Evil is an interpretation, not a fact, UG. There isn't a soul out there who could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt it's existence.

There is no such thing as evil? You are wrong.

"Interpret" these guys. They are just terrorists who don't bother with (political) excuses.

It's still an interpretation, UG. As I mentioned in a previous post, there are Islamics who would claim that the west is evil and that 'fact' is beyond rational questioning. After all, the conclusion is based on quite rational thought to begin with. And just as it's nearly impossible to convince them otherwise are you any different? Are you open to questioning what you believe regarding concepts which cannot be proven?

People are quick to label 'evil' anything they deem as gross injustice. Zarqawi fought against the injustice he percieved with methods that were acceptable to him. The west does the same. Each are convinced they are right and that their means to their ends are justifiable. No one is willing to examine their beliefs. So all this is left to do is parry and thrust, parry and thrust, parry and thrust . . . and bitch and moan and complain and revel in empty victories for the rest of eternity.

Tipp ... while I am against war .... terrorists EARN what they get

People are quick to label 'evil' anything they deem as gross injustice. Zarqawi fought against the injustice he percieved with methods that were acceptable to him. The west does the same. Each are convinced they are right and that their means to their ends are justifiable. No one is willing to examine their beliefs. So all this is left to do is parry and thrust, parry and thrust, parry and thrust . . . and bitch and moan and complain and revel in empty victories for the rest of eternity.

I have examined my beliefs many times and I think that you are rationalizing evil. You are an apologist for Satan.

You are a very nice, but a very confused guy.

You keep ignoring the fact that there is no excuse for serial killers and that one can't dispute the fact that they are evil. They don't even pretend to have a "reason" for what they do and you can’t “interpret” them as anything but the scumbags that they are.

Terrorists are simply serial killers brandishing a supposedly noble motive as a rationalization to kill innocent men, women and children, but underneath the lies, they are evil, murdering scumbags too.

Evil is like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder.

It's all point of view, which is why the good guys will never be that good and the bad guys will always get some sympathy.

I'm sure that Charles Ng and Leonard Lake will be happy to hear that.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers.../ng/call_1.html

I'm not sure what your point is. These people may or may not see themselves as evil, but you do see them as evil. So, once again my point of evil being a point of view. Zarqari is a hero to some and far from evil as far as they are concerned and view you as the evil one. So, perhaps it is you who should be happy to what I am saying?

Evil is like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder.

It's all point of view, which is why the good guys will never be that good and the bad guys will always get some sympathy.

I'm sure that Charles Ng and Leonard Lake will be happy to hear that.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers.../ng/call_1.html

I'm not sure what your point is.

Are you defending thrill killers now?

Go read what they did and tell me that "evil is a point of view".

Knock off the "everyone is good" nonsense.

Evil is like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder.

It's all point of view, which is why the good guys will never be that good and the bad guys will always get some sympathy.

I'm sure that Charles Ng and Leonard Lake will be happy to hear that.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers.../ng/call_1.html

I'm not sure what your point is.

Are you defending thrill killers now?

Go read what they did and tell me that "evil is a point of view".

Knock off the "everyone is good" nonsense.

I am not defending anyone. It is you who thinks I am defending someone. I am troubled that you still do not understand my point. It's simple, many philosophers have dealt with these ideas before.

Good and evil are terms used as symbols for the symbol minded. You can call anyone evil all day long, what happens if they don't agree with? Who is to decide, and what is the point of deciding? There is no Good and Evil, just cause and effect, but some people need to create illiusions to help them sort out the pieces so they will simplify a person's nature and actions down to good and evil. Why? If they have done something against the law punish them. If they have killed your friends and kin, do what you feel you need to do. If people call you evil for that why should you care?

There is a group of people, whom will remain nameless for the sake of the civil order of the forum, that lives here in America. They have some pretty wild ideas that if these people gain more power and bring these ideas in to our reality our freedoms as Americans will be lost. They are a threat and are traitors to the Republic and it's people. I would gladly kill them all. That is not the answer, unless I really can kill evey last one of them, because the problem would just become larger. One day they may go to far and war might break out, who knows. Nevertheless, I would with a grin remove them from this life.

