If you had to design a test that determined if something was EVIL what would it look like?

[rframe]

If you had to design a test for something that was evil, what would it look like? Once you design your Evil Test, what kinds of things would it classify as Evil?

This test already exists, it's called: a mirror.

Have person stand in front of mirror, if they have a reflection... they're evil.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Perhaps I call it evil because the Germans killed all my mother's family? Perhaps too because I've heard so many people's first hand histories of the acts of evil that were committed in Germany and the countries they occupied. Call me biased of course if you like...

Nope... because you're not, Germany, or more to the point some Germans, committed horrendous acts that I could only call evil as did the Japanese of that same period in history. Not all Germans from that period were evil or coud be called evil by association with the acts they committed . Call Hitler or Mengele evil or many of the Third Reich evil and you would get no argument form me. Call my freshman year in college German teacher evil, who was in Berlin during WW II and I would not agree. He was a small child trying to survive at the end of the war as German and Russian troops shot through the floors of the building he lived in trying to kill each other as his family hid where ever they could. He remembers a Russian soilder kicking in thier door and shooting through the ceiling actually. Now if you wanted to call him a jerk I’d agree with that…he grew upto be one.. but evil, just because he is German and was there during the war...no

However Germany is not necessarily evil and Germany of the21st century is not the same Germany of the 30s and 40s either.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I used an Analogy.
You didnt.
Perhaps Your Statement will come across better.

aaa no, I said what I wanted to say and that is all...did not need the analogy...just stating facts as I see them and have learned them based on history, pshychology and sociology.

Not exactly sure what you were getting at with that response actually. My post was more to the OP than anything else but I can see why there would be confusion there since I forgot to quote him

 

[Cyriacus]

aaa no, I said what I wanted to say and that is all...did not need the analogy...just stating facts as I see them and have learned them based on history, pshychology and sociology.

Not exactly sure what you were getting at with that response actually. My post was more to the OP than anything else but I can see why there would be confusion there since I forgot to quote him

I was acknowledging that perhaps using an Analogy was the wrong way to go about responding. At the time, I just decided to use an analogy, is all.
The result of that Analogy was an exchange of words.

Does that clear it up for You?

 

[MA-Caver]

What is evil and what is good?
Only our hearts can decide that.

Once you've determined that then you can design a test.
For me it's simple... I ask my heart how I feel about this that or the other thing/person/place... then I act accordingly to my heart's desires.

 

[Xue Sheng]

*[/COLOR]*Was Hitler Evil?
The most Evil thing Hitler did, was allow His Heirarchs and Generals the Freedom to use Unnecessary Force.

Umm you may want to check the history on that one as to how much influence Hitler actually had, it is well documented

Also you may want to check the history on the Rise of Hitler and the Third Reich.

 

[Cyriacus]

Umm you may want to check the history on that one as to how much influence Hitler actually had, it is well documented

Also you may want to check the history on the Rise of Hitler and the Third Reich.

[/COLOR]

Here we go, Good Sir.
I never said He didnt. I said, "The most Evil thing Hitler did,"
Not the Only. The MOST.
And the fact that He did allow those Freedoms did lead to a fair few of the negative outcomes.

EDIT: By which I mean, that He gave the Instructions and allowed the Freedoms, alot more than He actually did the work Himself.
Id be inclined to call the people who went out and committed the deeds more Evil than He was for allowing it, or asking for it.

 

[Tez3]

Nope... because you're not, Germany, or more to the point some Germans, committed horrendous acts that I could only call evil as did the Japanese of that same period in history. Not all Germans from that period were evil or coud be called evil by association with the acts they committed . Call Hitler or Mengele evil or many of the Third Reich evil and you would get no argument form me. Call my freshman year in college German teacher evil, who was in Berlin during WW II and I would not agree. He was a small child trying to survive at the end of the war as German and Russian troops shot through the floors of the building he lived in trying to kill each other as his family hid where ever they could. He remembers a Russian soilder kicking in thier door and shooting through the ceiling actually. Now if you wanted to call him a jerk I’d agree with that…he grew upto be one.. but evil, just because he is German and was there during the war...no

However Germany is not necessarily evil and Germany of the21st century is not the same Germany of the 30s and 40s either.

I didn't say the Germans were evil or that modern Germany was evil. The point I was trying to make is that the argument that Cyriacus puts forward that only the German High command and politicians did 'bad' things and that no 'evil' was done in Germany is false. He is trying to say that because they were the enemy we are demonising them. I was pointing out that acts of evil were committed by 'ordinary' people and that this couldn't be blamed on Hitler or 'pressures from the First World War. He's determined that the word 'evil' should be used but for the horrors that were committed by people what other word would do?
I know what happened to my family, the died in the camps where a huge number of evil acts happened, I don't think you can get around or excuse acts such as happened there with semantics.
Evil exists ie evil is nailing babies to trees in the Balkans, saying you want to use different words for evil is not facing up to what is happening.

