, the story on it, and the social impact of the deisgn the grease stains create.

Who's with me?

[dirka dirka]

I'm going to ignore the intelligent design part of this post, and move right along to the real stuff ;)
Yea, although I do believe in it, it was a joke right there.

Evil exists in the world because everyone wants to feel superior even you have to admit you'd rather be smarter, stronger, better looking etc. than the average person). Most people see the realpurpose of life as gathering as much wealth and power as possible (despite all the religious crap everyone loves to spout... on the subconcious level, most everyone wants to be "better"). Obviously, it's tough to be the most powerful kid on the block through merit alone.... there are 6.2 billion people in the world, and everyone is potential competition. So people look for ways to gain an advantage.

What is considered "good" is playing by the rules, and most people are willing to play by the rules because if you break them and don't get a lot of wealth or power, you pretty much f*cked yourself up the ass. However, there are people willing to break the rules and be "evil", either because they're retarded, they see a way to hide their evilness until it's too late for anyone to stop them, or because they see a way to a lot of power by acting evil (to clarify... wealth and power essentially go hand in hand)... and enough power can stop any attempt by someone to call you out for being evil. So evil exists because, despite breaking the rules of society on how to get ahead, it's such a quick fix to power that people are willing to take the risk on the bt that they don't get called out for being evil
but why? Why can't we all accept that we are who we are, and no amount of evil projected on others will change this?

[russian]

Can positive exsist w/o negative?

If negative is removed, doesn't positive become something else entirely?

Once negative is removed, Instead of two altering states (positive and negative; ying and yang), there is only one state with no flucuation. With no fluctuation, positive is then the norm. So now all you have is up but no down; life exsists, but death does not. Is this utopia? If so then why does utopia matter? Is life precious if no one ever dies? Life ceases to be precious because that is all that there is, life. There is no death, none. Life becomes infinite. The universe expands and but never contracts - big bang w/o big crunch. If it only ever expanded, it would expand into infinity and into oblivion. But, no one would notice because the only side of the coin would be expansion, life, positive, light . . .and you could not even see it. Light needs dark, or else the light is not seen. etc etc etc, blah blah blah. If you dont get this then you dont get this. blah blah blah.

[fastbow]

There is only the present.
You cannot compare it with itself. When it is the past, then you can judge it as neg/pos or good/evil in relation to the situation.
The present (here and now) is nothing and everything, it can't be qualified.

How about you take your little social distraction of a debate and figure out how you can start making a difference?

Tell us how we can start making a diffrence. Also, that first paragraph is totally existential, which is one of the most crackpot ideas ever, (although I do enjoy reading Kierkegaard.)

In any event, dirka, I have a question for you. If the nature of reality is basically good, why do things wear out? If the universe were naturally good, entropy couldn't exist.

[:Bluelightning:]

I shall be with you! :) ( you deserve this smiley )

[Swartzstrom]

http://img311.imageshack.us/img311/8691/yea5vd.jpg

Who is with me?

Good and Evil are a matter of perception. Enough said.

[mushroom_girl]

Since it's tuesday, I'd like to get back to talking about Chicken. There's many facets of good and evil centered around the finger lickin' goodness of KFC...
Mostly evil. Not only are you killing poor innocent birds, but you're also insulting their memories by dousing them in grease, gravy, and chemicals. Yay!

Anyway, evil cannot exist without good. If everything is what we call "good", then there would be no bad to make it good.

There has to be something bad in order for the good things to truly effect you. For example: Your dog just got loose out of your backyard and he ran away. Now, I can guess that you'd be upset. Then, 4 months later, he shows up. Wagging his tail and waiting for you to open the front door. How happy would you be? How great would you feel?

Exactly.

[dirka dirka]

Can positive exsist w/o negative?

If negative is removed, doesn't positive become something else entirely?
No. If negative is removed, there is simply positive. You may call this something else, but its still positive. Not to mention my argument doesn't remove negative, only denies its right to exist in such a way that there is no negative.

[dirka dirka]

In any event, dirka, I have a question for you. If the nature of reality is basically good, why do things wear out? If the universe were naturally good, entropy couldn't exist.
Things don't wear out. Material things change form, this may be wearing out to you. Thats material. This also has nothing to do with anything.

Entropy can exist in a perfectly good world just as it can exist in a perfectly bad word or a perfectly good and bad world. This has nothing to do with anything either.

[Cuathon]

good exampple, mine always tends toward the complicated. natural selection says that the better, superior things, or the useful ones will thrive. existence presents obstacles to life so that the strongest specimens survive. gods personify the laws of nature. If something goes against life it is turned into a bad god or bad mythical figure. Stereotypical pure evil beings from fantasy also arose from this concept and often have powers realted to death at their disposal. this is where the theory of bad originated. or at least the most obvious way i can think of which by occam's razor makes it the most possible.

anyhow, we measure good and evil by the other events of our life. each one has a value in comparison to the others. they are subjective. any one event has no value on the good/evil scale. anyone who seems to appreciate what they have is either a lucky bastard born into the perfect conditions for their personality or more likely has know or observed(often great) loss. those are the people you were refering to dirka. whether you knew it or not.

Dirka, entropy does have to do with it, it increases the chances of catastrophes and cataclysms as things lose order and material form and spread out.

[dirka dirka]

Good and Evil are a matter of perception. Enough said.
Wrong, not enough said. That may be, but its still existant. What you posted says nothing.

[Cuathon]

that's the what, it is important to the discussion, especially since any whys we come up with are all opinions based on our experiences.

[dirka dirka]

Dirka, entropy does have to do with it, it increases the chances of catastrophes and cataclysms as things lose order and material form and spread out.
entropy does alot.. it can still exist in a purely good world, so it has nothing to do with this

[Swartzstrom]

Wrong, not enough said. That may be, but its still existant. What you posted says nothing.

Wrong; it says everything.

Tell me, dirka, are terrorists evil?

[Cuathon]

please dotn swartz, we could follow lines like that forever. lets stay closer to the main point.

[choplocker-17]

Evil bad good is good :)

[Swartzstrom]

please dotn swartz, we could follow lines like that forever. lets stay closer to the main point.

I am. That question is one of the many questions that merely pertain to the fact that Good and Evil are a matter of perception.

[dirka dirka]

Wrong; it says everything.

Tell me, dirka, are terrorists evil?
Thats irrelavant. Just as we think terrorists are evil, they think we are evil. Everybody sees something as evil, and there are inherently evil things. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS

This is about eliminating all the evil, inherent and perception viewed alike.

[Swartzstrom]

Thats irrelavant. Just as we think terrorists are evil, they think we are evil. Everybody sees something as evil, and there are inherently evil things. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS

This is about eliminating all the evil, inherent and perception viewed alike.

In that case, perception is impossible to eliminate. Perception and Interpretation being virtually the same thing, one's interpretation of evil can be different from one other's idea of evil, so what you consider good could be considered evil by another person. As long as that mindset exists in the world, evil shall always exist.

[russian]

No. If negative is removed, there is simply positive. You may call this something else, but its still positive. Not to mention my argument doesn't remove negative, only denies its right to exist in such a way that there is no negative.

