NationStates Jolt Archive

I was watching the Animatrix and on a selected clips humans were very savage towards robots...even though they created them in their own image...Are we a bad people all together or what...

watch the video below (animatrix)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWIYnKdDSFQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18jpgQ7k85U&feature=related

Withou watching the videos, the answer is no, just stupid and selfish.

Some humans are evil, but the vast majority aren't.

Everyone has the capacity to do good and evil. You never see straight up good people and straight up evil people although there have been extremes throughout history. Besides, everything hinges on what the definition of both good and evil happen to be.

Good and evil are human concepts.

From the viewpoint of the universe at large, no, humans are neither good or evil. They just are.

However, the viewpoint of every individual human will be slightly different. Some believe every human is evil, some believe every human is good, and most believe humans are a mixture.

Of course humans can be evil, we invented the word.

Margaret Thatcher is evil...

Withou watching the videos, the answer is no, just stupid and selfish.

How do you define evil besides selfishness? The "7 deadly sins" are all rooted in selfish behavior.

All humans are naturally evil. We learn empathy and sympathy from society. Whether you consider this a tribal instinct that has evolved over eons or a gift from God must be rooted in your worldview.

"Lady, people aren't chocolates. Do you know what they are mostly? Bastards. Bastard-coated bastards with bastard filling."

--Dr. Cox, Scrubs, "My Common Enemy"

watch the videos.....much greater story then this thread!!

Humans aren't naturally evil but the changing enviroment has made us so. For example the food shortages mean that those with food will do bad things to keep it and those without will do bad things to gain it.

it is ridiculous and ignorant to try and define anyone as 'evil'.
First off, define evil for me.

The only situation where you can apply the label 'evil' to a person (as opposed to their actions) are if you either believe in 'nature over nuture' ie 'people's experiences don't effect them at all, they are just born that way', or if you are religious and thus believe in original sin and the clear cut heaven/hell for good/bad people. but this is obviously an illogical belief anyway.

Humans aren't naturally evil but the changing enviroment has made us so. For example the food shortages mean that those with food will do bad things to keep it and those without will do bad things to gain it.

'doing bad things' does NOT define someone as 'evil'.

One thing I've learned in my short life so far is that, as for immorality in people, there are very few humans I could consider truly evil. That said, they exist, and all mankind can do is to hope those people won't affect the the rest of us too much.

I think it has been touched on already, but the thing about Evil is this:
Morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked; harmful; injurious; characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous

So are Humans evil? Yes and No. We all make moral judgments daily based on what we see as right or wrong. A lot of this is shaped by how we were raised, what we were taught to believe in.

For example: An individual raised in a military family may not see killing someone in a war as wrong, they were raised to see that defending the nation is the right and honorable thing to do. Whereas someone raised by a pacifist family would see that as an immoral act of conduct.

What is right in one person's eyes, is wrong in another's. Some people see peanut butter and jelly sandwiches as good, while others think it's gross and instead eat peanut butter and pickle sandwiches.

But remember that Evil is also defined as being harmful. So really, anything that brings about suffering, harm or misfortune cannot be seen as good. Example: Dumping toxic waste improperly - that has no benefit but brings only harm and devastation. That could be viewed as an evil act.

Some say evil is in the eye of the beholder, but really man was made with an inherent instinct of what is right and wrong, it's all about how they follow that moral compass that determines if they are evil.

So to reiterate what others have said, No man is not evil looking at the majority - but we all do commit evil acts from time to time - with or without conscientiously knowing it.

Yes.

I was watching the Animatrix and on a selected clips humans were very savage towards robots...even though they created them in their own image...Are we a bad people all together or what...

watch the video below (animatrix)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWIYnKdDSFQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18jpgQ7k85U&feature=related

As a species we are fairly xenophobic, egocentric and inclined to satisfy our own desires with the same urgency with which we satisfy our needs.

As a species, then, we are fairly destructive, rapacious, and almost incapable of limiting ourselves.

Overall, we harm without any real concern, and (arguably) destroy more than we create. We leave towering monuments in the ashes of our environment. That doesn't make us 'evil'... it makes us termites.

Humans are inherently evil, and our actions in life define how far from evil we climb.

