NationStates Jolt Archive

Well?

I would have to say yes.

Not evil, just flamingly stupid.

He is not an evil man. But maybe he acts a little "evil" just to show that the americans can't tell him what to do.

....and your evidence for this baseless conjecture is?

Seriously pony up the link or admit you can't be arsed to and you don't have anything of substance to add.

Sure the west doesn't like him but you can't prove he's "evil" without evidence.

Define evil.

The man used to be a tormentor and executioner before he became a politician, also he's a religious fanatic of the apocalyptic kind. Those two points seem valid enough to identify Ahmadinejad as evil.

Define evil.

That. Is someone evil if he truly believes he is doing good ?

He is not an evil man. But maybe he acts a little "evil" just to show that the americans can't tell him what to do.

Well, I understand your argument, I would agree that I would probably want nuclear weapons if the only one in my neighborhood who had them was my sworn enemy and had annexed the lands of the people of my religion.

....and your evidence for this baseless conjecture is?

Seriously pony up the link or admit you can't be arsed to and you don't have anything of substance to add.

Sure the west doesn't like him but you can't prove he's "evil" without evidence.


Just a question I am posing for you guys due to his actions throughout his entire presidency, not anything in particular that he has done recently, but I don't think that you can call my statements baseless, after all, this is the man who has said that Israel will be a "stinking corpse" when he is done with it, denies the holocaust, has said that homosexuals are demons and since his nation is a holy land they don't have any.

Define evil.

exactly where I wanted this debate to go, my friend.

Achmadinejad? No clue. Ahmadinejad? I think he's corrupt (like any other politician), power hungry and a negative power in his country (and world) but I from what I've studied of Iran I wouldn't classify him as evil by my own definition of the word.

That. Is someone evil if he truly believes he is doing good ?

Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea.

Perhaps this would apply here?

No more evil than Obama.

Just a question I am posing for you guys due to his actions throughout his entire presidency, not anything in particular that he has done recently, but I don't think that you can call my statements baseless, after all, this is the man who has said that Israel will be a "stinking corpse" when he is done with it, denies the holocaust, has said that homosexuals are demons and since his nation is a holy land they don't have any.

Mostly sounds like the ravings of a lunatic.

Once again, you failed to explain why he's evil. You've only highlighted facts that make him look very much out of touch with reality.

Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea.

Perhaps this would apply here?

If we applied mens rea, we would be forced to let the leaders of the interhamwae in Rwanda go free, because in their minds the murder of the millions of Tutsis was justified.

Mostly sounds like the ravings of a lunatic.

Once again, you failed to explain why he's evil. You've only highlighted facts that make him look very much out of touch with reality.

What is your definition of evil then, so I can see if I can meet your specifications.

I don't mean meet them myself, just by showing the actions of Mr. Achmadenijad. (damn that's hard to spell)

Just a question I am posing for you guys due to his actions throughout his entire presidency, not anything in particular that he has done recently, but I don't think that you can call my statements baseless, after all, this is the man
who has said that Israel will be a "stinking corpse" when he is done with it,

This is a serious threat to Israel. Perhaps he said that to scare Israelis a little and show that he is not afraid of them. If he was serious and he is going to make a "stinking corpse" of Israel then that wouldn't be very wise of him


denies the holocaust,

It was not wise for him to say this.


has said that homosexuals are demons and since his nation is a holy land they don't have any.

Hating homosexuals doesn't make him an evil man. And perhaps the holy land talk was ment to boost Iranese morale.

If we applied mens rea, we would be forced to let the leaders of the interhamwae in Rwanda go free, because in their minds the murder of the millions of Tutsis was justified.

Well then, to play devils advocate:

Why wasn't it ?

No more evil than Obama.

Wow, so being of a different political ideology than you and myself makes a man evil. You're giving conservatives a bad name.

The man used to be a tormentor and executioner before he became a politician, also he's a religious fanatic of the apocalyptic kind. Those two points seem valid enough to identify Ahmadinejad as evil.

His acts, maybe. While that may make him a vile waste of a human, is it really enough for him to be "evil"?

Probably a bit mad and the like, but generally people aren't evil.