A wave has peaks and troughs, highs and lows, ups and downs. If you remove the downs, the wave then becomes a straight line, it becomes something different than a wave.

All energy is essentially in wave form, except light on the quantum level where it is also exhibits particle form.

So your utopia does not exsist. If it does, then nothing else exsists because energy does not exsist.

Btw, what you wrote in red, is . . .just . . .so . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ugh . . dirka-ish.

If you mean that, like seriously mean that, then just nevermind, why even bother with this convo.

[dirka dirka]

In that case, perception is impossible to eliminate. Perception and Interpretation being virtually the same thing, one's interpretation of evil can be different from one other's idea of evil, so what you consider good could be considered evil by another person. As long as that mindset exists in the world, evil shall always exist.
Wrong. Don't make dumb arguments, you know full well how dumb this is. There is a right and a wrong side. That argument is obvious. Perception should go with the right side. There will be no evil.

The problem you have is religion. I don't want to turn this into a religious debate. However, as long as there is religion, people will have warped perceptions.

[dirka dirka]

A wave has peaks and troughs, highs and lows, ups and downs. If you remove the downs, the wave then becomes a straight line, it becomes something different than a wave.

All energy is essentially in wave form, except light on the quantum level where it is also exhibits particle form.

So your utopia does not exsist. If it does, then nothing else exsists because energy does not exsist.

Btw, what you wrote in red, is . . .just . . .so . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ugh . . dirka-ish.

If you mean that, like seriously mean that, then just nevermind, why even bother with this convo.
You still don't get what I said. I know your argument. Its wrong.

Waves exist in water. The water is still water without waves.

Good/Evil exists in the world. The world is still the world without evil.

Good/Evil is not the median. Waves are not the median.

[Swartzstrom]

Wrong. Don't make dumb arguments, you know full well how dumb this is. There is a right and a wrong side. That argument is obvious. Perception should go with the right side. There will be no evil.

The problem you have is religion. I don't want to turn this into a religious debate. However, as long as there is religion, people will have warped perceptions.

The problem I have is religion? How can that be when I follow no religion? How can that be when I believe that religion is stupid?

There will be no evil? That just sounds stupid. If there were no evil, how would you know what good is?

[dirka dirka]

The problem I have is religion? How can that be when I follow no religion? How can that be when I believe that religion is stupid?

There will be no evil? That just sounds stupid. If there were no evil, how would you know what good is?
Who said you followed a religion. I said the problem you have is religion. Religion causes warped perception, as in the terrorist thing you brought up.

I don't care how it sounds. That arguments already been made.

[Swartzstrom]

Who said you followed a religion. I said the problem you have is religion. Religion causes warped perception, as in the terrorist thing you brought up.

I don't care how it sounds. That arguments already been made.

So what if I suggested that we eliminate all good in the world, that only evil remains, and the world shall be ruled by evil?

If we eliminate good, in a not-so-distance future, we will hae forgotten what good is, and that the evil we run the world with, shall most likely be perceived as good. The elimination of perception is impossible. The elimination of perception is the elimination of the ability The Creator blessed us with. The Ability to Think For Ourselves.

[Cuathon]

we've said that som many times swartz, he wont listen.

Dirka, what does this have to do with religion. Perception always exists, for instance, i tink some of my friends lives are better than mine, probably because i do not know all the details, and that it is unfair that mine is not as good. unfairness is the spawn of evil, it is ufair that jim got brn into so much money, i'll kill him and steal it. that is an evil act. by law and religion(which i dont have.) non-equality spawns evil. there will always be non-equality unless we take drastic measures which would involve choosing norm for human appearance adn regualting boy and girl babies and other stuff like that. we willnever do that because we can;t decide what appearance to choose, especially with all the racism going on, which will go on until we do this. so there will never be no evil, it is not possible.

[Cuathon]

we've said that so many times swartz, he wont listen.

Dirka, what does this have to do with religion. Perception always exists, for instance, i tink some of my friends lives are better than mine, probably because i do not know all the details, and that it is unfair that mine is not as good. unfairness is the spawn of evil, it is ufair that jim got born into so much money, i'll kill him and steal it. that is an evil act. by law and religion(which i dont have.) non-equality spawns evil. there will always be non-equality unless we take drastic measures which would involve choosing norm for human appearance adn regualting boy and girl babies and other stuff like that. we willnever do that because we can;t decide what appearance to choose, especially with all the racism going on, which will go on until we do this. so there will never be no evil, it is not possible.

people who fight against evil, passively or actively, are good. you need evil to have good.

[dirka dirka]

So what if I suggested that we eliminate all good in the world, that only evil remains, and the world shall be ruled by evil?
Thats the other side. I like GOOD.

If we eliminate good, in a not-so-distance future, we will hae forgotten what good is, and that the evil we run the world with, shall most likely be perceived as good. The elimination of perception is impossible. The elimination of perception is the elimination of the ability The Creator blessed us with. The Ability to Think For Ourselves.
Wrong. I already said this. Did you ever watch AI?

[russian]

Waves exist in water. - yes, energy moving through water creates a wave.

The water is still water without waves. - i'm not talking about water exsisting or not exsisting, im talking about the wave, with no up and down, no wave, if there is only up then no wave . . . if there is only down then no wave, what you get is a straight line, in the case of water that is the surface of the water.

Good/Evil exists in the world. - really, thanks for clearing that up.

The world is still the world without evil. - wut the? no, this world has evil in it. the world without evil only exsist for 20 minutes after you hit the pipe.

Good/Evil is not the median. Waves are not the median. - no crap.

You still don't get what I said. I know your argument. Its wrong. - typical dd statement,

[dirka dirka]

we've said that so many times swartz, he wont listen.

Dirka, what does this have to do with religion. Perception always exists, for instance, i tink some of my friends lives are better than mine, probably because i do not know all the details, and that it is unfair that mine is not as good. unfairness is the spawn of evil, it is ufair that jim got born into so much money, i'll kill him and steal it. that is an evil act. by law and religion(which i dont have.) non-equality spawns evil. there will always be non-equality unless we take drastic measures which would involve choosing norm for human appearance adn regualting boy and girl babies and other stuff like that. we willnever do that because we can;t decide what appearance to choose, especially with all the racism going on, which will go on until we do this. so there will never be no evil, it is not possible.

people who fight against evil, passively or actively, are good. you need evil to have good.
You don't need evil to have the good I'm talking about. You're arguing semantics. Call it pie for all I care. You eliminate evil, you have pie. Pie is not evil one bit.

Religion, amoung other things, causes people to have warped perceptions. I explained this already. Thats what it has to do with this. Okay, good.

[dirka dirka]

Waves exist in water. - yes, energy moving through water creates a wave.

The water is still water without waves. - i'm not talking about water exsisting or not exsisting, im talking about the wave, with no up and down, no wave, if there is only up then no wave . . . if there is only down then no wave, what you get is a straight line, in the case of water that is the surface of the water.

Good/Evil exists in the world. - really, thanks for clearing that up.