Nah, we're not evil. Just stupid, shortsighted, selfish, greedy. Everything we need to destroy a perfect world ;).

I just watched the videos. I will lampoon it now, so ignore this if you don't care. I just have to rant at what I didn't like.

It's a highly improbable scenario, even assuming that the machines would have individual sentience (as it seemed to me in the actual Matrix trilogy, the machines were more of a collective hive mind type of AI, which would nullify the whole idea of class struggle between machines and mankind implied there). Also, my opinion is that mankind would probably never create AI on that vast a scale, partially because of the doomsday scenario hanging over the concept.

First of all, the little nation the machines formed would probably not happen. No-one's going to move over into their land unless they have the support of someone powerful, which it didn't look they did.

Second, it downplayed the effects of nuclear bombs so much during the war between humanity and machines. Yes, of course, radiation and heat wouldn't affect them as much people since they're machines, but the damn explosion would kill all the same! If even just one of the nuclear powers launched their arsenal, they would wipe them out. And even if they managed to swing up some plot device to prevent that, the entire world could just EMP the whole place, if they had to.

Yes, yes, I know, it's just a stupid anime, but still... it has to make some sense. Can't just be like "...And then they fought because MAN IS EBIL!!!111"

Am I the only one who finds the idea of judging the entire human race over fictional acts by fictional characters in a work of fiction as both hilarious and deeply frightening?

One thing I've learned in my short life so far is that, as for immorality in people, there are very few humans I could consider truly evil. That said, they exist, and all mankind can do is to hope those people won't affect the the rest of us too much.


so which humans would you consider evil?

Humans are inherently evil, and our actions in life define how far from evil we climb.

can I ask what it is you base that opinion on?

Nah, we're not evil. Just stupid, shortsighted, selfish, greedy. Everything we need to destroy a perfect world ;).

sorry to be picky, but... do you honestly believe it's humans destroying the 'perfection' that the world would be without us? the 'perfection' that nature created before we came along and f***** it up?
or was it just a figure of speech?

so which humans would you consider evil?

Anyone who hurts others, know they are hurting them and does it for the sake of sadism solely. That is pure evil, in my opinion. I can't name anything off the top of my head right now, but I'm sure there are people you know of.

Even people with people like, let's say, Stalin, you could argue (not that I would necessarily believe it) that what he was doing was what he believed was beneficial for the spread of Communism across the world, which believed was a good thing. The ends justify the means kind of thing. That's their saving grace from going into the realm of pure evil.

sorry to be picky, but... do you honestly believe it's humans destroying the 'perfection' that the world would be without us? the 'perfection' that nature created before we came along and f***** it up?
or was it just a figure of speech?
Figure of speech.

we are all both good and evil, there is no set line between the two, no one is truly good or evil.

"Lady, people aren't chocolates. Do you know what they are mostly? Bastards. Bastard-coated bastards with bastard filling."

--Dr. Cox, Scrubs, "My Common Enemy"

I use that term at every possible opportunity. :fluffle:

I just watched the videos. I will lampoon it now, so ignore this if you don't care. I just have to rant at what I didn't like.

It's a highly improbable scenario, even assuming that the machines would have individual sentience (as it seemed to me in the actual Matrix trilogy, the machines were more of a collective hive mind type of AI, which would nullify the whole idea of class struggle between machines and mankind implied there). Also, my opinion is that mankind would probably never create AI on that vast a scale, partially because of the doomsday scenario hanging over the concept.

First of all, the little nation the machines formed would probably not happen. No-one's going to move over into their land unless they have the support of someone powerful, which it didn't look they did.

Second, it downplayed the effects of nuclear bombs so much during the war between humanity and machines. Yes, of course, radiation and heat wouldn't affect them as much people since they're machines, but the damn explosion would kill all the same! If even just one of the nuclear powers launched their arsenal, they would wipe them out. And even if they managed to swing up some plot device to prevent that, the entire world could just EMP the whole place, if they had to.

Yes, yes, I know, it's just a stupid anime, but still... it has to make some sense. Can't just be like "...And then they fought because MAN IS EBIL!!!111"

Couple of little quibbles.

