[DeathNTaxes]

Originally Posted by EricTheRed

Anybody who molests a child is missing their souls, sorry. If anyone, I mean anyone, backs up older men molesting young kids on the grounds, "They don't know it's wrong", you're just about as bad as them.

Why is that wrong?

Why is child molestation wrong? in a Morally definitive sense. Why is it inherently wrong? I think if you really examine this you will find that social norms, your opinion, and personal "feeling" is what makes you decide this is wrong. Not that it is wrong in and of itself.

Very simply if you want to talk about something that is pretty much universally seen as "wrong" answer this is killing wrong?

Morality and ethics is contextual at any given time.

[Toda Hiro-matsu]

Originally Posted by hole in the sky

read it again, carefully this time. i said a mutation CAN mean a change in species. can. different from is. can. no wonder you're having so many problems!





yes, a mutation is a change inside an organism which in itself is part of the species. mutation within a species. you really have no place to go with this one.

besides, i thought you were done with this?

and where is my post saying a mutation always causes a change?

and do you finally admit mutation means change?

So you're trying to say that if a mutation occured in an organism, then the change really occured inside the species? That's some serious backpedaling. Do you even know what constitutes the classification of species? If a change occurs in a population it becomes a NEW species (provided the change is enough to prevent breeding between the new population and the original species). Mutations can occur in ORGANISMS which are part of POPULATIONS, THEN species. Once the populatioon changes enough, it becomes a new species. This is really biology 101. I'm sorry you've gotten yourself in so deep. I know that you don't know what you're talking about. So sorry, you fail.

[Toda Hiro-matsu]

Originally Posted by hole in the sky

edit: i'm leaving for a while, so make sure you post something really good for me to destroy later.

And while you're gone, read something. Maybe you'll pick up something to add that I won't have to correct.

[Col. Angus]

They came into being simultaneously. The moment the concept of good existed, so too did the concept of evil in equal but opposite gradiation.

[Three Gun Fish]

Originally Posted by Toda Hiro-matsu

Can you tell me a little about your waterproof winter gloves? Would they be good for snowboarding?

Thanks for asking! Yes, they would, but you'd probably have a finer time with the Gauntlet XTs, as they are thicker.

Part of keeping your hands warm with our gloves involves a level of exertion. Just sitting in one place, like on a snowmobile or at a winter game, your hands will be cold. But whatever heat you can generate, our gloves will retain.

Because you asked, you'll get fifty percent off your first order. PM me if you need more details.

[Tiger_vs_Mantis]

[quote=hole in the sky;22064723]

Originally Posted by hole in the sky

well, if you read my post, i don't feel like humans invented good at all. i do believe 'evil' is a human invention however.

I can see how what you wrote can be seen this way, but this point is not made explicitly in the post. you propose a "state of being" where nothing is considered good or evil. Only when the first evil act is committed can we gain the perspective to see the "state of being" as having been 'good.' This can be interpreted your way ('good' existed, even if it was not recognized as 'good') or it can be interpreted that 'good and evil' is a purely subjective human phenomenon. In other words, you haven't really made your case except to say "this is how I see it."

none of this matters, because none of what you just mentioned is relevant to my example of separating good from evil.

It's perfectly relevant. 'Evil' is a necessary precondition of life. You can't have a society where 'everything is good' and society is just waiting for the first evil act to be committed. It's a poorly chosen hypothetical.

(i know, you're about to jump on me about what could be construed as evil by certain viewpoints, i get it, save your type)

no that's not my point.

but the bigger picture i was trying to paint here was to remove ANYTHING that could possibly be considered evil by any stretch of the imagination.

I think taking life, any life, is 'evil.'

i knew people would get all worked up about this though, which is why i also asked people not to take the utopia thing too seriously. well what do you know, three pages later and someone takes it too seriously.

it's a moronic scenario, and it belongs the same place you should shove your arrogant tone: up your ass.

well, killing a baby is just one example, it can be interchanged if it doesn't suit you.

It doesn't matter what you swap it out with, the point remains: why is killing the baby considered 'evil' by this society? Infanticide occurs in all kinds of animal societies, yet they do not consider it 'evil.' How did humans decide that this act is evil? Why should I believe that your hypothetical perfect society recognizes this as evil and defines it as an evil act?

however, using the definitions of good and evil, it is impossible for evil to precede good;

I never said one preceded the other.

people are too inherently selfish for that.