The world is still the world without evil. - wut the? no, this world has evil in it. the world without evil only exsist for 20 minutes after you hit the pipe.

Good/Evil is not the median. Waves are not the median. - no crap.

You still don't get what I said. I know your argument. Its wrong. - typical dd statement,
arguing semantics, refer to above post

[Cuathon]

what is your definition of good and your def of evil? tell us so that we may argue without semantics and on common definitions.

[Cuathon]

what is your definition of good and your def of evil? tell us so that we may argue without semantics and on common definitions.

and which good and evil are we arguing about? criminals verse justice bringers, the evil of unfairness? evil and good are very broad topics.

[dirka dirka]

what is your definition of good and your def of evil? tell us so that we may argue without semantics and on common definitions.
The definitions are obvious. People are saying that good and evil exist, and they are defined with the opposite of eachother. My argument isn't saying this is wrong, unless you argue semantics. No evil is good. Without evil, there can't be good. Its a paradox, only because of semantics. So we'll call no evil, pie. Without evil, there can't be good, but there is pie.. and pie isn't evil.

[russian]

arguing semantics, refer to above post

no not semantics,

waves go up and down, waves form the basis of all energy, if you dont have down, you dont have a wave, then you dont have energy, you dont have a universe.

the ying yang symbol is a piece of ancient wisdom that applies to many many systems. maybe you think you have a new system that negates that one, if you really think that, then you are high or so into yourself that you are convinced that w/e you say must be true, or both.

[dirka dirka]

no not semantics,

waves go up and down, waves form the basis of all energy, if you dont have down, you dont have a wave, then you dont have energy, you dont have a universe.

the ying yang symbol is a piece of ancient wisdom that applies to many many systems. maybe you think you have a new system that negates that one, if you really think that, then you are high or so into yourself that you are convinced that w/e you say must be true, or both.
for the last time, I GET YOUR ARGUMENT, YOU ARE ARGUING SEMANTICS
->
The definitions are obvious. People are saying that good and evil exist, and they are defined with the opposite of eachother. My argument isn't saying this is wrong, unless you argue semantics. No evil is good. Without evil, there can't be good. Its a paradox, only because of semantics. So we'll call no evil, pie. Without evil, there can't be good, but there is pie.. and pie isn't evil.

[Swartzstrom]

You don't need evil to have the good I'm talking about. You're arguing semantics. Call it pie for all I care. You eliminate evil, you have pie. Pie is not evil one bit.

Religion, amoung other things, causes people to have warped perceptions. I explained this already. Thats what it has to do with this. Okay, good.

So how would you know how the world would be if only good existed, assuming that we did eliminate evil?

Anybody who tries to discuss this and think they know what they're talking about is crazy.

Because you must experience pure good in order to talk about it. Talking about it otherwise is arrogant and ignorant.

It's like you made this Thread because you knew it was pretty much a no-win situation for neither you, nor the person you're trying to debate it with.

[dirka dirka]

So how would you know how the world would be if only good existed, assuming that we did eliminate evil?

Anybody who tries to discuss this and think they know what they're talking about is crazy.

Because you must experience pure good in order to talk about it. Talking about it otherwise is arrogant and ignorant.
I haven't experienced pure good? Like hell, I haven't. My mindset was in pure good, theres experiencing it.

I[COLOR="Silver"]t's like you made this Thread because you knew it was pretty much a no-win situation for neither you, nor the person you're trying to debate it with.
You have no idea. You're a classic American. I'll point out how this applies soon.

[Swartzstrom]

I haven't experienced pure good? Like hell, I haven't. My mindset was in pure good, theres experiencing it.

How do you know what pure good is?

Do you know what evil is?


You have no idea. You're a classic American. I'll point out how this applies soon.

Elaborate, please.

[dirka dirka]

How do you know what pure good is?

Do you know what evil is?




Elaborate, please.
I know what both are, its very obvious to me, it should be to anybody.

Like I said, soon.

[russian]

for the last time, I GET YOUR ARGUMENT, YOU ARE ARGUING SEMANTICS
->

no, im not arguing some definition or meaning or interpretation of some word . . . im not arguing semantics.

what i am stating is that your smiley face theory does not exsist in reality, and it is rather easy to point that out.

unless of course i am talking to the proponent of the smiley face theory, then he wants to be right, so not matter what is stated to him, he will either say its wrong or just semantics.

are you high?

[dirka dirka]

no, im not arguing some definition or meaning or interpretation of some word . . . im not arguing semantics.

what i am stating is that your smiley face theory does not exsist in reality, and it is rather easy to point that out.

unless of course i am talking to the proponent of the smiley face theory, then he wants to be right, so not matter what is stated to him, he will either say its wrong or just semantics.

are you high?
READ MY DAMNED POST

call it PIE for all I care, no evil (no good) is pie.. but there is no evil!!!

[Swartzstrom]

I know what both are, its very obvious to me, it should be to anybody.

And this brings in the entire idea of perception.

What you say is Evil, another might consider Good.

Which means your definition of Evil is not absolute.

Like I said, soon.

And I am quite curious to see what this is about.

[russian]

but there is no evil!!! - but there is, so you must be high, good night, enjoy your pie, it will be good with the munchies.

[dirka dirka]

but there is no evil!!! - but there is, so you must be high, good night, enjoy your pie, it will be good with the munchies.
seriously, you're an idiot.. there is no evil was part of the theory.. saying there is, is just idiotic

[russian]

seriously, you're an idiot.. there is no evil was part of the theory.. saying there is, is just idiotic

i dont buy you crack head theory, it denies the exsistence of the universe.

so there is evil and there is good

and you must be high.

[ironhorse123]

Heh, I haven't read page 2-5, but what I see in the pic is no peace is good. :huh:

[dirka dirka]

And this brings in the entire idea of perception.

What you say is Evil, another might consider Good.

Which means your definition of Evil is not absolute.
Like I said before, inherently, some things are evil and some are not. Its really not a matter of perception. What people think is evil and not is.


And I am quite curious to see what this is about.
Whats looked upon as one of the greatest literary works. I'm actually arguing against it, which is why it may be a loosing battle. However, no arguments as of yet, save the semantics paradox, prove me wrong.

[dirka dirka]

i dont buy you crack head theory, it denies the exsistence of the universe.
no it doesn't

so there is evil and there is good
thats right, we all realize this.. now, WHY

and you must be high.
no

[Swartzstrom]

Wait a minute, let me ramble for a minute.

You're suggesting the perfect society, a utopia, where no evil exists. Everyone has what they need to survive, there is no drama, there is nothing bad going on in the world.

No war. No phamon. No depressions. No unnatural causes of death. No need for armies. No government. No politicians. Basically peace and prosperity for all.

So, after thinking about this, I've come to a conclusion: you're suggesting the perfect society, no doubt about it. None of this evil that plagues our world today. A society where everyone is happy.

In theory.

You want a discussion on how the world would be in this situation, right?

Am I at least close?

[dirka dirka]

Wait a minute, let me ramble for a minute.