Well then, to play devils advocate:

Why wasn't it ?

To get all Lockian on your question, man has three rights, life, liberty and property. The interhamwea violated the first, and therefore violated one of the most basic rights of humans everywhere.

Who cares? It's not like superman would battle him in an underground bunker in the earths core if we agree that he's evil.

Who cares? It's not like superman would battle him in an underground bunker in the earths core if we agree that he's evil.

Of course not. Superman's a wuss. Now, Batman on the other hand...

at worst he is an evil puppet. he does nothing that isnt mandated by the ayatollahs.

To get all Lockian on your question, man has three rights, life, liberty and property. The interhamwea violated the first, and therefore violated one of the most basic rights of humans everywhere.

If a civilisation does not share those ideas - is it evil ?
Take a stereotypical (even though probably never really used) native American view of "the land is its own" and "equally share the wealth". Is that evil ?

Is anything that restricts liberty evil ?

Who cares? It's not like superman would battle him in an underground bunker in the earths core if we agree that he's evil.

Off topic here, but have anyone of you heard that Dane Cook rant about people who wear superman shirts.

He says that he wants to shoot them and then when they fall over dead say to them, "No your not."

exactly where I wanted this debate to go, my friend.

I don't understand, are you wanting to discuss moral relativism? Or just seeking different peoples personal definition of the word evil?

No, Ahmadinejad is fine. Now, Crimean Republic, however, is 'evil' for spelling a world leader's name wrong... >_>

I don't understand, are you wanting to discuss moral relativism? Or just seeking different peoples personal definition of the word evil?

I wanted to see how my view of evil fits in with the rest of NSG's. I was going to choose Hitler for the debate, but everyone would agree with me that he is evil, therefore I chose Ahmadinejad (thank you, Maldorians!) instead, since there would be a more heated debate.

No, Ahmadinejad is fine. Now, Crimean Republic, however, is 'evil' for spelling a world leader's name wrong... >_>


AAAAAHHHHHH! I'M MEEEEELLLLTTTTTING!

he is evil because stupidity is the greatest evil of all.

he is evil because stupidity is the greatest evil of all.

So is a retard evil?

I wanted to see how my view of evil fits in with the rest of NSG's. I was going to choose Hitler for the debate, but everyone would agree with me that he is evil, therefore I chose Ahmadinejad (thank you, Maldorians!) instead, since there would be a more heated debate.


Well a lot of people, especially the regulars, probably don't have that sort of 'good vs evil' perspective on things, so your question would be slightly meaningless to a lot of us.

I wanted to see how my view of evil fits in with the rest of NSG's. I was going to choose Hitler for the debate, but everyone would agree with me that he is evil, therefore I chose Ahmadinejad (thank you, Maldorians!) instead, since there would be a more heated debate.


I wouldn't define Hitler evil. He was just stupid and made bad decisions. And perhaps he was a little nuts too. I don't know any real person i would define as evil.

Let's take a look at at least one thing Ahmadinejad has done during his time as President.

1) He lowered interest rates for private AND public banking groups. Very very nice. Lower interest rates encourage higher levels of borrowing and investment for said banks. More borrowing= more investment. When there is more investment in a certain company or individual, that entity can buy more, stimulating the economy....


Also, we must note that Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, has all the power, not Amhadinejad....

Amhadinejad is not 'evil' or 'crazy' at all. He was elected by a majority of the Iranian population and most domestic and international affairs are not due to him....He is only the messenger.

I wouldn't define Hitler evil. He was just stupid and made bad decisions. And perhaps he was a little nuts too. I don't know any real person i would define as evil.

Hmm. I actually would define him as evil. Not primarily because he gassed lots of Jews (and others), but because he did it without being able to provide decent reasons for it. He didn't even believe his own ramblings on the subject.

I wouldn't define Hitler evil. He was just stupid and made bad decisions. And perhaps he was a little nuts too. I don't know any real person i would define as evil.

I don't understand this at all. Are you saying that genocide and severe oppression was merely just a bad decision, are you saying his intentions were just?

Hmm. I actually would define him as evil. Not primarily because he gassed lots of Jews (and others), but because he did it without being able to provide decent reasons for it. He didn't even believe his own ramblings on the subject.