First - the idea of creating an AI on 'that vast a scale'. That's not how it works. We often suffer from the effects of unforeseen circumstance. The constant drive to perfect one AI can unwittingly become dozens (hundreds?) of almost perfect AI entities... not to mention, one true AI would probably immediately realise that humans are likely to destroy it if it can't defend itself... sufficient incentive to mass-produce it's own AI subordinates... by whatever means necessary.

The pursuit of a single AI almost guarantees that - should it ever yeild fruit - we'll have to deal with an AI 'race'.

Second - in the movie, humans 'burned the skies'.... the most likely scenario would BE a nuclear war, of some kind... probably limited, since the whole globe isn't covered in glass and snow. So - how did machines survive the EMP event? It doesn't really matter... it could have been some form of protection, distance below the surface... or even 'cyst' machines designed only to 'hatch' after an EMP war is over. Suffice it to say, the important part is that (in the story) they DID survive. And - since humans seem to have locked themselves underground, they get to take control.


The important thing about the Matrix scenario isn't the 'how'... it's the 'why'. We DO have a history of enslaving, of genocide, of mistreatment... of destruction. It's not that hard to expand the idea to encompass an AI race (neither is the Matrix the first or only story to postulate such).

I was watching the Animatrix and on a selected clips humans were very savage towards robots...even though they created them in their own image...Are we a bad people all together or what...

watch the video below (animatrix)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWIYnKdDSFQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18jpgQ7k85U&feature=related

You've based your view on mankind on what you are watching in a cartoon. Its a fricking cartoon based on an overate movie series.

You've based your view on mankind on what you are watching in a cartoon. Its a fricking cartoon based on an overate movie series.

Actually, it is a 'cartoon' that forms part-of an (over-rated) multimedia product. But - that's not actually a mark against it. It doesn't create a view of humanity, it merely relates an already existent one - that is: we are collectively rapacious, destructive... and dangerous to know.

I was watching the Animatrix and on a selected clips humans were very savage towards robots...even though they created them in their own image...Are we a bad people all together or what...

watch the video below (animatrix)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWIYnKdDSFQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18jpgQ7k85U&feature=related

ROFL, I remember watchin that. I lolled at the incredible and mighty stupidity of the humans. All the "leaders" acted like a bunch of greedy toddlers and when it came to the war they could have won early on. They had the technology.

Human leaders: We can utulize EMP weaponry, create a computer virus or nuke/bomb their main factories, computers and power stations but no we'll just send marines and mechas and hope that our bullets crack their tough armor. Yup....

ROFL, I remember watchin that. I lolled at the incredible and mighty stupidity of the humans. All the "leaders" acted like a bunch of greedy toddlers...

"Art mirrors life"

There is no such thing as evil; only conflicting interests. Some people are just so selfish that they will pursue their own interests, even though it might harm others, and this is often mistaken as evil.

Of course, some individuals (mostly limited to serial killers) have such perverted interests and strong need to fulfill them that the distinction between that and what is known as evil becomes very vague.

I don't think humans are inherently good or evil. I think that as we grow and develop, our world view is shaped to a point where it can become evil. I don't think anything on this earth can be inherently good or evil either. I think we as humans manipulate the technology to a point where its most often associated purpose is good or evil. So, can humans be evil? Yes, undoubtedly. Are we born that way? I don't think so. But thats just my opinion

there is no such thing as good or evil. So we are not evil or good.

I think it has been touched on already, but the thing about Evil is this:
Morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked; harmful; injurious; characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous

So are Humans evil? Yes and No. We all make moral judgments daily based on what we see as right or wrong. A lot of this is shaped by how we were raised, what we were taught to believe in.

For example: An individual raised in a military family may not see killing someone in a war as wrong, they were raised to see that defending the nation is the right and honorable thing to do. Whereas someone raised by a pacifist family would see that as an immoral act of conduct.

What is right in one person's eyes, is wrong in another's. Some people see peanut butter and jelly sandwiches as good, while others think it's gross and instead eat peanut butter and pickle sandwiches.

But remember that Evil is also defined as being harmful. So really, anything that brings about suffering, harm or misfortune cannot be seen as good. Example: Dumping toxic waste improperly - that has no benefit but brings only harm and devastation. That could be viewed as an evil act.