You're suggesting the perfect society, a utopia, where no evil exists. Everyone has what they need to survive, there is no drama, there is nothing bad going on in the world.

No war. No phamon. No depressions. No unnatural causes of death. No need for armies. No government. No politicians. Basically peace and prosperity for all.

So, after thinking about this, I've come to a conclusion: you're suggesting the perfect society, no doubt about it. None of this evil that plagues our world today. A society where everyone is happy.

In theory.

You want a discussion on how the world would be in this situation, right?

Am I at least close?
Up to the last part. I want a discussion on why the world can't be like that. Without saying its just the way it is, and without saying some sort of entropic balance or butterfly effect. I want actual hard proof.

[Swartzstrom]

Up to the last part. I want a discussion on why the world can't be like that. Without saying its just the way it is, and without saying some sort of entropic balance or butterfly effect. I want actual hard proof.

There is no proof as to why the world cannot be like that. The only thing I can say is:

Humanity takes joy in screwing each other over.

I can say only that it is our unconcious nature to do such things to each other.

There are those who are able to resist such lures, but they are few and far in between.

There is no hard proof as to why the world cannot be like that. If the peoples of the world worked hard enough, I think that the world could be like that. I garuntee that Politics, Religion, and Economy are to become involved soon, whether or not we try to prevent it.

[Cuathon]

there is a real feeling, with its own word, for the joy we get at the pain of others, and it has it's own brain wave pattern that says we are felling it, that's why.( i forgot what the word is.)
for weak stupid or lazy people it's an easy way to gain pleasure.

[dirka dirka]

There is no proof as to why the world cannot be like that. The only thing I can say is:

Humanity takes joy in screwing each other over.

I can say only that it is our unconcious nature to do such things to each other.

There are those who are able to resist such lures, but they are few and far in between.

There is no hard proof as to why the world cannot be like that. If the peoples of the world worked hard enough, I think that the world could be like that. I garuntee that Politics, Religion, and Economy are to become involved soon, whether or not we try to prevent it.
Thats more or less, saying it is how it is. There is something. There has to be something.

[Swartzstrom]

Thats more or less, saying it is how it is. There is something. There has to be something.

Perhaps we've gone such a long time in acting purely on survival, no matter what the cost, the ability for a purely good society seems unattainable?

[Cuathon]

even if we tried ot make the perfect world, someone would see opportunity, retend to help and screw us to attain world power. we'd have to kill everyone evil for being evil. and we'd have to weed out new evil people. a new person who wants more will always come. then they will ruin our world.

"They cannot go out! They will ruin the garden! Our people destroyed this world in the first place!"

can anyone guess where these lines are from?

[Swartzstrom]

even if we tried ot make the perfect world, someone would see opportunity, retend to help and screw us to attain world power. we'd have to kill everyone evil for being evil. and we'd have to weed out new evil people. a new person who wants more will always come. then they will ruin our world.

"They cannot go out! They will ruin the garden! Our people destroyed this world in the first place!"

can anyone guess where these lines are from?

My thoughts exactly. I'm trying to see it from Dirka's PoV, but I'm finding it quite difficult to do.

[Ächilles]

Good and Evil don't need to exist for the other to exist. Good can exist without Evil, and Evil without Good.

But you do need both for the other to be defined as it's given perspective. Something can't be evil if it has no good to be compared to. Then it's just there, one perspective universally accepted for what it is.

[Cuathon]

exactly what i was saying. it's still there but we dont notice it. we dont percieve it to be there.

[dirka dirka]

and thats semantics.. exactly what ach said,,

[Office_Shredder]

dirka, there may be an alternate universe out there that pictures our world as the perfect society... ever consider that?

[Cuathon]

You mean you've never been to it in your whole life? anyone who doesnt think that and lives there should be and is confined to a mental institution.

*Anyone ever read the giver? That's an example of what Dirka wants.*

[meat.eater]

I thought Snork left?

I thought you left.

[Office_Shredder]

*Anyone ever read the giver? That's an example of what Dirka wants.*

Except it's obvious by the end that the society isn't really "perfect". In fact, I'm pretty sure the entire point of the books is that a "perfect society" is a pretty crumby place to live

[Cuathon]

good job office. you got it. that was my whole point.

[Office_Shredder]

good job office. you got it. that was my whole point.

Yay! Do I get a cookie? :happy:

[dirka dirka]

good job office. you got it. that was my whole point.
no

saying things are how they are is not an answer

[Cuathon]

*ginormous cookie!*

dirka, humans defined good and bad. they are opposites. we are limited by our language in expressing our ideas. this leads to loads of misunderstandings and failures of expressions.

[dirka dirka]

*ginormous cookie!*

dirka, humans defined good and bad. they are opposites. we are limited by our language in expressing our ideas. this leads to loads of misunderstandings and failures of expressions.
thats fine, but not in this case

[russian]

*ginormous cookie!*

dirka, humans defined good and bad. they are opposites. we are limited by our language in expressing our ideas. this leads to loads of misunderstandings and failures of expressions.

right on. are you a buddhist?

i have to disagree with failures of expressions though . . this thread has proven that it is quite easy to clearly express a meaningless point.

[fastbow]

i have to disagree with failures of expressions though . . this thread has proven that it is quite easy to clearly express a meaningless point.

The easiest points to express are meaningless.

Something I've been wondering, what type of good v. evil are we discussing?
The nature of the universe, or the nature of man?

[Cuathon]

no im not a buddhist, im a 14 year old kid who reads to mmany boks. mainly adult fanatsy novels.

[Cuathon]

wow, a double post. they sould prevent this or something. sorry bout this.

i think we need to discuss both. they both are connected to eachother and we need to lose both of them to have Dirka's perfet world.

[KBHoleN1]

"They cannot go out! They will ruin the garden! Our people destroyed this world in the first place!"

I don't think this was answered, because I know that is from Stargate SG-1, the episode where the people are kept in the sleeping machines inside the greenhouse, and the caretaker says that line in the episode. Unless of course, that came from something else, and was borrowed.

[Cuathon]

yeah he says that. not in that order though. some of the lines are speperated a bit. yup, you dont really win anything. i suppose i could rep you, but there's no other prize. plus i have given too much rep out anyway.

we do have failures of expression. with the right words you can explain any feeling at all. we dont have that. of course people still might not understand if theyhavent experienced anything like it, but currently we cant even express many feelings. wow this is way off topic.

[dirka dirka]

You all, mostly, still don't get it. I'll try again.

Red = Evil
Blue = Good

Yin Yang - 50/50
The Smile - 0/100

With the yin yang there is 50% evil and 50% good balancing on a fulcrum. With the smile there is 0% evil and 100% good. Evil still exists, however there is no evil. This is what you guys arn't understanding. There can be potential for something, however that potential has the ability to always lead to nothing.

[Hellblazer]

So.....the whole yin/yang thing is BS to you? Ok, I'm with you. EVIL ALL THE WAY!

[dirka dirka]

So.....the whole yin/yang thing is BS to you? Ok, I'm with you. EVIL ALL THE WAY!
No, its not bullshit to me. I accept thats how it is. I want to know why it must be like that. Whats the underlying cause. Seriously, there has to be a theory on this. Not just, cause thats how it is.. or entropy.. or something dumb.