 

[Cyriacus]

I didn't say the Germans were evil or that modern Germany was evil. The point I was trying to make is that the argument that Cyriacus puts forward that only the German High command and politicians did 'bad' things

Ok, apparently I havent cleared this up at all. Because that still wasnt what I was ever saying. I said at one point, that the Higher Command and Politicians allowed it. And I never implied that ONLY They did it, and if I did, it certainly wasnt intentional.

and that no 'evil' was done in Germany is false.

Aha.

He is trying to say that because they were the enemy we are demonising them.

Were not demonising Them, so much as singling Them out to be the Demons. Which was also meant to be the point. Hence why Ive brought up Russia many times now.

I was pointing out that acts of evil were committed by 'ordinary' people and that this couldn't be blamed on Hitler or 'pressures from the First World War.

Which I acknowledged, and on a couple of notes, noted that I had already acknowledged that.

He's determined that the word 'evil' should be used but for the horrors that were committed by people what other word would do?

Ive determined that I prefer to use specific terms, instead of a blanket statement. Nothing more.

I know what happened to my family, the died in the camps where a huge number of evil acts happened, I don't think you can get around or excuse acts such as happened there with semantics.

I NEVER TRIED TO EXCUSE THE ACTIONS. On many occassions here in This Thread, I have condemned them. But somehow, You are repeatedly overlooking that.

Evil exists ie evil is nailing babies to trees in the Balkans, saying you want to use different words for evil is not facing up to what is happening.

When did I try to deny any of this was happening? At what point, did I deny that Atrocities were committed? I ask again:

So what is this? A "How Dare I Condemn Them But Not Condemn Them With The Word Evil" situation here?

 

[Xue Sheng]

I was acknowledging that perhaps using an Analogy was the wrong way to go about responding. At the time, I just decided to use an analogy, is all.
The result of that Analogy was an exchange of words.

Does that clear it up for You?

Clears it up for me as to what you were trying to say andthat you are missing the point of what Iam saying. Your analogy, IMO, is anover simplification of a very complex issue.

Evil is subjective and highly dependent on the society inwhich you are trying to define evil and it is also highly dependent on the timeperiod in which you are trying to define it.

based on your analogy we agree it is subjective however itis subjective based on the society you are talking about as it applies to history.What may have been called evil 1000 years ago may not be called evil now andwhat may have not been called evil 1000 years ago may be called evil now. Andwhat one society calls evil may not be thought of as evil by another and thefurther you get from the current time we live in the more murky that canbecome.

I also do not agree using words that are not evil todescribe someone’s deeds if in fact I see them or they are judge by history asevil. Yes Hitler may have once helped an old lady across the Straße but ultimatelyhe is evil and ordering exterminations of thousands would constitute an act ofevil and his complicity in an evil act thereby “evil”. Stalin killed thousandsand even though he played a big part in helping overthrow Hitler he too hasproven to be mostly evil by deeds. And I do not think I would attempt todescribe Pol Pot in non-evil ways either. Although he may have done some goodin his life he also committed great acts of evil.

IMO, looking at people and focusing only on describing themin ways based on deeds in words that are not evil is denying or ignoring whatthe person actually did or who they were.

 

[Cyriacus]

Clears it up for me as to what you were trying to say andthat you are missing the point of what Iam saying. Your analogy, IMO, is anover simplification of a very complex issue.

I realise this. Which is why I acknowledged that perhaps saying less, is being clearer.

Evil is subjective and highly dependent on the society inwhich you are trying to define evil and it is also highly dependent on the timeperiod in which you are trying to define it.

based on your analogy we agree it is subjective however itis subjective based on the society you are talking about as it applies to history.What may have been called evil 1000 years ago may not be called evil now andwhat may have not been called evil 1000 years ago may be called evil now. Andwhat one society calls evil may not be thought of as evil by another and thefurther you get from the current time we live in the more murky that canbecome.

Yes. And I never denied that.

I also do not agree using words that are not evil todescribe someone’s deeds if in fact I see them or they are judge by history asevil.

If I were to choose to not use specific words, I would readily call them Evil. Am I not permitted to hold a preference in this matter, or defend it, without being accused of not acknowledging, or being blinkered to, these harsh acts both then and now?

Yes Hitler may have once helped an old lady across the Straße but ultimatelyhe is evil and ordering exterminations of thousands would constitute an act ofevil and his complicity in an evil act thereby “evil”. Stalin killed thousandsand even though he played a big part in helping overthrow Hitler he too hasproven to be mostly evil by deeds.