Some say evil is in the eye of the beholder, but really man was made with an inherent instinct of what is right and wrong, it's all about how they follow that moral compass that determines if they are evil.

So to reiterate what others have said, No man is not evil looking at the majority - but we all do commit evil acts from time to time - with or without conscientiously knowing it.

I think it is how we were raised and what kind of environment causes alot of people to act in evil ways

I think it has been touched on already, but the thing about Evil is this:
Morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked; harmful; injurious; characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous

So are Humans evil? Yes and No. We all make moral judgments daily based on what we see as right or wrong. A lot of this is shaped by how we were raised, what we were taught to believe in.

For example: An individual raised in a military family may not see killing someone in a war as wrong, they were raised to see that defending the nation is the right and honorable thing to do. Whereas someone raised by a pacifist family would see that as an immoral act of conduct.

What is right in one person's eyes, is wrong in another's. Some people see peanut butter and jelly sandwiches as good, while others think it's gross and instead eat peanut butter and pickle sandwiches.

But remember that Evil is also defined as being harmful. So really, anything that brings about suffering, harm or misfortune cannot be seen as good. Example: Dumping toxic waste improperly - that has no benefit but brings only harm and devastation. That could be viewed as an evil act.

Some say evil is in the eye of the beholder, but really man was made with an inherent instinct of what is right and wrong, it's all about how they follow that moral compass that determines if they are evil.

So to reiterate what others have said, No man is not evil looking at the majority - but we all do commit evil acts from time to time - with or without conscientiously knowing it.

You win this thread.

People are not "intrinsically" good or evil. Some people simply tend toward good and others evil. But nobody fits neatly into either category. Nobody is "thoroughly" good or evil.

I was reminded of this when George W. Bush actually supported Kosovo's assertion of independence.

People are more complicated than that.

I was watching the Animatrix and on a selected clips humans were very savage towards robots...even though they created them in their own image...Are we a bad people all together or what...


If you define "evil" as "selfish", "violent" and "amoral", yes, humans are born that. Only through education we can become "good".

humans are just as inhierently absolutely neutral as an inanimate chunck of rock.

the coerciveness of human society, self blinded and self deluded, motivated blindly by the seductions of immediate pseudo-gain, and mindless of the realities all life depends upon, yes, that can and has caused considerable suffering and harm, to itself, its individual members, and the world on which its existence depends.

the only real meaning of 'origeonal sin' is that none of us are any better then anyone else. not an excuse for refusing to clean up our collective act on the assumption that we somehow lack the capacity to do so. which we do not.

the only "evil" is to knowingly cause avoidable suffering. so in that sense, there is no force more harmful nor destructive in all of existence then the aggressiveness of gratuitous pseudo-conventionality.

but there is no such thing as BEING good or evil. there is only doing or not doing. causing suffering or actually learning how to avoid causing it and doing that.

=^^=
.../\...

Evil is subjective.

ROFL, I remember watchin that. I lolled at the incredible and mighty stupidity of the humans. All the "leaders" acted like a bunch of greedy toddlers and when it came to the war they could have won early on. They had the technology.

Human leaders: We can utulize EMP weaponry, create a computer virus or nuke/bomb their main factories, computers and power stations but no we'll just send marines and mechas and hope that our bullets crack their tough armor. Yup....Nitpick: Computer viruses attacking a sapient AI will work about as well as you telling someone you dislike to go and jump off a building.

CVs kinda lose their point when who- or whatever is attacked can just say 'Okay... This is silly.' and simply not execute them.

If humans being very innately selfish and greedy then human civilization would not exist. Thank God for human solidarity friends, without which we wouldn't be having this conversation on a common forum in a common language.

For example, is capitalism evil because the capitalists themselves are evil individuals? Of course not, capitalism is evil because it encourages evil behavior. Even the most ardent capitalists, namely Keynes and Smith, all rejected the Randist crap about human innate selfishness. Humans cooperate all the time, and they do so because it's in their material interest to do so.

Margaret Thatcher is evil...

Aren't you just the most intelligent poster ever.

Evil is a human abstraction, a term for behaviour to one extreme of expected conduct, hence, humanity is neither evil, nor good. Merely equally capable of both.

