The arrogance is completely unnecessary, and misplaced, and continue to make you sound like a 9 year old with an insecurity complex. Gasp, that I could actually leave the boards to host family for 2 days and not respond to your arguments...lol.
Is... Is that even English? No really, your writing style seems to be part dunderhead part ESL. As for my arrogance, its completely warranted seeing as how I'm right and you're a maroon.
I also can't believe you actually used lol in common conversation. You sure you're really twenty six?
You sound like an execrable nine year old.
I'll agree that my first post was perhaps poorly worded. The words "good" and "evil" should not have been used, but yet I still think there is nothing inherently wrong with the words. Yet while I still feel they are acceptable to define the general concepts, I will switch to "good" and "not good" to clear things up for you. The original discussion i was intending to make was whether or not we believe in the free will to choose "not good." To please Snex (where have you been, btw?), I'll allow for the fact that occasionally things become more complex, but still would be made up of "good" and "not good" parts of each decision.
Perhaps poorly worded? Seeing as how you cite Rush Limbaugh, I'm pretty sure you did mean good and evil. You made no parallels to free will or, more improved, personal responsibility. Which seems to be your
new debate since you've already lost the first one. Now you're just backpedaling until you can argue over something you might have a chance on.
First off, if anyone is diverting from the argument, it is you with your comments on demons, which have nothing to do with the conversation. Try refuting my points instead of appearing to make me look foolish for things I haven't said, any rookie debater will see through that tactic in a second.
You make yourself look foolish you, blockhead. The word "evil" is written at least eight times in your first post, and you describe it as 'a battle between good and evil,' even if you are using Rush's words. I refute the very existence of evil, your central theme-apparent, and you counter that I'm diverting the argument! No,
only a rookie debater could see through my shrewd tactic of pointing out your ridiculousness. Even if it took you more than a second.
If humans indeed have a choice, then you have in fact agreed with my initial point, that there are humans who have free will choices who could choose that which is not good. In an earlier post, you made a good point that science is not interested in the ability to free will choose because, if it exists, then it is not something that can be controlled.
Say what? I'm really beginning to think that you are ESL. Anyways; no, definitely not and what in the name of the Keebler Elves are you thinking? Your initial point, I quote: "this country is slipping further and further away from the concept of good and evil" What are you smoking? It can't possibly be legal.
All humans with a functional brain have free will. Unless you're lobotomized or in a coma, you have the ability to choose your actions. Science is quite very interested "in the ability to free will choose" because it answers a lot of the questions regarding humanity. Many of the concepts of Quantum theory try to explain how free will "works" for crying out loud.
Thus, you have also agreed with me in that there is a value in some things, a "good," and not in other things, a "not good," but instead of referring to a spiritual deity, you refer to the consensus. Either way, you have agreed that there is a "good" to certain actions that it to be approved, and a "not good" which is to be punished. You can call it heinous and just all you want, and it's still just a cover for alternate language.
Your complete lack of eloquent doesn't amaze me, rather its the train wreck I have no interest in staring at.
Let us think, (
you might need some aspirin) are there actions that have a positive effect on, lets say, our community? Yes, these would be good. Are there actions that have the opposite effect? Those are bad, "a not good". Do these things have anything to do with deities, volcanoes or the weather? I'll let you figure it out on your own. I'll give you a hint if you ask nice enough.
I don't personally care if the "consensus" agrees that we have to kill a virgin once a year or else the sun will go out. I happen to have insider info that its really a giant nuclear furnace that will continue to burn for the next few million years or so.
All I see here is an athiest that believes in good and evil, as defined by the consensus opinion, or perhaps by what would lead to the most "success of human existence." If you believe that humans did not have a free will choice, then it would be different, but since you do believe in that then you must justify (by means of the consensus) certain choices as "heinous" and "just" so that you can classify some men as criminals and others and non-criminals, a short hop, skip, and a jump from morality.
Jesus tap-dancing Christ on a hot tin roof! What part of evil != existing do you not seem to understand? There is no such thing as evil, and despite how much you try to demonstrate it, YOU AREN'T!
Morality (n)- Conformity to the rules of right conduct.
Not killing people. I don't need a two thousand year old stone tablet to tell me that its a good idea. I certainly don't want to die. Wait a minute. Didn't I say something about self-preservation earlier? Oh yes, my third post! Its self evident that certain things (killing, stealing, etc) make living not work. I don't need to include such meaningless ideas such as your "concept of evil" to not do stupid, rash, self destructive things. If you do, maybe you're just a little dee dee dee.
EDIT: Also, as a side note as to whether or not "good" and "evil" are too concrete, I think you must only look to the justice system for your answer. People are either guilty or innocent of a crime, are they not? We either lock them up or we don't, with varying degrees of severity. How can you say such things cannot be concrete when in fact the entire justice system is concrete to a whole?
What snex says is a good start. He only left out the part where he belittles you for your complete lack of intellect.
But since I've already explained it to you, I'll do it again since you seem a bit slow. Would I want it to happen to me? No, its probably in the "bad" category. The Golden Rule has only been around since written history. BTW, if you are still reading this it only proves my point.
While I enjoy the expanded hypothesis, in the end you still suggest what I was telling Gamer4Fire, that in the end you are supporting my original view that there is a definition of good and "not good," though for you it is by consensus, and that someone could make a conscious choice for the "not good." Regardless of the method for creating laws, in the end our nature suggests to us that we declare "guilty" or "not guilty" of an offense, an evil, or a "not good."
Oh, oh! Fan-fudge-flinging-tastic, "you disagree with me so you are agreeing with me." You have
gots to be flipping kidding me. I love your non-sequiturs and post hocs. "nature suggests to us that we declare "guilty" or "not guilty" of an offense, an evil, or a "not good". Woah buddy. Try using some logic before you just start typing tripe.
I'd like to give you a counterexample to your motives question, because I feel that motives are never the way in which to judge. I have a female friend who is suffering because of a dilemma with her friend. In a fit of anger, she declares that she would never wish to see her friend again (and means it). I hear this, and knowing that she will still have to interact with her friend, I ship her off to another country, arranging for her to be falsely accused and imprisoned for life. My true motive is to make my friend happier. I know not this other woman, so her happiness is of no concern to me, but for those around me life is better. Even if this is the purest of motive, would I be guilty of no crime?
You bear false witness against your neighbor, wrongly imprison and deport her to make your friend happy? Where in your demented misshapen ugly little head do you think in any way shape or form this is a good thing? How would you feel if someone did it to you, you'd feel bad. Before you ask, I'm not a mind reader nor will I steal your soul with my magic picture box. If we someway somehow, and somewhere were able to apply the Golden Rule then, oh wait, we can! I didn't need an Invisible Pink Unicorn to figure it out, either! You fail at the thinking.
Motives are nothing. There's something to be said for direct causation (self-defense, etc), but motivations should not be considered in a trial. In the end, I believe that actions are what must be judged.
I'm motivated to have you shot out of a cannon. Is this a crime? Probably somewhere. So let us apply the Golden Rule. If I were you, would I want to continue living my ignorant little life?
My point in the original topic was that I am seeing more and more the denial of conscious choice among the media and professorial elite, and everything that would usually be considered "not good," or criminal, etc. is due to a mental disability or hormonal imbalance.
What you are trying to say, really really hard, is that we should hold people responsible for there actions as if they weren't complete *******. Since it took me to say it (put words in your mouth, if you may or if you don't may), I'll agree with myself.
Now don't say another thing about evil and we'll all be good.
)