Am I evil then? I am capable of what you would call good. I have done and do "good" things, but I can and would like to do "evil" to these people, for they are a threat. I would be a fool to think of them as simply evil. They are human and much more than one of anything. To think such things is to underestimate my enemy. I know they view me as evil, many have told me so. So, are they right or am I? We would both be happy to see the other gone. Unless we are able to come to an agreement and live together the only other answer is for one of us to finish the other off. So, to your way of thinking we would both be evil then? You are happy to kill your enemies and happy to see them dead, are you not? So, are you evil right along with me? Define evil if you can, solid unshakable definition that is.

Respect your enemy, regardless have much you hate them, especially in your victory, for their defeat could have easily have been yours.

Tipp ... while I am against war .... terrorists EARN what they get

Why did it take seven full stops to say that and then not even one at the end?

does .... it .... matter ...?

Evil is like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder.

It's all point of view, which is why the good guys will never be that good and the bad guys will always get some sympathy.

I'm sure that Charles Ng and Leonard Lake will be happy to hear that.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers.../ng/call_1.html

I'm not sure what your point is.

Are you defending thrill killers now?

Go read what they did and tell me that "evil is a point of view".

Knock off the "everyone is good" nonsense.

I am not defending anyone. It is you who thinks I am defending someone. I am troubled that you still do not understand my point. It's simple, many philosophers have dealt with these ideas before.

I DO understand your point. You are not the only TV member to have read and studied philosophy, however, I think that it is pointless, namby-pamby bulls*it.

Both you and Tip keep avoiding commenting on thrill/serial killers. Do you think that someone, somewhere thinks that they are justified for raping, torturing and killing others for the fun of it? Does anyone think that they are "good"?

Terrorists are just glorified serial killers who also maim and murder innocents. Who cares what lame excuses they make for their barbaric acts?

it is way more than an over-simplification to call terrorists serial killers or thrill killers ...

MOST are simply mass murderers ...

Hard to defend against that statement ... NOW -- there are some that could be called guerrilla fighters etc ... those fighting an insurgency that target military/political targets including police or army targets ... well I would see them as soldiers.

Those that are simply terrorists ... that deliberatly kill civilian non-combatants ... well they should simply be taken out wherever and whenever possible. Without hesitation other than eliminating all civilian casualties possible. It takes a strong will to stop this kind of action ... and that will MUST include the will to hold our own action up to the light and sacrifice those that commit war crimes up to justice ... the same type of justice we dispense.

it is way more than an over-simplification to call terrorists serial killers or thrill killers ...

MOST are simply mass murderers ...

I was not calling terrorists serial killers - although I don't see a lot of difference morally. I was refuting the statement that there is no such thing as evil and using thrill killers as an example to prove my point.

NO ONE thinks that these savages are good or right or justified in raping, torturing and killing innocent beings for fun. They are evil, pure and simple and terrorists are not far behind.

nah .. sorry ... can't agree with the 'evil' thing ... i don't think a dog with rabies id evil either ... just needs to be put down.

to be so damaged as to have no sense of right or wrong isn't evil ... it's just damaged beyond repair ... I have never heard of a sociopath being given a social conscience so why bother?

the other word for it would be amoral ... completely without morals ... morals are ALSO a social construct and are personal .. societies moreys are semi-universal within a homogenous society ...

sadly terrorists are neither amoral or sociopaths ... but have developed in a divergent sub-society. The good news is that the morals of an individual CAN be reprogrammed .. as well as the moreys of a society. So ... you take out the active terrorists and then try to put a face on the "enemy"

Does anyone consider how thoughts and beliefs work and how they might provide explanations for the actions of serial killers, terrorists . . . or the average Joe?

nah .. sorry ... can't agree with the 'evil' thing ... i don't think a dog with rabies id evil either ... just needs to be put down.

A dog with rabies is hurt and sick and confused and attacking in what it thinks is self-defence.

Leonard Lake raped, tortured and killed girls chained up in underground pits while filming it so that he could play with his pee-pee and ENJOY it over and over again.

No "explanations" for that!

Does anyone consider how thoughts and beliefs work and how they might provide explanations for the actions of serial killers, terrorists

The people in their sights don't have time to philosophise about it.

I don't care if someone has the best excuse in the world to kill my family. I want him stopped.

cv

Does anyone consider how thoughts and beliefs work and how they might provide explanations for the actions of serial killers, terrorists

The people in their sights don't have time to philosophise about it.