That was extremely flawed judgment on his part. If he didn't kill the Jews, then there is a chance that Germany could have had more fighting soldiers, and the USA could not have created the Atomic Bomb. World War II could have been completely different. However, one cannot look into the future, and he did not think of the consequences for his actions...


He did found Volkswagen, though......................... : D

So is a retard evil?

yes. if they ever learned to attract followers they would make hitler look like an angel.

1) He lowered interest rates for private AND public banking groups. Very very nice. Lower interest rates encourage higher levels of borrowing and investment for said banks. More borrowing= more investment. When there is more investment in a certain company or individual, that entity can buy more, stimulating the economy....


Do you remember when Hitler brought the German economy out of the dumpster. He must be an alright guy then.

Hmm. I actually would define him as evil. Not primarily because he gassed lots of Jews (and others), but because he did it without being able to provide decent reasons for it. He didn't even believe his own ramblings on the subject.

In my opinion good and evil appear only in fantasy. There is no good or evil people, there is only people who act by the moral of their culture and then there is bad people who break moral codes on purpose. So Hitler would be a bad person.

Do you remember when Hitler brought the German economy out of the dumpster. He must be an alright guy then.

And the trains ran on time. And that neat Autobahn thing.

And who can forget the VW?

And the trains ran on time. And that neat Autobahn thing.

And who can forget the VW?

Not to mention all those dashing uniforms that he brought into fashion.

Do you remember when Hitler brought the German economy out of the dumpster. He must be an alright guy then.

Hitler has no one who he answers to. Amhadinejad answers to the Supreme Ruler. A bigggg difference here.

I don't understand this at all. Are you saying that genocide and severe oppression was merely just a bad decision, are you saying his intentions were just?

No. His intentions were not just. If he would not have killed jews he could have used them as soldiers.(like Stalin did; They both hated jews, Stalin just didn't execute them.) And the ww2 would have ended up differently just like Maldorians said.

In my opinion good and evil appear only in fantasy. There is no good or evil people, there is only people who act by the moral of their culture and then there is bad people who break moral codes on purpose. So Hitler would be a bad person.

So if it is completely cultural, then lynching in the Jim Crow South would be justified, since that is what they're culture believed in.

The choices that human beings make can make them evil, or good.

Even though they were raised in the Jim Crow South, Edgar Ray Killen did not have to kill Goodman, Chaney and Shewerner. It was his choice, and his choices made him evil.

And the trains ran on time. And that neat Autobahn thing.

And who can forget the VW?

QTF

QTF

Quote Truth For? Wtf? :confused:

But yeah, Hitler's position in office =/= Amhadinejad's position in office

Well, to us, here in the West we would classify him as evil. But we must understand that to him what he is doing is right, he truly believes that what he is doing for Iran is good.
That now begs that age old question, is there such thing as good and evil or is the interpretation up to each individual?
Now this is not to excuse what he has done/doing/will do, I think he should be stopped, I just wanted to raise the point.

Well, to us, here in the West we would classify him as evil. But we must understand that to him what he is doing is right, he truly believes that what he is doing for Iran is good.
That now begs that age old question, is there such thing as good and evil or is the interpretation up to each individual?
Now this is not to excuse what he has done/doing/will do, I think he should be stopped, I just wanted to raise the point.

Please see my previous post.

So if it is completely cultural, then lynching in the Jim Crow South would be justified, since that is what they're culture believed in.

Their culture would have accepted it but all the other cultures would not have accepted that.

The choices that human beings make can make them evil, or good.

As I said, in my head there is no good or evil. Good and evil appear in bible and in other holy books, but because i'm an atheist there is no good or evil for me.

Even though they were raised in the Jim Crow South, Edgar Ray Killen did not have to kill Goodman, Chaney and Shewerner. It was his choice, and his choices made him evil.

Not evil just a bad person.

Let's take a look at at least one thing Ahmadinejad has done during his time as President.