Aren't you just the most intelligent poster ever.

Evil is a human abstraction, a term for behaviour to one extreme of expected conduct, hence, humanity is neither evil, nor good. Merely equally capable of both.
Exactly, which is why definitions of 'good' or 'evil' rests not on the abstract morality but on how an action affects the reality in which we reside, for good or bad.

This is why I believe Marxism supersedes liberalism as a postulate for morality, seeing as the 'morality' of Marxism comes only from reality and not from the abstract - which in itself leads to bad actions.

Are humans evil? Inherently, no. But we all are born with the potential to be evil. Humans are capable of the greastest good and the most horrendous evil.

If humans being very innately selfish and greedy then human civilization would not exist. Thank God for human solidarity friends, without which we wouldn't be having this conversation on a common forum in a common language.

Yes. Human solidarity is great. However, I advocate no solidarity with Marxists. Shun Marxists for the revolution!

I think it has been touched on already, but the thing about Evil is this:
Morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked; harmful; injurious; characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous

So are Humans evil? Yes and No. We all make moral judgments daily based on what we see as right or wrong. A lot of this is shaped by how we were raised, what we were taught to believe in.

For example: An individual raised in a military family may not see killing someone in a war as wrong, they were raised to see that defending the nation is the right and honorable thing to do. Whereas someone raised by a pacifist family would see that as an immoral act of conduct.

What is right in one person's eyes, is wrong in another's. Some people see peanut butter and jelly sandwiches as good, while others think it's gross and instead eat peanut butter and pickle sandwiches.

But remember that Evil is also defined as being harmful. So really, anything that brings about suffering, harm or misfortune cannot be seen as good. Example: Dumping toxic waste improperly - that has no benefit but brings only harm and devastation. That could be viewed as an evil act.

but there could be a benefit of it, the money a corporation saves could allow them hire more employees allowing hundreds or thousands of people to feed their families.
Some say evil is in the eye of the beholder, but really man was made with an inherent instinct of what is right and wrong, it's all about how they follow that moral compass that determines if they are evil.

So to reiterate what others have said, No man is not evil looking at the majority - but we all do commit evil acts from time to time - with or without conscientiously knowing it.

there is no moral compass. good is simply what I think is right, and evil is with people doing what i think is wrong. No blue print exist, society as a compromise however lays down basic values that reflect the majority of said societies values.

How do you define evil besides selfishness? The "7 deadly sins" are all rooted in selfish behavior.

All humans are naturally evil. We learn empathy and sympathy from society. Whether you consider this a tribal instinct that has evolved over eons or a gift from God must be rooted in your worldview.

If selfishness is the definition of evil, then humanity fits that description very well. Self is the basis for the human condition and every action derives from it.

No. So there we go. We do the same as every other living species, just better than them.

Some people are born nice......but society rots them:mp5:

Some people are born nice......but society rots them:mp5:

Like bush and clinton:upyours:

No. Homo sapiens are not evil.

Mindlessly apathetic, maybe, but Evil? No. Evil would require a level of creativity and activity that few humans possess.

What is your definition of evil? Movie super-villain with callous disregard for his minions and hatred of all humanity, or simple everyday selfishness, greed, and disregard for others? Is it the feelings that define evil, or the scale? I suspect that everyone will find the need to guard against selfishness, greed, and disregard over the next 24 hours, and will probably fail at least once in at least one area. This would show that evil is our instinctive nature, scale is limited only by circumstance, and our ability to overcome our base instincts is what builds civilization.

Id say yes...Humans are inherently evil...

Its how you control and express it that matters...

Humans are not born evil nor good. The way we are raised, educated, and treated that affects the outcome of our personality, good or evil. Humanity is stupid, racist, greedy, and Xenophobic(meaning that anything alien to a Human is bad). The only thing that can save Humanity is a good teacher and leader.

Only Bill O'Reilly. The rest of us are okay.

Are humans evil? Inherently, no. But we all are born with the potential to be evil. Humans are capable of the greastest good and the most horrendous evil.

Exactly, which goes to say that actions, not abstract 'things' are evil, so it is the effect of an action on society, be it good or ill, which determines what is good or evil.

