Talk:Evil: Difference between revisions

Archives

---

1. October 2001 – October 2006

Meta evil

This article itself is evil, especially the "See also" section. What a load of speculative garbage! Mike Dillon 17:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I have looked at the "See also" section, and I agree it had several questionable entries. I have removed the links to Axis of Evil and Evil empire because these are already covered by the link to Political usages of the term evil (which also explains them slightly, though that stub could use much improvement). I have removed the list entry "Evil (A musician based out of the Twin Cities, Mn.)" because it wasn't a link to another Wikipedia article, as is customary for the "See also" section. I also removed the link to "Jade Duke" because a) the article does not exist, and more importantly, b) a Google search for Jade Duke turns up nothing on the first page that suggests any relationship to evil. The links to Erich Heller and Glenn Danzig don't appear to be especially relevant to me. Many philosophers have written about evil, and many musicians have sung about evil; what makes these two so special? I think these links should also be removed, but I've left them in there for now because maybe I'm just not seeing an obvious relevance. The other links I've left alone, as I feel they are relevant to the topic.Paul Armstrong 07:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV violation

A contributor attributes evil to politician Dick Cheney. It is not clear whether the quote fragment the contributor uses is complete or in context. The contributor's selection of one politician, from one party, at the exclusion of others across the political spectrum shows a partisan agenda. This violates NPOV.

Tone

The tone of this article isn't right, espesially the naming of sections. Shall I tag the article as inappropriate? --¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!^{Join Esperanza!} 23:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Tattletale

I just reverted some major vandalism, but maybe someone who's an admin should look into scolding 67.191.105.243 sternly. The user also vandalised disco! For shame. 72.196.104.129 20:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Forget communism, materialism, satanism and totaliaranism. Fascism is the true evil in our society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.197.71 (talk • contribs) 14:43, December 29, 2006 (UTC)

Communism isn't "evil", it just hasn't been properly exercised yet. Materialism isn't "evil", maybe "unfair" as it might end up with one person owning "everything" and another owning "nothing", but not "evil". Satanism isn't "evil" either (ironicly enough), it just has different moral ethics than some other religions. Totalitarianism is not "evil" either, it's just a form of politics that we feel uncomfortable with. Same goes for Facism... Me, myself, I wish that the Earth's population would decrease with about 5 billion humans, does that make me "evil"? Nope, my reasons for wishing this kinda justifies the ends (that, and I wouldn't dream of causing a genocide to achieve those ends, I'd rather just see the world of humans slowly dissapear with them completely unaware of it). 217.208.27.4 00:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Seriously, this user's comment submission is a bit scary to me. Perhaps its even a ironic display of evil?

"...I'd rather just see the world of humans slowly dissapear with them completely unaware of it". You know, we're quite capable of that. Toss a few thousand nuclear weapons all over the globe, or better yet, ship them remotely to all the places we just don't like, have them all go off simultaneously... Seems to meet your criteria. I'm sure the billions dying wouldn't be aware of the imminent death. Oh, you said "slowly"? Ok, we'll space out the events over the next hour, (that "slow" enough?) and remembering to knock out all satellite communications first.

What does them being unaware of their fates have anything to do with it?

Let me put some words in your mouth. Your statement really is a statement about your perception of an "ideal world". Who knows where the 1 billion number came from or why that's "ideal", but that's your ideal. Obviously, if we have 6 billion now, and we only want 1 billion for the future, we have a problem. You don't want to propose genocide (an obvious solution). But any transitory event that might precipitate transforming this world to your 1,000,000,000 people world wish that avoids the "evils" of genocide whatever you find "evil" would be welcome, (to you).

But, there's a problem. What if no path exists? What if there is no set of transitory states such that the limit point(s) fit some definition of the ideal world? If such a path cannot not exist, then surely there's some better ideal that exists that we can forge our efforts in closing producing a "better" spirit for Jesus/people/world/flying spaghetti monster/ etc. Otherwise, we'd be slaving away at something we cannot accomplish (if even partially). It would be much like that song, "Sixteen tons"

Sixteen tons, and what do you get,

Another day older and deeper in dept,

Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go

I owe my soul to the company store.

We'd be owing our "soul to the company store" for something we cannot get, and possibly get even worse off in the process. I'd argue that this is a form of evil that it would be hard to argue is not evil.

The same argument can be said if the problem is intractable rather than unsolvable. This wish to reduce the population is at the very least intractable.

The other scary portion about the 1,000,000,000 people world wish is, how random the goal is... I mean, why 1 billion. There's been no justification, other than "we'd like the world to be a bit smaller" to reduce pollution or whatever. If not 1 billion, why not 500 million? Why not 500,000 elite scientists? Does this not sound incredibly dystopian to you?

I'm sorry, I just find it incredibly funny that in a discussion page about "Evil" that I'm having to point out to you that your thought processes reek of it.

In my view, there are no evil people, only evil actions and evil thoughts.

What utter rot. There is no such thing as evil, in people, action or thought. Evil is nothing but pure fantasy. And besides, what does any of this have to do with the page itself? AngryStan 02:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fine me, after I wrote that long piece I realized it had nothing to do with the article, and probably should have ignored the poster, who's comments are in a similiar reign. And frankly, you're trolling, (If evil is "pure fiction", what is this article? Hahaha... that's fucking hilarious Evil is pure fiction... HA HA HA HA HA!

(calming down)... ok, perhaps one of us should delete most of this section. I felt it necessary to warn against that kind of reasoning. Obviously, you don't agree, and probably never will. So be it.Root4(one) 02:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

We all have thoughts exploring possibilities like this; it is human nature. But I think that there is enough wisdom available to realize that this chain of thought is not appropriate. I beg of you to reconsider your thoughts. Root4(one) 01:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Archive created

I've gone ahead and archived all the old posts here. If you wish to continue any of the discussions found in the archive, please create a new topic here instead. Do not edit the archive.

The dates are a bit off, but I didn't want to leave this page with only one or two topics showing. Later, when it comes time to archive again, we can move the last few posts dated October into Archive 1, and create Archive 2 for the next segment. -- Kesh 22:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

21st cen.

Evil is subjective by the standards of the current corrupt societies of the modern era as this article expresses. I am sure the article only reflects most people today anyway. Poor article, not fit for an encyclopedia. --Margrave1206 20:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I understand you. I think the concept of evil is certainly eminently suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Or do you mean the article is poorly written? This I agree with, in part. With the exception of the final two paragraphs in the "Is evil good?" section, I think the page should end after the second paragraph of the "Is evil a useful term?" section. The rest of it is a strange and irrelevant meandering, only vaguely related to the subject at hand. The fact that evil is a subjective concept is in any case inescapable, as are articles that "only reflect most people". AngryStan 20:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Tone

On the first line of the article : In religion and ethics, Evil refers to the "bad" aspects of the behaviour and reasoning of human beings - "bad" seems a bit informal. Is there any objection to me changing this to negative? SparrowsWing _(talk) 02:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but not sure "negative" is the right word either - idleness, for instance, could be viewed as "negative", but hardly as "bad" or "evil". "Negative" doesn't necessarily have the moral connotation that "evil" or "bad" does. Maybe "objectionable" or "morally objectionable" would be better? AngryStan 04:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think "morally objectionable" is definitely the better alternative. I'll make the change. SparrowsWing _(talk) 20:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Irish Evil

I've been amused with this particular muffin of joy for quite some time. Finally found out that this comic is the source of that particular gem. It's never tiresome and it's funnier than whatStephen Colbert has been doing. -- Kesh 04:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Darn. I was hoping it had something to do with leprechauns. AngryStan 00:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)