[Swartzstrom]

You all, mostly, still don't get it. I'll try again.

Red = Evil
Blue = Good

Yin Yang - 50/50
The Smile - 0/100

With the yin yang there is 50% evil and 50% good balancing on a fulcrum. With the smile there is 0% evil and 100% good. Evil still exists, however there is no evil. This is what you guys arn't understanding. There can be potential for something, however that potential has the ability to always lead to nothing.

He's trying to say:

Evil: Nonexistant

Possibility of Evil exists, but the actual evil is absent.

Whereas Good rules the world. Possilibity to be tainted by Evil, but that doesn't happen.

100% Good.
0% evil

To simplify it:

The possibility of Evil tainting Good exists, but the actual action of Evil tainting Good does not happen. As in, why do we consider it impossible for one entity, Good or Evil to exist, specifically, Good?

[dirka dirka]

He's trying to say:

Evil: Nonexistant

Possibility of Evil exists, but the actual evil is absent.

Whereas Good rules the world. Possilibity to be tainted by Evil, but that doesn't happen.

100% Good.
0% evil

To simplify it:

The possibility of Evil tainting Good exists, but the actual action of Evil tainting Good does not happen. As in, why do we consider it impossible for one entity, Good or Evil to exist, specifically, Good?
Exactly.

[Cuathon]

well i kinda knew what you meant and i understand it even better now, but how would this be achieved? the only possibility i see is a completely benevolent higher being controlling certain facets of our minds. there is almost no other way that we could control things.

[dirka dirka]

well i kinda knew what you meant and i understand it even better now, but how would this be achieved? the only possibility i see is a completely benevolent higher being controlling certain facets of our minds. there is almost no other way that we could control things.
"Control things." Why? Why is there a need to control things in order to achieve this utopia? If everybody controlled themself, there would be no need for any other control.

[Cuathon]

if everyone controlled themselves. lol dirka, theres your problem right there.

[dirka dirka]

if everyone controlled themselves. lol dirka, theres your problem right there.
no, thats just saying it is how it is.. why

[Cuathon]

there isnt another answer dirka, if you are not satisfied with what was already said you wil never be satisfied.

[dirka dirka]

there isnt another answer dirka, if you are not satisfied with what was already said you wil never be satisfied.
you cant know this

[Office_Shredder]

you cant know this

Yes, we can. The reason there always has to be "evil" is that people care more for themselves than anyone else, and some are willing to screw others over to take care of themselves. It's basic human nature, and you can't just will it away. If you aren't willing to accept that as an answer, well, there isn't any other answer to be had

[dirka dirka]

Yes, we can. The reason there always has to be "evil" is that people care more for themselves than anyone else, and some are willing to screw others over to take care of themselves. It's basic human nature, and you can't just will it away. If you aren't willing to accept that as an answer, well, there isn't any other answer to be had
Thats nothing to say anything about knowing it must be that way. I know it is that way. Why is it that way, and must it be that way. The why might have an obvious answer, the later does not. If you arn't willing to accept that there has not been an answer presented for this, even remotely valid, then don't post.

[KBHoleN1]

You want a theory dirka, here's one:

If you take the possible set of actions, and say that there are 2, or even 3 possible choices - good, evil, or inconsequential - and you consider the probability of choosing one of them. No matter how you count the percentages, by acknowledging that there is at least a possibility for evil, even if it is only a slight one (say, <.01%), you assume that evil occurs at some point. By the laws of random probability, or by chaos theory, the possibility of evil occurring happens at some point in the vast history of the world, even if the percentage is very small. Everyone follow my reasoning? Either you assign evil a possibilty of 0, which defeats the purpose of the conversation, or you acknowledge that it can happen, and therefore by laws of probability it must happen.

Judging from the history of the world, I would say that the probability of evil is much higher than .01%. If you look at every action as a choice, every thought of a choice, ignoring human nature or divine intervention, evil will occur if it is possible.

[dirka dirka]

Thats wrong. It could be a 99.9% chance, and still never happen.

[KBHoleN1]

Thats wrong. It could be a 99.9% chance, and still never happen.
Depneds on what theory you operate under. Under the theory of probability, if a chance exists, then with enough trials, that outcome will exist with a probability very close to its probability of occurrence. The law of large numbers, or something like that. I'd say a few hundred years are plenty of trials, not to mention several millennia of human existence. But I appreciate you telling me I was wrong without thinking about it, thanks.

[dirka dirka]

Depneds on what theory you operate under. Under the theory of probability, if a chance exists, then with enough trials, that outcome will exist with a probability very close to its probability of occurrence. The law of large numbers, or something like that. I'd say a few hundred years are plenty of trials, not to mention several millennia of human existence. But I appreciate you telling me I was wrong without thinking about it, thanks.
No, thats wrong. I don't care if its 1 trillion years. It could be 99.9% and still not happen. This does not cover my question. It also does not explain why, i doubt you can explain this one with numbers.

P.S. I did think about it. Evidently you did not.

[KBHoleN1]

No, thats wrong. I don't care if its 1 trillion years. It could be 99.9% and still not happen. This does not cover my question. It also does not explain why, i doubt you can explain this one with numbers.

P.S. I did think about it. Evidently you did not.
You're an idiot, obviously you know nothing of statistics. You asked for a theory, so I gave you one. Under that theory, that outcome must exist somewhere. I'm not wrong, you're just operating under a different set of conditions. The point is moot now, you've already told me I was wrong. That means that no matter how much evidence I present, you're still going to disagree with me, because God knows dirka is never wrong. If something doesn't automatically appear correct, you declare it wrong and ignore anything that says otherwise. Obviously you didn't rea dmy first post, because I said this a theory of probability, and that under that theory this is what happens. Tell me you don't like the theory, you don't think it is true, but don't tell me I'm wrong. I'm relaying facts anbout a theory, I can't be wrong. The theory can be wrong, but my infromation is correct. Now pull your head out of your ass and think for once.

[dirka dirka]

You're an idiot, obviously you know nothing of statistics. You asked for a theory, so I gave you one. Under that theory, that outcome must exist somewhere. I'm not wrong, you're just operating under a different set of conditions. The point is moot now, you've already told me I was wrong. That means that no matter how much evidence I present, you're still going to disagree with me, because God knows dirka is never wrong. If something doesn't automatically appear correct, you declare it wrong and ignore anything that says otherwise. Obviously you didn't rea dmy first post, because I said this a theory of probability, and that under that theory this is what happens. Tell me you don't like the theory, you don't think it is true, but don't tell me I'm wrong. I'm relaying facts anbout a theory, I can't be wrong. The theory can be wrong, but my infromation is correct. Now pull your head out of your ass and think for once.
I'm the one that knows nothing of statistics?

The outcome MUST NOT EXIST SOMEWHERE according to probability. Probability says that no matter what, there is always a chance it does not happen.

YOU ARE WRONG
THE INFORMATION IS WRONG

a 50/50 chance red/blue can product all red a billion times in a row.. thats fact



That is why you can't explain it with numbers. Now, off to work.