This is where most on the Right err, they make abstract positions on 'moral positions' rather than analyzing how an action or policy affects society and then deciding it's worth, as those of us on Left do, they are fantasy based while we are rooted in the politics of materialism.

Some humans are evil, but the vast majority aren't.

Which is why the world is made of joy, and joyness right? :rolleyes:

This is where most on the Right err, they make abstract positions on 'moral positions' rather than analyzing how an action or policy affects society and then deciding it's worth, as those of us on Left do, they are fantasy based while we are rooted in the politics of materialism.

Oh please. The Left is constantly screaming "Evil!" about Bush, Cheney, O'Reilly, Big Oil, Big Pharma, Corporations, the Right, etc. Don't make it sound like the Left is the home of logic and reason. They have rabid followers with a dogma that most religions would find hard to compete with.

Oh please. The Left is constantly screaming "Evil!" about Bush, Cheney, O'Reilly, Big Oil, Big Pharma, Corporations, the Right, etc. Don't make it sound like the Left is the home of logic and reason. They have rabid followers with a dogma that most religions would find hard to compete with.

Then they aren't Marxists then aren't they, their just right-wingers but just don't know it yet.

Exactly, which goes to say that actions, not abstract 'things' are evil, so it is the effect of an action on society, be it good or ill, which determines what is good or evil.

This is where most on the Right err, they make abstract positions on 'moral positions' rather than analyzing how an action or policy affects society and then deciding it's worth, as those of us on Left do, they are fantasy based while we are rooted in the politics of materialism.

Yes. In Spain we have a saying that goes as this: Todo depende del cristal con que se mire...
(Everything is subject to the looking glass from which you look at things...)

Evil, the potential for evil, the nature of it, is quite relative depending on the culture and society.
An example: you're sympathetic to the Communist cause. Many people believe Communism, as a form of government, is evil. But those who have been born on Communist regimes (like Cuba and China), those who came out of the Tsarist rule of Russia found redemption (figuratively speaking) in the advent of Communism. They prospered in it. So, to them, that form of government is not evil.

Yes. In Spain we have a saying that goes as this: Todo depende del cristal con que se mire...
(Everything is subject to the looking glass from which you look at things...)

Evil, the potential for evil, the nature of it, is quite relative depending on the culture and society.
An example: you're sympathetic to the Communist cause. Many people believe Communism, as a form of government, is evil. But those who have been born on Communist regimes (like Cuba and China), those who came out of the Tsarist rule of Russia found redemption (figuratively speaking) in the advent of Communism. They prospered in it. So, to them, that form of government is not evil.

There is no objective 'good' or 'evil', it's all dependent on the experience of the individual. For example, using that example of the USSR under comrade Stalin, the experience of the workers was positive but not so much for the bourgeois who were liquidated. Was destroying the bourgeois a positive thing? Of course, because the majority of individual experiences benefited from ridding society of such a retardant and parasitic element.

There is no objective 'good' or 'evil', it's all dependent on the experience of the individual. For example, using that example of the USSR under comrade Stalin, the experience of the workers was positive but not so much for the bourgeois who were liquidated. Was destroying the bourgeois a positive thing? Of course, because the majority of individual experiences benefited from ridding society of such a retardant and parasitic element.

I think, in general, we understand each other.

No, not all humans, just Stalinists...
;)

Margaret Thatcher is evil...

HAHA! So true!!

Then they aren't Marxists then aren't they, their just right-wingers but just don't know it yet.

Proof.

Oh please. The Left is constantly screaming "Evil!" about Bush, Cheney, O'Reilly, Big Oil, Big Pharma, Corporations, the Right, etc. Don't make it sound like the Left is the home of logic and reason. They have rabid followers with a dogma that most religions would find hard to compete with.Then they aren't Marxists then aren't they, their just right-wingers but just don't know it yet.

So you admit that you aren't a Marxist AP?

So you admit that you aren't a Marxist AP?

I also find it quite interesting that a Marxist is so detached from the definition of evil considering the atrocities committed by humanity in the name of Marxism. Considering his ringing endorsement of "liquidating" undesired classes of people under "Comrade" Stalin I should not be surprised.