Perhaps yes, perhaps no. We don't really know the answer when it comes to the question of humankind's 'inherent nature.'

it's definitely a state of nature because the number one person in our lives is...ourselves. even animals aren't exempt from this selfish behavior.

Humans and other animals are capable of great acts of selfishness and selflessness. We don't really understand animal OR human nature.

explain please?

You gave a scenario and asked if it is possible to look at the scenario and conclude that good preceded evil. I'm saying I can see how someone might think that, but that personally I do not see it that way. In other words, I'm not convinced. What's so hard to understand?

like i've said and re-iterated before; no matter WHAT your definition of evil is, good will precede it in either will or intention. there is no way around this.

you can say it AND reiterate it AND repeat it AND restate it as many times as you want, that doesn't make it true. you said that people concentrate on the definitions of good and evil and not on the acts themselves. I am saying this is a nonsensical statement. You can't concentrate on one without concentrating on the other.

also, you seem to have come to the conclusion that good and evil do exist now, especially when you say "in my opinion the definitions and the acts are intertwined"

clearly, the human conception of 'good and evil' exists.

so perhaps you could replace my example a few lines up with one that you are more comfortable with calling evil?

I explained why it doesn't mater what you replace it with.

the next line you typed, "you decide whether an act is good or evil based upon your definition of good and evil" is almost right.

lol in what sense it partially wrong? who has ever decided that an act is good or evil without some definition of what constitutes good and evil?

the argument i'm driving home is that it doesn't matter what your definitions of evil are, they could be completely different from anyone elses definition.

actually, this isn't your argument. your argument is that good preceded evil. try to stick to the point.

what matters is that we have a clear definition of good, that way we have an idea of where everything else stands in comparison. anything that is pleasurable to the self, or 'good' for oneself is considered a good thing to that individual. this is what all of us across the globe share, people and animals alike.

Actually, no. When we use the expression 'good' as in 'good and evil' we are talking about morality. The way you are using the word 'good' here implies nothing about morality. So I disagree that this is a 'clear definition of good.' In fact I think it's a terrible definition.

at this point, this says more about the reader than the writer.

Well, you're trying to make a point and you are arguing it abysmally. Sorry, but your argument is not persuasive, it seems, to anyone but yourself.

regardless of whether or not it's knowledge is irrelevant.

then do not say that the 'knowledge of good' is hardwired into us. See how simple that was?

the point is, 'good' (in this case, survival) is hardwired into us by the ongoing process of evolution and nature.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. The human species has survived this long, which isn't long at all. Plenty of species have gone extinct because the 'hardwiring given to them' by nature and evolution left them with a design and/or behaviors that were not suited for survival.

the issue here is you're still thinking of the term 'good' in very emotional ways.

actually, except for telling you that your head is in your ass I don't think I've been emotional about this conversation at all. So you're being presumptuous. Stop that.

i recommend you broaden your understanding of how survivalism is good for any individual, animal or plant.

let's keep the recommendations to a minimum.

the survival of a species is fundamental to it's existence,

thats the smartest thing you've said so far.

and i like i mentioned before, existing means you're living,

More brilliance!

knowledge of what's harmful and how to avoid it is paramount to existing. existing is good for the species. knowledge of danger is good.

Have you published any of these theories yet?

humans beings are VERY knowledgeable about what is dangerous to us,

maybe we are, maybe we aren't. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that our human behaviors are dooming the species.

don't sell yourself short.

Your problem is selling yourself too long.

[GOD_OF_MUAYTHAI]

evil came first because before human beings could even conceive of having a concept of good and evil, nature ruled the world. and nature is inherently evil, nature forces the lion to kill the baby zebra, nature causes earthquakes and floods that destroys the animal kingdom and human kingdom a like etc.....if you get my drift

[Jerome_1]

Originally Posted by Tiger_vs_Mantis

It doesn't matter what you swap it out with, the point remains: why is killing the baby considered 'evil' by this society? Infanticide occurs in all kinds of animal societies, yet they do not consider it 'evil.' How did humans decide that this act is evil? Why should I believe that your hypothetical perfect society recognizes this as evil and defines it as an evil act?

Because your conscience dictates that it is unnatural, and therefore evil.

[GOD_OF_MUAYTHAI]

keep in mind that this debate can not really be settled, for the fact that the world and the universe is not a manichean duology and lifes not that simple as black and white

[Tiger_vs_Mantis]

Originally Posted by Jerome_1

Because your conscience dictates that it is unnatural, and therefore evil.

no. that's not it either.