I don't care if someone has the best excuse in the world to kill my family. I want him stopped.

cv

Exactly.

nah .. sorry ... can't agree with the 'evil' thing ... i don't think a dog with rabies id evil either ... just needs to be put down.

A dog with rabies is hurt and sick and confused and attacking in what it thinks is self-defence.

Leonard Lake raped, tortured and killed girls chained up in underground pits while filming it so that he could play with his pee-pee and ENJOY it over and over again.

No "explanations" for that!

I disagree ... both are damaged mentally and cannot be repaired ... a bullet to the brain solves either problem well ... just that good and evil does not enter into it.

nah .. sorry ... can't agree with the 'evil' thing ... i don't think a dog with rabies id evil either ... just needs to be put down.

A dog with rabies is hurt and sick and confused and attacking in what it thinks is self-defence.

Leonard Lake raped, tortured and killed girls chained up in underground pits while filming it so that he could play with his pee-pee and ENJOY it over and over again.

No "explanations" for that!

a bullet to the brain solves either problem well ...

Here's something that we can agree on!

Does anyone consider how thoughts and beliefs work and how they might provide explanations for the actions of serial killers, terrorists . . . or the average Joe?

The people in their sights don't have time to philosophise about it.

I don't care if someone has the best excuse in the world to kill my family. I want him stopped.

cv

Vic, my question isn't meant as an attempt to find excuses for, and certainly not to justify the actions of, serial killers or terrorists. I included the 'average Joe' with good reason, so that part is not to be omitted from the original question. Also, the question isn't posed for the sake of mere philosophical specualtion or musings. If you were to dig into it you'd find the answer has more than just practical applications. Your world view and understanding regarding any issue would shift dramatically as a result.

So think about the question again and let me know what you come up with. Or any other poster who's shown interest in this topic.

Evil is like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder.

It's all point of view, which is why the good guys will never be that good and the bad guys will always get some sympathy.

I'm sure that Charles Ng and Leonard Lake will be happy to hear that.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers.../ng/call_1.html

I'm not sure what your point is.

Are you defending thrill killers now?

Go read what they did and tell me that "evil is a point of view".

Knock off the "everyone is good" nonsense.

I am not defending anyone. It is you who thinks I am defending someone. I am troubled that you still do not understand my point. It's simple, many philosophers have dealt with these ideas before.

I DO understand your point. No, you don't. You are not the only TV member to have read and studied philosophy, however, I think that it is pointless, namby-pamby bulls*it. All philosophy, even Bush's philoslophy? What are you refering too? Do you know what you are refering too? Locke is namby - pamby bullsht? The man who influenced the US constitution is namby pamby bullsht? I guess King Charles will be glad to hear this.

Both you and Tip keep avoiding commenting on thrill/serial killers. No, I was very clear on them. I said punish them, didn't I? I said that if they killed your kin you have every right to kill them and shouldn't care if society says you are evil for skipping due process, didn't I? Do you think that someone, somewhere thinks that they are justified for raping, torturing and killing others for the fun of it? So, then my example of killing these people I hate, does this mean I am evil because I would enjoy it? Does this mean that I am good because I have a cause? You are avoiding answering my questions, UG. Does anyone think that they are "good"? This proves you are missing the whole point and not reading what I write. Yes, the thrill killer likes what he does and thinks he is good, you don't think he is good and thus you want him dead. Two view points on the same person. Okay?

Terrorists are just glorified serial killers who also maim and murder innocents. Who cares what lame excuses they make for their barbaric acts? That's your view, not theirs. You just have yet to reconcile these two view points. I don't care what you think of them. I care if you want them dead or even if you could/would kill them yourself. But to ignore what they think and what others think is a weakness and underestimating your enemy. Know your enemy-SunTzu, more namby pamby bullsht.

One does not need to understand one's enemy, one just has to make them dead, before they make you dead.

-britmaveric

One does not need to understand one's enemy, one just has to make them dead, before they make you dead.

-britmaveric

Normally when you post you do it with a gain of intelligence, what are we aiming for here an atom? I think you might be joking, but I will use you as an example. What do you think the COs in charge of the US Armed Forces are doing? How do you find the enemy? Where is their weakness? When are they the weakest? Where do you strike? Who do you strike? How do you strike? You have to know your enemy.