[KBHoleN1]

Dirka, I'm glad you're so smart. The law of large numbers says that with enough trials, the outcome will approximately equal the probability of occurrence. There are confidence levels, that say that under a few trials, the percetage of occurrence can be estimated within a range. As the number of trials increases, that range decreses, and you can say with increasing confidence that the percentage of occurrence is close to the probability of it happening. With enough trials - several millenia of human existence, currently 6 billion people, how many decisions do you make in one day? - the percentage will almost exactly equal the probability. In practice, .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000001 = 0. If you want to argue that something that is practically impossible actually happens, go right ahead. That's like winning the lottery every day of your life. That's not what you meant when you first replied, so I know you were just telling me I was stupid. The theory works, with enough trials it must happen. You asked why they must exist together, so I gave you a practical reason. If two outcomes exist, statistics says that at some point they will exist together, and one can not dominate the outcomes. Goodbye.

[Cuathon]

give up KB, dirka is not going to accept that. he will not accept any reason. we cant really prove that a perfect society cant exist. it just never will though so it doesnt matter. dirka however seems to think that it can/will. he reponds to most things as "dont say it just is."

there is no reason we can provide that dirka will accept. the probablility is like
.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001
or lower.

[dirka dirka]

You guys seriously don't get it still.

I DON'T CARE ABOUT PROBABILITY
It proves nothing about the question.
I could just ask then when isn't the probability 100% in favor of good.
It only proves numbers, which proves nothing.
So its not a theory on this, so thanx but no, KBHoleN1.

Obviously there is evil.

Why is there evil? Probability is the same as saying entropy is the same as saying it is how it is. There has to be an underlying reason that good can't exist alone.

[dirka dirka]

give up KB, dirka is not going to accept that. he will not accept any reason. we cant really prove that a perfect society cant exist. it just never will though so it doesnt matter. dirka however seems to think that it can/will. he reponds to most things as "dont say it just is."

I don't want proof on why it can't exist. I want to know why it does not.

It definitly can, man things can..

[Office_Shredder]

I don't want proof on why it can't exist. I want to know why it does not.

dirka, a proof on why it can't exist IS a proof for why it doesn't exist. If you can show me one thing that can't exist, yet does, I'll admit that you have an infinitely superior intelligence. Until then, you're just acting dumb here

[dirka dirka]

dirka, a proof on why it can't exist IS a proof for why it doesn't exist.
Okay.. and, so, what?

If you can show me one thing that can't exist, yet does, I'll admit that you have an infinitely superior intelligence. Until then, you're just acting dumb here
No. I've seen no proof of why it can't exist. Until I do, you're just acting dumb here.

[WaCk-HeAd]

So you agree that good and evil are interpretations right?
We give a certain value to something which makes it good or evil.
Right?

So when the value "evil" doesn't exist anymore, the value "good" can't exist anymore either.
Example: You think losing money is evil, and gaining money is good. But if you don't think losing is evil anymore, you won't think gaining money is good either, because you don't give value to money anymore else you would think losing money is still evil.

You might argue that we have good, better, best, but those are also just values that you give to something. So good would actually mean "evil" in this example.

So you actually are wondering if it is possible to have a world where "interpretation" is non-existant.

Can you actually imagine a world without interpretation? A world where nobody gives anything any value?

[Office_Shredder]

Okay.. and, so, what?


No. I've seen no proof of why it can't exist. Until I do, you're just acting dumb here.

That's some nice assuming you made in this post. You said that you wanted to know why it doesn't exist, not why it can't exist. I replied that proving it can't exist is a reason why it doesn't exist, and your comeback is

"I've seen no proof of why it can't exist"

If you can explain the relevance to my post, that would be nice (notice how I never stated there was or wasn't a proof, I was simply correcting your logic)

[dirka dirka]

So you agree that good and evil are interpretations right?
We give a certain value to something which makes it good or evil.
Right?

So when the value "evil" doesn't exist anymore, the value "good" can't exist anymore either.
Example: You think losing money is evil, and gaining money is good. But if you don't think losing is evil anymore, you won't think gaining money is good either, because you don't give value to money anymore else you would think losing money is still evil.

You might argue that we have good, better, best, but those are also just values that you give to something. So good would actually mean "evil" in this example.

So you actually are wondering if it is possible to have a world where "interpretation" is non-existant.

Can you actually imagine a world without interpretation? A world where nobody gives anything any value?
Already been argued, kinda.

Conflicting interpretations don't have to lead to evil. Losing money is not evil. I'm not saying there has to be a perfect world. However, in this world the person who found it would turn it and and the person who lost it would redeem it.

[dirka dirka]

That's some nice assuming you made in this post. You said that you wanted to know why it doesn't exist, not why it can't exist. I replied that proving it can't exist is a reason why it doesn't exist, and your comeback is
You still fail to understand the question, is why you fail to understand my responce. Why it can't exist is seperate from why it doesn't exist. Why it can't exist is why it doesn't exist. However, why it can't exist is limited to what we are surrounded by. Honking horns, shootings, and muggings. Why it does not exist is completely seperate. This is why your argument is invalid. Entropy and the butterfly effect created evil and will make sure it continues. Why it was created, why it must have been created, why it won't work without it, is what I am asking. (or infact, will it)

"I've seen no proof of why it can't exist"

If you can explain the relevance to my post, that would be nice (notice how I never stated there was or wasn't a proof, I was simply correcting your logic)
Gladly.

"If you can show me one thing that can't exist, yet does, I'll admit that you have an infinitely superior intelligence."

Since I've seen no post of why it can't exist, your post means nothing to me, because the first if statement returns false.

[Office_Shredder]

Since I've seen no post of why it can't exist, your post means nothing to me, because the first if statement returns false.

I never said there was one.... I said that with the intent of making you realize that things that can't exist don't exist.

And a proof for why something can't exist IS a valid proof for why it doesn't exist. I don't really understand where the butterfly effect crap comes in with your post, so let's go to a better example.

Let's say we're discussing whether a circle can be defined by any 4 arbitrary points. A proof of why a circle can't be defined by 4 arbitrary points (because 3 points necessarily defines a circle, so the 4th can't be arbitrary) is also a proof for why 4 arbitrary points doesn't define a circle. Now, if you want a proof of how the proof works, that's a whole different question

[WaCk-HeAd]

My bad. That was actually the interesting part of the discussion. But I see we all agreed on it already.

Anyway, you ask why not everyone can do the good thing - Good defined by our current values.

I don't really see why you're asking this.

First of all, this is simple human nature. People will just not do what's good in the long run and for everyone/most. This is due to simple psychology reasons and biological reasons.

Second of all, values conflict with eachother. An action is defined by some as good and by some as evil. For instance, I used the name "God" in vain quite often on these forums where for instance Twelve and OMK read it too and find it "evil". They defined it as evil but I defined at that time as "good". (till I understood what they meant)

Third of all, good and evil are shifting values.