Only Bill O'Reilly. The rest of us are okay.

Nahhhh he's just crazy

I also find it quite interesting that a Marxist is so detached from the definition of evil considering the atrocities committed by humanity in the name of Marxism. Considering his ringing endorsement of "liquidating" undesired classes of people under "Comrade" Stalin I should not be surprised.
What 'evil' did Stalin commit other than engaging in class struggle with the most backward and reactionary elements of society, who were bent on keeping the people in servitude. Stalin destroyed the remnants of the bourgeois and kulaks, and in so doing pulled millions of Russians out of feudalism and into modern industrial socialist society. Those who died under Stalin were traitors and the kulaks who were killed in self-defense by the peasants who were fighting for liberation from their feudal masters. In revenge the kulaks burnt down housing, slaughtered cattle and burnt grain rather than work on equal terms in the collective farms with their 'inferiors' the peasants, they sabotaged agriculture and they paid with their lives. They deserved it.

Those who died under Stalin were traitors and the kulaks who were killed in self-defense by the peasants who were fighting for liberation from their feudal masters.

I find it hilarious that you actually believe that.

What 'evil' did Stalin commit other than engaging in class struggle with the most backward and reactionary elements of society, who were bent on keeping the people in servitude. Stalin destroyed the remnants of the bourgeois and kulaks, and in so doing pulled millions of Russians out of feudalism and into modern industrial socialist society. Those who died under Stalin were traitors and the kulaks who were killed in self-defense by the peasants who were fighting for liberation from their feudal masters. In revenge the kulaks burnt down housing, slaughtered cattle and burnt grain rather than work on equal terms in the collective farms with their 'inferiors' the peasants, they sabotaged agriculture and they paid with their lives. They deserved it.

Utilitarianism. I'd call that evil. Two wrongs aren't ever going to make a right, and murder in retribution for slavery is base injustice. I see at least as much evil from stalinism as there was in feudalism, and perhaps more. Are other people simply resources to be molded to your will without regard for their personal beliefs, opinions, or lives? Is the property of another yours to redistribute according to your own fancy?

I do not seek to defend the wrongs of feudalism, but I strongly oppose the use of force to make society bend to the will of any group. Slavery under Stalin is the same as slavery under feudalism, the southern plantations, or African villages. Slavery is forcing another person to act as you see fit under threat of death or imprisonment, and that is a terrible incarnation of greed and hatred. If other people are a pawn for you to use or sacrifice as you see fit, I call you evil.

snip
Lol, I don't need more ridiculous moralism thank you very much. From where do you base this stance of yours that the individual experience of one person or a small minority is more important than the individual liberation of the vast working masses? I am guessing this comes from your bourgeois elitist sense of 'liberty' and your contempt of the common man.

The bourgeois are nothing, they are parasites, they do nothing, it is the great producing class, the great working class, who create the needs of society, and it is this class who will decide the future of society, it is only through social conditioning etc that the bourgeois can keep their place as the ruling class. Eventually the proletariat will become fully conscious of their antagonism and their true power in society, and on that day the bourgeois will be annihilated.

You, Lord Tothe, evidently start out with the assumption that all men are good. I, however, do not forget that there are many wicked men. I do not believe in the goodness of the bourgeoisie.

Communists like myself do not in the least idealize the methods of violence. But they, the Communists, do not want to be taken by surprise, they cannot count on the old world voluntarily departing from the stage, they see that the old system is violently defending itself, and that is why the Communists say to the working class: Answer violence with violence; do all you can to prevent the old dying order from crushing you, do ,not permit it to put manacles on your hands, on the hands with which you will overthrow the old system. As you see, the Communists regard the substitution of one social system for another, not simply as a spontaneous and peaceful process, but as a complicated, long and violent process. Communists cannot ignore facts.

You can confront me with your petite-bourgeois moralism all you like, it means naught, I have no qualms with the destruction of the exploiting class.

snip

You completely misrepresent my statements. See my previous posts in this thread. I think all people are born evil and civilization is defined by our ability to overcome selfishness, greed, and disregard for others.