They got an expression down in Texas where they have the Death Penalty. You come to our state and kill somebody...we'll kill ya right back. Couldn't be more plain than that.

All these Ivory Tower philosophical types can pontificate 'till the cows come home but bottom line - someone who ends the life of another through malice of forethought, deserves to die. End of story.

One does not need to understand one's enemy, one just has to make them dead, before they make you dead.

-britmaveric

The tried and true method there, right Brit? Gee, is that an original idea? Sorry to be a little facetious but let's face it, that's a philosophy that hasn't worked too well over the past few years . . . going back to the beginnings of recorded time.

Understanding, and I don't mean your enemy, can avert making enemies in the first place. Better to nip it in the bud than let a situation deteriorate to the point of intolerableness, wouldn't you say? It's only when you reach that point that it seems your only alternative is to then follow the type of advice which you offer above.

If people don't have the wisdom to avoid bad situations then what would make anyone think they would have the wisdom to find solutions and take appropriate action after they've managed to create a mess? Seems a little incongruous, don't you think?

They got an expression down in Texas where they have the Death Penalty. You come to our state and kill somebody...we'll kill ya right back. Couldn't be more plain than that.

If one is lacking mental capacity then substitue bravado. Might is right. That one's been played out often enough through history with the usual poor results to show, too. Hey, if you kill a few innocents in the process the means are still justified, eh? That's a philosophy for the slow to learn, Boonie. Or for those not willing to expend the effort to use the brains that they do have.

All these Ivory Tower philosophical types can pontificate 'till the cows come home but bottom line - someone who ends the life of another through malice of forethought, deserves to die. End of story.

It's funny how once a person has drawn their conclusions and settled upon their convictions everyone else just seems to be engaged in mindless and wasteful philosophizing. Why, the above is simply your philosophy, Boonie. As soon as the words "I think" are uttered you are on the verge of spouting your philosophical viewpoints. Personal convictions become personal fact and facts are not to be questioned. When that happens you've just slammed the mental door and will no longer allow anything else to enter in. These are the people who most often aver to have "open minds" and healthy mental flexibility. My response:

Vic, my question isn't meant as an attempt to find excuses for, and certainly not to justify the actions of, serial killers or terrorists. I included the 'average Joe' with good reason, so that part is not to be omitted from the original question. Also, the question isn't posed for the sake of mere philosophical specualtion or musings. If you were to dig into it you'd find the answer has more than just practical applications. Your world view and understanding regarding any issue would shift dramatically as a result.

So think about the question again and let me know what you come up with. Or any other poster who's shown interest in this topic.

Any takers?

Evil is like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder.

It's all point of view, which is why the good guys will never be that good and the bad guys will always get some sympathy.

I'm sure that Charles Ng and Leonard Lake will be happy to hear that.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers.../ng/call_1.html

I'm not sure what your point is.

Are you defending thrill killers now?

Go read what they did and tell me that "evil is a point of view".

Knock off the "everyone is good" nonsense.

I am not defending anyone. It is you who thinks I am defending someone. I am troubled that you still do not understand my point. It's simple, many philosophers have dealt with these ideas before.

I DO understand your point. No, you don't. You are not the only TV member to have read and studied philosophy, however, I think that it is pointless, namby-pamby bulls*it. All philosophy, even Bush's philoslophy? What are you refering too? Do you know what you are refering too? Locke is namby - pamby bullsht? The man who influenced the US constitution is namby pamby bullsht? I guess King Charles will be glad to hear this.

Both you and Tip keep avoiding commenting on thrill/serial killers. No, I was very clear on them. I said punish them, didn't I? I said that if they killed your kin you have every right to kill them and shouldn't care if society says you are evil for skipping due process, didn't I? Do you think that someone, somewhere thinks that they are justified for raping, torturing and killing others for the fun of it? So, then my example of killing these people I hate, does this mean I am evil because I would enjoy it? Does this mean that I am good because I have a cause? You are avoiding answering my questions, UG. Does anyone think that they are "good"? This proves you are missing the whole point and not reading what I write. Yes, the thrill killer likes what he does and thinks he is good, you don't think he is good and thus you want him dead. Two view points on the same person. Okay?