You realise that this makes us in Agreement?* EDIT: And Id better say "On that part of things", before that gets misread.

And I do not think I would attempt todescribe Pol Pot in non-evil ways either. Although he may have done some goodin his life he also committed great acts of evil.

He has committed acts of Evil. He has commited cruel atrocities. So if I use the second statement, Im blinkered to whats going on, apparently.

IMO, looking at people and focusing only on describing themin ways based on deeds in words that are not evil is denying or ignoring whatthe person actually did or who they were.

There deeds make them Evil, correct? And what constitutes evil? Disturbing acts of unjust and unfair cruelty? Genocides? I prefer to call them that, instead of using one term to summarize it. Thats all Ive ever been saying, from the very start.

*Were not demonising Them, so much as singling Them out to be the Demons. Which was also meant to be the point. Hence why Ive brought up Russia many times now.

Also, Ill point out incase it isnt clear, that Im not trying to prove anyone wrong, or Myself right. And I consider this to be an interesting debate, for the very reason We dont seem to be agreeing.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I didn't say the Germans were evil or that modern Germany was evil. The point I was trying to make is that the argument that Cyriacus puts forward that only the German High command and politicians did 'bad' things and that no 'evil' was done in Germany is false. He is trying to say that because they were the enemy we are demonising them. I was pointing out that acts of evil were committed by 'ordinary' people and that this couldn't be blamed on Hitler or 'pressures from the First World War. He's determined that the word 'evil' should be used but for the horrors that were committed by people what other word would do?
I know what happened to my family, the died in the camps where a huge number of evil acts happened, I don't think you can get around or excuse acts such as happened there with semantics.
Evil exists ie evil is nailing babies to trees in the Balkans, saying you want to use different words for evil is not facing up to what is happening.

We do not disagree.... well I do a bit...maybe...not exactlysure.... yes there was evil done by Germans that were not in the high commandand the history of Germany between WWII and WWI is very complicated and I do notwant to type that much at the moment...or ever... so I will not get into thathere, basically there were a lot of contributing factors both from inside andoutside of Germany but none of that excuses Nazi death camps

There is a question I have heard however as it applies toGermany during WWII. Was the average German citizen responsible for orcomplicit in that evil acts done by ot ordered by other Germans jsut becausethey did nothing or because they were powerless to do nothing?

And for the record I did not have any family that wentthrough what yours did but I did have family in WW II and an Uncle on thebeaches on D-Day who did survived D-day and did get off the beach, he also survivedthe war but once he got off the beaches stepped over a dead German soldier whowas booby trapped and my uncle spent some time in the hospital form that.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Here we go, Good Sir.
I never said He didnt. I said, "The most Evil thing Hitler did,"
Not the Only. The MOST.
And the fact that He did allow those Freedoms did lead to a fair few of the negative outcomes.

EDIT: By which I mean, that He gave the Instructions and allowed the Freedoms, alot more than He actually did the work Himself.
Id be inclined to call the people who went out and committed the deeds more Evil than He was for allowing it, or asking for it.

Nope, he gave orders, not instructions, to have things done or those that he ordered to do them would be replaced or shot.... he flat stopped listineing to his Generals as the war went on actually... like I said...you need to check your history...it is rather well documented.

 

[Xue Sheng]

*Were not demonising Them, so much as singling Them out to be the Demons. Which was also meant to be the point. Hence why Ive brought up Russia many times now.

Also, Ill point out incase it isnt clear, that Im not trying to prove anyone wrong, or Myself right. And I consider this to be an interesting debate, for the very reason We dont seem to be agreeing.

You do realize that bold, in a web discusion, is taken as yelling don't you?

 

[Cyriacus]

Nope, he gave orders, not instructions, to have things done or those that he ordered to do them would be replaced or shot....

Ok Good Sir. One thing. "He Instructed Them to Shoot Him." "He Ordered Them to Shoot Him." - This may just be a difference in what I was taught and what You were, but I wasnt aware of a tremendous difference between saying that a person in a position of Authority gives an Instruction or an Order. If Im mistaken in that, Im more than willing to commit that to memory.

he flat stopped listineing to his Generals as the war went on actually...

I know that. And how exactly is that relevant to the matter at hand? They werent exactly arresting Civilians for committing Hate Crimes. They had the Freedom to do it. Freedom He allowed. Where did I say He was listening to His Generals? All I said, was that He pretty much gave Them heavyhanded orders, then set them loose.

like I said...you need to check your history...it is rather well documented.