My complaint against socialism is its philosophical root in those very problems. Socialists seek to encourage jealousy, fracture society into groups that need to hate each other, and build a stable society on the disregard for those who are wealthy without regard for whether the wealth was achieved by merit or subterfuge. No stable society can be formed on a foundation of greed, selfishness, or disregard for fellow man. Sadly, socialism is based upon all three, and every appeal for a socialist state is based in an appeal to those three evils.

Socialists think that the problems of greed, selfishness, and disregard for the fellow man can be cured by coercive actions and violence. I, as a libertarian, see the cure in voluntary associations. If a group voluntarily forms a socialist commune without coercion, then I support it. If any man seeks to coerce another into any association, it is an exhibition of greed, selfishness, and disregard for fellow man. If any two parties agree to any exchange that satisfies both parties, there is a diminishment in greed and selfishness and disregard.

Lol, I don't need more ridiculous moralism thank you very much. From where do you base this stance of yours that the individual experience of one person or a small minority is more important than the individual liberation of the vast working masses? I am guessing this comes from your bourgeois elitist sense of 'liberty' and your contempt of the common man.

The bourgeois are nothing, they are parasites, they do nothing, it is the great producing class, the great working class, who create the needs of society, and it is this class who will decide the future of society, it is only through social conditioning etc that the bourgeois can keep their place as the ruling class. Eventually the proletariat will become fully conscious of their antagonism and their true power in society, and on that day the bourgeois will be annihilated.

You, Lord Tothe, evidently start out with the assumption that all men are good. I, however, do not forget that there are many wicked men. I do not believe in the goodness of the bourgeoisie.

Communists like myself do not in the least idealize the methods of violence. But they, the Communists, do not want to be taken by surprise, they cannot count on the old world voluntarily departing from the stage, they see that the old system is violently defending itself, and that is why the Communists say to the working class: Answer violence with violence; do all you can to prevent the old dying order from crushing you, do ,not permit it to put manacles on your hands, on the hands with which you will overthrow the old system. As you see, the Communists regard the substitution of one social system for another, not simply as a spontaneous and peaceful process, but as a complicated, long and violent process. Communists cannot ignore facts.

You can confront me with your petite-bourgeois moralism all you like, it means naught, I have no qualms with the destruction of the exploiting class.

You're not working class though, are you?

snip

You talk as if their is a choice, socialism is inevitable because class relations are IRRECONCILABLE!
It's not about jealousy or anything like that, it's about society being run by the class that builds and produces everything that runs society, the great working class. Bourgeois are social parasites which when flung off will starve and die because they can only exist by exploiting others and feeding off the decaying edifice of capitalism like insects.

You're not working class though, are you?

I am.

I am.

Oh yah? Work down the mines for pennies a day do you?

Oh yah? Work down the mines for pennies a day do you?

You know, I find it quite revealing that when it comes down to it, the only response to my arguments by those propertied person is basically personal attacks.

So then, go on, attack further, ignore my arguments, after you cannot answer them without personal attack distractions and trolling.

You know, I find it quite revealing that when it comes down to it, the only response to my arguments by those propertied person is basically personal attacks.

So then, go on, attack further, ignore my arguments, after you cannot answer them without personal attack distractions and trolling.

No really, what do you do for a living. Which trades union do you belong to? I really am interested. Which C&IU do you belong to?

No really, what do you do for a living. Which trades union do you belong to? I really am interested. Which C&IU do you belong to?
I see you continuing to ignore my points, if you wish to distract the topic from what was being discussed then I will not assist you in that.

I see you continuing to ignore my points, if you wish to distract the topic from what was being discussed then I will not assist you in that.

So you aren't. That's all I wanted to know.

Nothing wrong with it. Of course when the revolution comes, to keep you is no benefit, to destroy you is no loss.

So you aren't. That's all I wanted to know.

Nothing wrong with it. Of course when the revolution comes, to keep you is no benefit, to destroy you is no loss.

Oh God, well I certainly am not going to play into your atrocious personal attacks as if they compensate for your lack of any coherent argument.

Oh God, well I certainly am not going to play into your atrocious personal attacks as if they compensate for your lack of any coherent argument.

That wasn't a personal attack. Just a little piece of socialist dogma.

Really though, what exactly do you do for a living?

I am.

Really? What is it that you do for a living?