Terrorists are just glorified serial killers who also maim and murder innocents. Who cares what lame excuses they make for their barbaric acts? That's your view, not theirs. You just have yet to reconcile these two view points. I don't care what you think of them. I care if you want them dead or even if you could/would kill them yourself. But to ignore what they think and what others think is a weakness and underestimating your enemy. Know your enemy-SunTzu, more namby pamby bullsht.

Going around in circles and not saying much of anything is you and Tips specialty. I don't see anything worth answering here.

The only comment of yours worth delving into any further is the way you twisted where I said, "I DO understand your point. You are not the only TV member to have read and studied philosophy, however, I think that it is pointless, namby-pamby bulls*it."

If you don't seperate the two sentences, it becomes obvious that I am talking about YOUR hippy-dippy POINT, not philosophy in general.

Going around in circles and not saying much of anything is you and Tips specialty. I don't see anything worth answering here.

You can't be serious, UG. I have been writing plain English.

One does not need to understand one's enemy, one just has to make them dead, before they make you dead.

-britmaveric

The tried and true method there, right Brit? Gee, is that an original idea?

Are YOU saying anything original?

Go read some Abby Hoffman, Jerry Ruben, Timothy Leary and get back to me.

At least britmaverick picks sensible people to borrow his ideas from.

Going around in circles and not saying much of anything is you and Tips specialty. I don't see anything worth answering here.

You can't be serious, UG. I have been writing plain English.

It is not unheard of for one to talk in circles in plain English.

Evil is like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder.

It's all point of view, which is why the good guys will never be that good and the bad guys will always get some sympathy.

I'm sure that Charles Ng and Leonard Lake will be happy to hear that.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers.../ng/call_1.html

I'm not sure what your point is.

Are you defending thrill killers now?

Go read what they did and tell me that "evil is a point of view".

Knock off the "everyone is good" nonsense.

I am not defending anyone. It is you who thinks I am defending someone. I am troubled that you still do not understand my point. It's simple, many philosophers have dealt with these ideas before.

I DO understand your point. No, you don't. You are not the only TV member to have read and studied philosophy, however, I think that it is pointless, namby-pamby bulls*it. All philosophy, even Bush's philoslophy? What are you refering too? Do you know what you are refering too? Locke is namby - pamby bullsht? The man who influenced the US constitution is namby pamby bullsht? I guess King Charles will be glad to hear this.

Both you and Tip keep avoiding commenting on thrill/serial killers. No, I was very clear on them. I said punish them, didn't I? I said that if they killed your kin you have every right to kill them and shouldn't care if society says you are evil for skipping due process, didn't I? Do you think that someone, somewhere thinks that they are justified for raping, torturing and killing others for the fun of it? So, then my example of killing these people I hate, does this mean I am evil because I would enjoy it? Does this mean that I am good because I have a cause? You are avoiding answering my questions, UG. Does anyone think that they are "good"? This proves you are missing the whole point and not reading what I write. Yes, the thrill killer likes what he does and thinks he is good, you don't think he is good and thus you want him dead. Two view points on the same person. Okay?

Terrorists are just glorified serial killers who also maim and murder innocents. Who cares what lame excuses they make for their barbaric acts? That's your view, not theirs. You just have yet to reconcile these two view points. I don't care what you think of them. I care if you want them dead or even if you could/would kill them yourself. But to ignore what they think and what others think is a weakness and underestimating your enemy. Know your enemy-SunTzu, more namby pamby bullsht.

Going around in circles and not saying much of anything is you and Tips specialty. I don't see anything worth answering here.

The only comment of yours worth delving into any further is the way you twisted where I said, "I DO understand your point. You are not the only TV member to have read and studied philosophy, however, I think that it is pointless, namby-pamby bulls*it."

If you don't seperate the two sentences, it becomes obvious that I am talking about YOUR hippy-dippy POINT, not philosophy in general.

You are not reading what I am righting are you? Would a hippy tell you to kill the person who hurt your family, which I did? Would a hippy tell you that their is a large population of people living in America that he wants to kill and is just waiting for them to step out of line enough to justifiy it to weaker minded allies, which I did?

Whatever, this is over for me, when I want to talk to wall I'll call you.

Whatever, this is over for me, when I want to talk to wall I'll call you.

That makes two of us who are talking to a wall.