1) He lowered interest rates for private AND public banking groups. Very very nice. Lower interest rates encourage higher levels of borrowing and investment for said banks. More borrowing= more investment. When there is more investment in a certain company or individual, that entity can buy more, stimulating the economy....

no no more borrowing does not equal more investment. It equals more spending, low interest rates are the cause of the current situation in the US.
High interest rates encourage investment because the returns from safe investments(bonds ETC) actually exceed inflation. both times of high and low interest rates are needed and that was what was needed in Iran, but there is never a always lower interest rates rule.

Also, we must note that Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, has all the power, not Amhadinejad....

Amhadinejad is not 'evil' or 'crazy' at all. He was elected by a majority of the Iranian population and most domestic and international affairs are not due to him....He is only the messenger.

Iran therefore is evil and crazy and should be held accountable.

Iran therefore is evil and crazy and should be held accountable.

Well.. it was either him or the corrupt criminal. From the Iranians point of view, he is the lesser of two evils.

Their culture would have accepted it but all the other cultures would not have accepted that.



As I said, in my head there is no good or evil. Good and evil appear in bible and in other holy books, but because i'm an atheist there is no good or evil for me.



Not evil just a bad person.

It seems to me like you are replacing evil with the word bad person. Call it what you like, but you still see evil.


Iran therefore is evil and crazy and should be held accountable.

Yes, because it is evil to vote for the one person you are allowed to vote for.

no no more borrowing does not equal more investment. It equals more spending, low interest rates are the cause of the current situation in the US.
High interest rates encourage investment because the returns from safe investments(bonds ETC) actually exceed inflation. both times of high and low interest rates are needed and that was what was needed in Iran, but there is never a always lower interest rates rule.

Wrong. The definition of interest rate is such " A rate which is charged or paid for the use of money." So, when people borrow money from banks, they pay interest rate. When the interest rate is HIGH, it is harder to borrow money from the banks because it is more expensive. When there are less people borrowing people, they cannot properly investment in companies and businesses.

When interest rate is lower, it is less expensive to borrow money and thus, more people are borrowing money. With more money borrowed, there is more investment.

I mean what I say.


Iran therefore is evil and crazy and should be held accountable.

Lulz!!!! (You're kidding, right?)

Do you remember when Hitler brought the German economy out of the dumpster. He must be an alright guy then.

Except that Hitler had absolutely nothing to do with that whatsoever, in any way shape or form. Nor did the Nazi party, and the non Nazi who was behind the economy, Schacht, wasn't even that responsible. If anything, the Nazis were making it a whole lot worse then it could have been, especially with the unreasonable demands on the economy rearmament caused.

No. His intentions were not just.

Then if you're going to have any definition of evil at all, how would Hitler, who killed millions for unjust intentions, not fall under it?

It seems to me like you are replacing evil with the word bad person. Call it what you like, but you still see evil.


For me evil and bad person are different things. This is my definition of evil: Evil person would do everything to cause anarchy and bring ruin to the world. And this kind of evil appears only in fantasy.

So in real life there is bad people, but in fantasy and all fiction there is evil, and evil is not always a person there can be just evil places.

It is hard to explain.

Then if you're going to have any definition of evil at all, how would Hitler, who killed millions for unjust intentions, not fall under it?

As i have said all the time evil is only word that can be used only in fantasy and fiction.(in my opinion)

Urgh, the level of idiocy in this thread is making my head explode.

Ahmadinejad was against Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.

POLICY
-advocated a free market economy
-Rafsanjani's support for a deal with America over Iran's nuclear programme and his free-market economic policies contrasted with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his allies
-Former Iranian president Rafsanjani has said that Iran is ready to assist Iraq "expecting nothing in return


Yeah, so those guys saying that it was a lesser of two evils...STFU and GTFO

Yeah, so those guys saying that it was a lesser of two evils...STFU and GTFO

The Iranians sure as hell perceived it that way. One crazy loon, one corrupt criminal with a very bad track record.

They picked the loon.

The Iranians sure as hell perceived it that way. One crazy loon, one corrupt criminal with a very bad track record.

They picked the loon.

Dude, seriously, what are you talking about? Have you actually read about Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and his policies? Highly doubt it

Wrong. The definition of interest rate is such " A rate which is charged or paid for the use of money." So, when people borrow money from banks, they pay interest rate. When the interest rate is HIGH, it is harder to borrow money from the banks because it is more expensive. When there are less people borrowing people, they cannot properly investment in companies and businesses.