In your example you claim that when someone returns the money and the owner repays the finder. When everybody actually does this, the good and evil values will shift. For instance, the finder won't return it in time so he still is evil.
So in order to always do good your behaviour and your actions will have to shift with the interpretation of good/evil as well.
Which means my last arguement still stands, because your interpretation of "good" will shift. Because of this shift, the value will in the end dissapear.

Edit: Excuse my English, it's late.

[dirka dirka]

I never said there was one.... I said that with the intent of making you realize that things that can't exist don't exist.

And a proof for why something can't exist IS a valid proof for why it doesn't exist. I don't really understand where the butterfly effect crap comes in with your post, so let's go to a better example.

Let's say we're discussing whether a circle can be defined by any 4 arbitrary points. A proof of why a circle can't be defined by 4 arbitrary points (because 3 points necessarily defines a circle, so the 4th can't be arbitrary) is also a proof for why 4 arbitrary points doesn't define a circle. Now, if you want a proof of how the proof works, that's a whole different question
You still don't understand it. Let me explain it a little slower.

You can give all the proof of why it can't exist. It does not say why it does not exist in this case. Obviously it can't exist at this point. Why can it not exist, in the first place, not defined by some argument at this point.

[Office_Shredder]

You can give all the proof of why it can't exist. It does not say why it does not exist in this case. Obviously it can't exist at this point. Why can it not exist, in the first place, not defined by some argument at this point.

You originally said that you didn't want a proof on why it can't exist, not why it can't come from the current conditions. Two completely different meanings ;)

[dirka dirka]

You originally said that you didn't want a proof on why it can't exist, not why it can't come from the current conditions. Two completely different meanings ;)
No. I originally was talking about the origins, why it exists in the first place. You said the argument of current time proved something. It doesn't. Thanks.

[WaCk-HeAd]

Am I being ignored because you two rather discuss small meaningsless points of the discussion, or because I just r0x your s0x0rzz?

[dirka dirka]

Am I being ignored because you two rather discuss small meaningsless points of the discussion, or because I just r0x your s0x0rzz?
Nothing you said has any bearing. Human nature is a joke. Human nature is motivated by enviroment.

[Office_Shredder]

Am I being ignored because you two rather discuss small meaningsless points of the discussion, or because I just r0x your s0x0rzz?

You're being ignored because everyone already explained this to dirka, and he just chooses to ignore it ;)

[dirka dirka]

You're being ignored because everyone already explained this to dirka, and he just chooses to ignore it ;)
Actually, everything he said is original. You just don't read posts.

[WaCk-HeAd]

Nothing you said has any bearing. Human nature is a joke. Human nature is motivated by enviroment.

Hahahahahahahahahaha

This is your comeback?

Your problem is that you define good by our current standards and don't realise that the value shifts when people always do the thing you define as good.

But ok, my bad, I forgot we were "debating" with Dirka Dirka.

Have fun O_S.

[dirka dirka]

Hahahahahahahahahaha

This is your comeback?

Your problem is that you define good by our current standards and don't realise that the value shifts when people always do the thing you define as good.

But ok, my bad, I forgot we were "debating" with Dirka Dirka.

Have fun O_S.
No, I've already expressed my argument on this.. right when the thread started almost. That has to do with perspective. Perspective is warped usually. There is an obvious evil and obvious good. You'll living in this world too much.

[Office_Shredder]

Actually, everything he said is original. You just don't read posts.

I guess I saw these in a different thread then
Can positive exsist w/o negative?

If negative is removed, doesn't positive become something else entirely?

Once negative is removed, Instead of two altering states (positive and negative; ying and yang), there is only one state with no flucuation. With no fluctuation, positive is then the norm


Anyway, evil cannot exist without good. If everything is what we call "good", then there would be no bad to make it good.

There has to be something bad in order for the good things to truly effect you
Tell me, dirka, are terrorists evil?

I am. That question is one of the many questions that merely pertain to the fact that Good and Evil are a matter of perception.

There will be no evil? That just sounds stupid. If there were no evil, how would you know what good is?

[dirka dirka]

I guess I saw these in a different thread then
I've already showed how all those don't apply.

Quote #1: Evil still exists, more in theory. It just does not happen.

Quote #2: Same as #1.

Quote #3: I just explained this. Perception. There is an obvious correct side, mortally.

Quote #4: Same as #3.

Quote #5: Same as #1 almost. Added - slaves wanted to be free. They didn't know freedom, but they knew they wanted it. Why?

[Office_Shredder]

dirka, you are truly retarded. You said that everything wack said was original. I posted a bunch of quotes from the thread that say the exact same thing wack said. You then go on to tell me why each quote was an invalid argument, without even considering whether or not they were related to wack's post. Congratulations.

[WaCk-HeAd]

No, I've already expressed my argument on this.. right when the thread started almost. That has to do with perspective. Perspective is warped usually. There is an obvious evil and obvious good. You'll living in this world too much.

Could you direct me to the exact post, because this is completely wrong.

There is no obvious good and obvious evil.

By the way, defining good and evil would be a good idea as well.



When you are raised with people ALWAYS doing the things which are "good" (Good defined from this society and from our current values), it will not be considered good anymore, it will be considered as "normal".

To actually do good at such a point you have do some extra. But since in your world everyone does the good thing every time, everyone would be adjusting to these new values. So because everyone keeps on doing the good thing it will dissapear because it will be considered "normal".

[dirka dirka]

dirka, you are truly retarded. You said that everything wack said was original. I posted a bunch of quotes from the thread that say the exact same thing wack said. You then go on to tell me why each quote was an invalid argument, without even considering whether or not they were related to wack's post. Congratulations.
Uhm.. reread his post. His main topics: human nature, conflict value. I'm the retarded one? He was definitly original.

[Office_Shredder]

Could you direct me to the exact post, because this is completely wrong.

There is no obvious good and obvious evil.

By the way, defining good and evil would be a good idea as well.



When you are raised with people ALWAYS doing the things which are "good" (Good defined from this society and from our current values), it will not be considered good anymore, it will be considered as "normal".

To actually do good at such a point you have do some extra. But since in your world everyone does the good thing every time, everyone would be adjusting to these new values. So because everyone keeps on doing the good thing it will dissapear because it will be considered "normal".

wack, we've already covered all this ground, don't think dirka is going to suddenly "see the light" so to speak.... I think his head is too far up his ass

[dirka dirka]

wack, we've already covered all this ground, don't think dirka is going to suddenly "see the light" so to speak.... I think his head is too far up his ass
no, you haven't... he is being ORIGINAL... thats why im responding, just leave OS, seriously

[WaCk-HeAd]

Uhm.. reread his post. His main topics: human nature, conflict value. I'm the retarded one? He was definitly original.

My most important point is actually shifting values.

[dirka dirka]

Could you direct me to the exact post, because this is completely wrong.

There is no obvious good and obvious evil.

By the way, defining good and evil would be a good idea as well.

It was never argued, but I'd be glad to argue it.

When you are raised with people ALWAYS doing the things which are "good" (Good defined from this society and from our current values), it will not be considered good anymore, it will be considered as "normal".
This was already argued. Its semantics. Don't call it good. You know what I mean.

