--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Duveyoung <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Once again, define evil for us... > > > > > > "Evil" is a word that people who want to > > > do something nasty or despicable hurl at > > > the person or entity they want to do it > > > to, to make themselves look better. > > > > Is this just the word "evil"? Or does it also > > apply to despicable, execrable, harmful, hateful, > > heinous, iniquitous, maleficent, nefarious, > > pernicious, reprehensible, repugnant, vile, > > villainous? > > In you, given your history of hatred, I > would say that they were all synonyms. :-)
Overlooking your lie about my "history of hatred," they're all thesaurus synonyms for "evil." > And used for *exactly* the reason I > suggest above. And of course you have no way of knowing that. > But "evil" is the more problematic term > in my opinion because so many people > associate it with absolutes. Using the > term is IMO almost always an attempt to > invoke the authority of an absolute that > does not exist in the relative. It certainly can be used that way, but it often isn't. It depends on the context. I don't think Google, for example, has that extreme meaning in mind with its motto, "Don't be evil." Google means "Don't do anything harmful or unethical or exploitative." "Evil" is frequently used as shorthand for any or all of the synonyms I listed above. That's how I used it when I said my sister and I hadn't thought Cheney was "particularly evil." And if my mother had referred to him as "evil"--I can't recall her doing so, but she might have--that's what she would have meant as well. She didn't believe in an absolute authority on good and evil any more than I do or than my sister does. And you knew that, of course. You lied when you told Edg my mother had "provided the definition of 'evil' in this case." Nor did I provide one for her. I left it undefined because in context it was obvious how I was using it. (Unless, of course, you want to define "evil" by the example of Dick Cheney.) You took a cheap shot at my mother because you were desperate to find something to attack me about. And you screwed up badly, again. Now you're trying to cover it up with an absurd rant about the term "evil," using your own highly idiosyncratic definition. Among the absurdities, from your response to Ruth: "Go ahead. TRY to define 'evil' in concrete terms. No matter what example you use, I or others here will be able to find an instance of someone from religious scrip- ture doing that exact thing, and being praised and called holy for it." And that means Ruth can't use that example? She can't look at scripture and say, Yes, that was evil; ain't it awful that this person was called holy for doing it back then? "To believe in evil per se is -- for me -- akin to believing that there are some things that a person could do that would completely *prohibit* realizing their own enlightenment." How many people do you think use it that way? "And most of the sages I respect have said the exact opposite. The potential for Buddha- nature is just as present in Dick Cheney as it was in young Prince Siddhartha." Duh. Even fundie Christians believe nobody is so "evil" as to be beyond redemption. "'He is evil, so he should be thrown in prison, where I hope he will be raped and tortured.' See your own statement above. If you were to believe this, then wouldn't you be just as guilty of justifying rape and torture as the person you called evil above? And wouldn't you have prob- ably felt calculatingly rational *as* you justified it?" I can't imagine Ruth even for a second hoping a person would be raped and tortured for what he or she had done, no matter how awful the deed. Me, I'd like to see Cheney and Bush and a number of their colleagues tried and convicted for war crimes and jailed for life, not as punishment but as a warning that leaders will be held accountable for what they do. But I'd want them to be protected from any violence and held under reasonable living conditions. Ruth and I don't agree on much, but I'll bet she'd go along with that.