When interest rate is lower, it is less expensive to borrow money and thus, more people are borrowing money. With more money borrowed, there is more investment.

how much have you borrowed to to put into bonds or mutual funds ???
If you have borrowed any you are likely really dumb because your losing money. the investment increase by borrowing money to start small mom and pop stores are almost always over shadowed by the investment that can be found in times of higher interest rates in large corporations.


I mean what I say.
[quote]
you do realize your advocating running the economy like Bush ??
low taxes low interest rates lets put as much money in the economy as possible. thats pretty much GW bush.
[quote]


Lulz!!!! (You're kidding, right?)
No we need to intervene and reeducate the Iranians. Teach them not to want to kill all Jews and elect more responsible leaders like someone we approve of.

No we need to intervene and reeducate the Iranians. Teach them not to want to kill all Jews and elect more responsible leaders like someone we approve of.

Yeah....If the strongest alliance in the world can barely defeat Iraq, how do you suppose that we defeat Iran, a much stronger and larger nation....Lulz


EDIT: your economy thing is flawed but im too lazy to argue atm

No we need to intervene and reeducate the Iranians. Teach them not to want to kill all Jews and elect more responsible leaders like someone we approve of.

So you are saying that USA should attack Iran and tell iranians what kind of leaders they should elect. By doing that USA would restrcict the liberty iranians have and lower themselves to the level of the most worst dictators.

So you are saying that USA should attack Iran and tell iranians what kind of leaders they should elect. If USA would do that they would be no better than Ahmadinejad.

We would not win, let alone tell them who to elect...

Yeah....If the strongest alliance in the world can barely defeat Iraq, how do you suppose that we defeat Iran, a much stronger and larger nation....Lulz

Not that I supported it, but we defeated the Iraqi army like a bunch of grown men beating up a baby, now the insurgency on the other hand, that's what's getting difficult to control.

Dude, seriously, what are you talking about? Have you actually read about Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and his policies? Highly doubt it

Even better- I have talked to Iranians about him. This is how they see him. This is why they did not vote for him, even though they vastly preferred his policies. They just could not trust the man.

Is their opinion justified ? Maybe not. But why assume we know better than them ?

Yeah....If the strongest alliance in the world can barely defeat Iraq, how do you suppose that we defeat Iran, a much stronger and larger nation....Lulz



Pray tell, sir or madam, what alliance are you speaking of? For two alliances have invaded Iraq.

In 1990-91, the Coallition steamrolled what was at the time one of the most powerful militaries in the middle east. So they easily defeated Iraq, yes.

If you refer to the invasion in 2003, then I must say that the U.S., Britain, Australia, and those other nations kind enough to assist once again brutally mauled the Iraqi army. I believe that organized resistance was over in three days after the troops moved in country.

So what were you refering to?

(And as an aside, I was talking to a buddy of mine from Iran, and he told me that of any middle eastern country, the common people actually like us more in Iran than anywhere else in the mideast...isn't that a kick in the ass?)

Yeah....If the strongest alliance in the world can barely defeat Iraq, how do you suppose that we defeat Iran, a much stronger and larger nation....Lulz

I don't know if id call Iran stronger. and the issue with Iraq wasn't the military resistance (we whipped that in 3 weeks). its that we cant stop the Sunnis and the Shiites from killing each other. thats not a problem in Iran. besides once we hold Iran and Iraq and our alliance /control over Kuwait and Saudi the US will control the worlds Oil.

EDIT: your economy thing is flawed but im too lazy to argue atm

European central banks borrowing rate 5.25%
US rate 2.25 %
which economy is performing better the EU or the US ???
sorry the real world support my view.

So you are saying that USA should attack Iran and tell iranians what kind of leaders they should elect. By doing that USA would restrcict the liberty iranians have and lower themselves to the level of the most worst dictators.

no educate them. educated people pick people we approve of as leader of the nation (not necessarily agree with but approve of).

That failing we can always bring in one of the Shah's relatives and make him in charge.