I have been, as we go along. And this was never intended to be a fully documented History Lesson courtesy of Me: Your additional MartialTalk user. It was an Analogy. Im almost inclined to just do this:

Question:
If I suddenly, for the sake of Conversation, Concurred, and agreed to use the Word Evil, and then that that Hitler was Evil, the Nazis were Evil, Stalin and the Soviets were Evil, what happened in Vietnam and Cambodia and all those other places to face Atrocity were Evil...
Would that make absolutely everything else Ive said suddenly more valid?

Would You also like Me to spend hours documenting as many details as I can, rather than dare to focus on the relevant aspects?
For that matter, Were drifting more and more into aspects that were quite deliberately barely touched on initially, because it was always an Analogy. Not a Fully Detailed History Lesson.

 

[Cyriacus]

You do realize that bold, in a web discusion, is taken as yelling don't you?

To My knowledge, its the only way to Reply to seperate parts of a Quote, without manually inputting HTMLfor each bit I want, and so forth.
Ive used the device of Bolding Text, as have others, to do that for Months now, and have never had any dramas as a result. And it was Bold there, because it was Copied from where it was Bold in the post.
My sincere apologies if You were mislead by that to think I was yelling at You, since it was in a Quote. And not in My Reply. Like this, here. Which isnt Bold.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Question:
If I suddenly, for the sake of Conversation, Concurred, and agreed to use the Word Evil, and then that that Hitler was Evil, the Nazis were Evil, Stalin and the Soviets were Evil, what happened in Vietnam and Cambodia and all those other places to face Atrocity were Evil...
Would that make absolutely everything else Ive said suddenly more valid?

Would You also like Me to spend hours documenting as many details as I can, rather than dare to focus on the relevant aspects?
For that matter, Were drifting more and more into aspects that were quite deliberately barely touched on initially, because it was always an Analogy. Not a Fully Detailed History Lesson.

History is important and you have made it important based on your statement you are making a statement about Hitler that is historically incorrect to make your point you when are saying that he gave instruction and thereby suggesting that took those instructions where the ones that committed the evil acts on their own and thereby leaving the possibility that Hitler was unaware of those acts. Giving instructions and giving orders is not the same thing similar but not the same. With an order comes a command or a mandate from an authority that does not come with instructions. Therefore Hitler did not give instructions which leave room for interpretation he gave orders that were to be carried out.

As to the rest, describe them any way you wish but from my POV you are avoiding the reality of it. But then I only know you via this web interface and it is possible that I am miss understanding what you are saying but then I only have what you type here to go on.

But enough of this, I am at work and have a job to do..later

 

[Cyriacus]

History is important and you have made it important based on your statement you are making a statement about Hitler that is historically incorrect to make your point you when are saying that he gave instruction and thereby suggesting that took those instructions where the ones that committed the evil acts on their own and thereby leaving the possibility that Hitler was unaware of those acts.

Unaware of the acts? Where did You even get that from. I have acknowledged, so many times now, every one of these deeds. I have acknowledged full well that He ordered Concentration Camps, and everything else. I never said He wasnt responsible, I only ever said that He didnt do those things personally, and that it ought make the people who did do it, more despicable in My Eyes.

Giving instructions and giving orders is not the same thing similar but not the same. With an order comes a command or a mandate from an authority that does not come with instructions. Therefore Hitler did not give instructions which leave room for interpretation he gave orders that were to be carried out.

I have learnt something today. Thankyou.

As to the rest, describe them any way you wish but from my POV you are avoiding the reality of it. But then I only know you via this web interface and it is possible that I am miss understanding what you are saying but then I only have what you type here to go on.

And I have typed so, so, so many times now, that I condemn Their actions. I consider them atrocious. I consider them despicable. I have said that many, many times, but apparently, it means nothing, if I dont use the word Evil. Which is why I asked, and in fact, Ill do it, right now. They are Evil. I will use the word Evil. I have stopped caring about My personal preference in terminology. They are Evil, Their Deeds were Evil, the Deeds themselves were Evil. There, happy? Does that really change anything else? Am I less blinkered now, because Im using a different term for it?

I await Your Response.
Im also pretyping a collective of every single time Ive condemned Them for what They did, to use as a Reply for if someone again declares that Im avoiding Reality.

 

[MA-Caver]

Hey how about something more simpler for an example between evil and good.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sidesho...hlc2lkZXNob3cEcHQDc3RvcnlwYWdlBHRlc3QD;_ylv=3

 

[Cyriacus]

Hey how about something more simpler for an example between evil and good.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sidesho...hlc2lkZXNob3cEcHQDc3RvcnlwYWdlBHRlc3QD;_ylv=3

Naturally, choosing between Good and Evil, the Theft was Evil. And the Aid, Good.