[Office_Shredder]

This was already argued. Its semantics. Don't call it good. You know what I mean.

No one knows what you mean anymore...

[dirka dirka]

No one knows what you mean anymore...
That would be why its such a broad question. I don't even know.. but in that case, what I mean is known.

"Second of all, values conflict with eachother. An action is defined by some as good and by some as evil. " Some seeing an action as good, and others as evil, has NOTHING to do with perception of good and evil - OS

Are you kidding. How people see something is perception. You just said "Perception of good and evil has nothing to do with perception of good and evil." Wow, I'll return the favor.

[WaCk-HeAd]

Then define Good and Evil.

Do you only mean the major things like murder/slavery/war instead of things like "returning money"?

[dirka dirka]

Then define Good and Evil.

Do you only mean the major things like murder/slavery/war instead of things like "returning money"?
No. I mean everything.

Good is not evil.
Evil is not good.
Good is positive.
Evil is negative.

I'm defining it like the dictionary defines it.

[Office_Shredder]

Are you kidding. How people see something is perception. You just said "Perception of good and evil has nothing to do with perception of good and evil." Wow, I'll return the favor.

It's called sarcasm. Notice how I quoted wack talking about good and evil perception, and in my post I quoted swartzstrom talking about good and evil perception.

[Hellblazer]

Haven't been in here for a while. Exactly how did such an argument that evil doesn't exist occur? Of course there's evil. Evil starts out small, though. Usually with a bit of annoyance toward an individual or group. Then it escalates to a strong dislike. Hate is third in line. Then, once hate is pushed to the limits, a few bad things will happen the the hated person/group. Finally, evil slips through and the hated person/group is the absolute opposite from the hater. This is evil: the absolute last point of hate and anger.

...."And evil always wins, because good is dumb"

[dirka dirka]

It's called sarcasm. Notice how I quoted wack talking about good and evil perception, and in my post I quoted swartzstrom talking about good and evil perception.
No, its not called sarcasm. Its called nice try, but you're wrong.

[dirka dirka]

Haven't been in here for a while. Exactly how did such an argument that evil doesn't exist occur?

WTF? I don't see that argument anywhere.

[WaCk-HeAd]

No. I mean everything.

Good is not evil.
Evil is not good.
Good is positive.
Evil is negative.

I'm defining it like the dictionary defines it.

Then I do not know what you mean.

I argue that the values evil and good shift according to human behavior and you argue that it's semantics?

I actually am still waiting on a response.

[Hellblazer]

WTF? I don't see that argument anywhere.
Um...edit button?
But, I guess I got that idea somehow. Oh well, I hope I made some fort of point.

Edit (in response to wack-head): Evil and good don't fully disappear from a person at any time. Take me for example. I have a deep escence of evil in me, but I can be a pretty nice guy. Good sometimes shows through more, but the evil is still always there, waiting. The good can disappear at any time.

[Office_Shredder]

Um...edit button?
But, I guess I got that idea somehow. Oh well, I hope I made some fort of point.

Not really. The argument is on why it's not possible to eliminate evil

[dirka dirka]

Then I do not know what you mean.

I argue that the values evil and good shift according to human behavior and you argue that it's semantics?

I actually am still waiting on a response.
I didn't argue semantics for that. I argued semantics for no evil, means no good, inherently.

Human behavior is relative. Its changable. Humans can all act good.

[Hellblazer]

Not really. The argument is on why it's not possible to eliminate evil
Then I did help...in my second post on this page.

[WaCk-HeAd]

Did you just not read my posts? If so, just say so and I'll walk away.

Look,

In order to think something is good, it has to be something extra than being normal, right?
In order to think something is evil, it has to be something less than being normal, right?

When everyone does the good thing, everything does something extra than what we found normal at that point, right?
But when everyone does this thing, it becomes the normal thing to do, right?

So in order to still do good, you have to do something extra than normal, so something extra than the extra of the starting normal thing, right?

Etc. etc.

The value of something, the thing that is considered good will shift, and in the end will not exist anymore.

[dirka dirka]

Did you just not read my posts? If so, just say so and I'll walk away.

Look,

In order to think something is good, it has to be something extra than being normal, right?
In order to think something is evil, it has to be something less than being normal, right?

When everyone does the good thing, everything does something extra than what we found normal at that point, right?
But when everyone does this thing, it becomes the normal thing to do, right?

So in order to still do good, you have to do something extra than normal, so something extra than the extra of the starting normal thing, right?

Etc. etc.

The value of something, the thing that is considered good will shift, and in the end will not exist anymore.
Did you just not read my posts. This argument has already been made. The other arguments you brought up were original.

[WaCk-HeAd]

You mean the arguments you didn't respond too except for telling me human nature doesn't exist?

And where has it been discussed? Could you direct me to it so I can show you wrong?

[dirka dirka]

You mean the arguments you didn't respond too except for telling me human nature doesn't exist?
alright, so you arn't reading my posts.. i never said human nature doesnt exist

and where has it been discussed? Could you direct me to it so I can show you wrong?
almost the entire first few pages



ill just accept nobody here has an answer, if there is one at all

[Office_Shredder]

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that dirka told me I didn't read wack's posts, then wack told dirka that he isn't reading wack's posts?

[dirka dirka]

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that dirka told me I didn't read wack's posts, then wack told dirka that he isn't reading wack's posts?
Thats very ironic. Only I did read them.

[WaCk-HeAd]

He's trying to say:

Evil: Nonexistant

Possibility of Evil exists, but the actual evil is absent.

Whereas Good rules the world. Possilibity to be tainted by Evil, but that doesn't happen.

100% Good.
0% evil

To simplify it:

The possibility of Evil tainting Good exists, but the actual action of Evil tainting Good does not happen. As in, why do we consider it impossible for one entity, Good or Evil to exist, specifically, Good?

Ah, found what you exactly meant.
And I call Bullshit!

#1 Conflicting values, like I said will always play a big role. An action, whether positive or negative, will be made when the person who wants to change it thinks the benefits exceed the costs. These benefits are for one "good/positive" and for others "evil/negative".

#2 Human nature plays a big role. For example, the difference of actually realising results for short-term and long-term initiatives, whether they are positive or negative.

#3 My biggest point still stands. The shift of values.

First of all, your theory is not even valid. When everyone will always do the right/good/positive thing there is no chance it will be tainted by evil.

Second of all, when everybody will always do the right/good/positive thing the evil will still shift. When everyone will do the good thing the values will shift, because what used to be good will be normal. The things you consider evil now are based on the fact that many things/actions are indeed evil.

This will NOT stay the same when the society becomes better!

So a shift in values will occur.

[dirka dirka]

Same old posts.. different words.

Hmm.. who was that guy that had abounch of things.. it started with an M. He said stuff like thinking you're a thought in a greater beings head...

[WaCk-HeAd]

Same old posts.. different words.

Hmm.. who was that guy that had abounch of things.. it started with an M. He said stuff like thinking you're a thought in a greater beings head...

*Shakes head*

Good night, Dirka Dirka.