I don't know if id call Iran stronger. and the issue with Iraq wasn't the military resistance (we whipped that in 3 weeks). its that we cant stop the Sunnis and the Shiites from killing each other. thats not a problem in Iran. besides once we hold Iran and Iraq and our alliance /control over Kuwait and Saudi the US will control the worlds Oil.


European central banks borrowing rate 5.25%
US rate 2.25 %
which economy is performing better the EU or the US ???
sorry the real world support my view.

1) LULZ PARTISTANS FTW!!!

2) Interest rate is the not problem of the US. It is growing inflation which poses more of a risk. Also, don't look at the EU. They are a varied bunch. Many countries want a lower interest rate, while others want a higher interest rate. You should know that, Mr. Economics. And you're earlier arguments are flawed, like I said earlier.

When people have more money to borrow, they buy more goods. When people buy more goods, companies make more money and then those workers can buy stuff, and it keeps going, stimulating the economy.

no educate them. educated people pick people we approve of as leader of the nation (not necessarily agree with but approve of).

That failing we can always bring in one of the Shah's relatives and make him in charge.

No. Western media has no power in Iran. And if you propose invasion, then LULZ.

That failing we can always bring in one of the Shah's relatives and make him in charge.

I feel like that would go over like a lead balloon. They kicked his ass out of Tehran for a reason. The Shah's were just as brutal as the current regime, just in different ways. Ever heard of SAVKA?

Will someone hold the damn goalposts still for just a second, so someone can explain why OnemanJihad is evil without someone saying "well that's a deranged and psychopathic disregard for Human life, sure, but it's hardly evil..."

Of course not. In the 21st century west, Evil requires something like making a racist comment. THAT will get you thrown off a radio show, out of a university office, etc etc. Leading one of the Earth's most brutal regimes hardly qualifies.

Iran has a government that herded mobs of kids across minefields to clear paths for troops during their war with Iraq. When a regime has THAT kind of evil in it, you have to be evil to rise to the top. It is the only nation in the UN that regularly announces its wish to see another recognized nation destroyed. It supports a death penalty for being homosexual, or for writing something they don't want to read. Or just for the heck of it- who knows, since trials aren't open there. The establishment there is in the grip of a group of self-selected arch-conservative religious dogmatists who have their thugs roaming the streets at night beating up couples holding hands. And the constitution is written to give the supreme religious authority the power to over-ride anything, any time, at his sole discretion. Autocracy behind a psuedo-democratic mask. Anyone really think an innocent man will get far in a power structure like this? Good lord, go rent the Godfather trilogy and watch it until you get it. You'll see a non-Evil president of Iran about the same time as you see a Quaker establish control of a major crime family.

Remember, cream rises to the top, so does scum.

Not that I supported it, but we defeated the Iraqi army like a bunch of grown men beating up a baby, now the insurgency on the other hand, that's what's getting difficult to control.

Posting from 2005? THEN it was "getting" difficult to control. In early 2007, it was IMPOSSIBLE. But in 2008, a lot of good people proved they could in fact accomplish the impossible, and now the war is winding down.

Posting from 2005? THEN it was "getting" difficult to control. In early 2007, it was IMPOSSIBLE. But in 2008, a lot of good people proved they could in fact accomplish the impossible, and now the war is winding down.

true dat.

1) LULZ PARTISTANS FTW!!!

2) Interest rate is the not problem of the US. It is growing inflation which poses more of a risk.

inflation is caused by the low interest rate, the fed reserve prints more money to cover what banks are borrowing which they do more of during times of low interest rates Also, don't look at the EU. They are a varied bunch. Many countries want a lower interest rate, while others want a higher interest rate. You should know that, Mr. Economics. And you're earlier arguments are flawed, like I said earlier. yes the reason they want to lower interest rates is for the short term gain you get from low interest rates in economic performance. which is very useful around election time. And as i said before that is the strength of the EU because the interest rate is more isolated from
individual countries political situation to lower the interest rates when it would serve to get their leaders reelected.
When people have more money to borrow, they buy more goods. When people buy more goods, companies make more money and then those workers can buy stuff, and it keeps going, stimulating the economy.

when interest rates are low inflation goes up goods cost more people buy less goods, oil cost more stuff cost even more causing people to buy even less goods. investors flee to the euro/commodities due to the dollar losing value, this process is called stagflation.

dumping money into the economy does not fix it. Bush has tried your economic model and utterly failed.

I feel like that would go over like a lead balloon. They kicked his ass out of Tehran for a reason. The Shah's were just as brutal as the current regime, just in different ways. Ever heard of SAVKA?

we will re educate them first in special camps or gitmo. so they will elect good leaders, or at least come to love the new Shah.

No, he is not. I just think he might want Attention, and most likely chooses stupid actions

The western media paints him as evil, when he's not. Its all about a smear campaign against Iran.

Hitler has no one who he answers to. Amhadinejad answers to the Supreme Ruler. A bigggg difference here.

Although, the power of the supreme leader is waning due to Khamene'i's charisma (or lack thereof).

As someone who's extremely sceptical of the possibility of an evil human in the first place, I'd have to say that I don't consider Ahmadinejad evil.

Seriously pony up the link or admit you can't be arsed to and you don't have anything of substance to add.

Sure the west doesn't like him but you can't prove he's "evil" without evidence.
Exactly what sort of link, or what sort of evidence, are you expecting to prove a man 'evil'?

we will re educate them first in special camps or gitmo. so they will elect good leaders, or at least come to love the new Shah.


I must turn down the job, as heat and revenge seeking Shias do not agree with me.

As someone who's extremely sceptical of the possibility of an evil human in the first place,


Why or why not? How do you define evil? Would a person who enjoys hurting others make the grade?

If there are no Evil humans, then, unless you believe in Evil Supernatural Beings, you are saying it doesn't exist at all.

If the copout is, a person who actually feels joy in hurting others is sick, not Evil- isn't it all just words? Who gets to say what is sick and what isn't?

And if by sick we mean some disease of the brain, creating a defective processing of reality (whose reality?) then isn't it even WORSE to have nukes in the hands of a sick person? An evil one can at least be dealt with by appeal to self preservation or gain, but a sick one?

Why or why not? How do you define evil? Would a person who enjoys hurting others make the grade?
To me, and I base this on how we use the term 'evil' in daily life, literature, etc., being evil is far worse than 'merely' doing bad deeds. Evil is the absence of good, and an evil person (such as the stereotypical evil mastermind) would be someone who committed acts with no good intentions whatsoever.

Thus, folks such as Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler et al, are not 'evil' in my books for their intentions, however misguided, mad or dangerous, were (in their eyes) benefiting mankind; 'good' acts.

If there are no Evil humans, then, unless you believe in Evil Supernatural Beings, you are saying it doesn't exist at all.
I'd concede that there may be evil actions, that is actions without any good motivations or outcomes whatsoever (intentional or otherwise), but I have not encountered a real human I would call evil. There's plenty of evil fictional characters, but nobody who fits the bill in real life.

If the copout is, a person who actually feels joy in hurting others is sick, not Evil- isn't it all just words? Who gets to say what is sick and what isn't?
One could say psychopaths/sociopaths who commit gross murder sprees are 'evil', as some of them would fit my criteria above. But I would view these poor individuals (no matter how dangerous they are) as mentally deficient. To the point that "who gets to say what is sick and what isn't?", I'd point to certain faculties of belief, thought, appraisal of consequence, sociability, etc., that sociopaths/psychopaths do not possess (to generalise for one moment). These people are highlighted exactly because they don't posses said faculties.

Just as we wouldn't condemn a child which did a terrible act, as in the boy in NYC who set his grandmother's house on fire, as 'evil', so too we wouldn't condemn someone who was mentally deficient.

And if by sick we mean some disease of the brain, creating a defective processing of reality (whose reality?) then isn't it even WORSE to have nukes in the hands of a sick person? An evil one can at least be dealt with by appeal to self preservation or gain, but a sick one?
I wouldn't call Ahmadinejad 'sick' either; he seems, from what little footage of him I've seen, perfectly coherent.

I must turn down the job, as heat and revenge seeking Shias do not agree with me.

thats why we will wear white mask. the white keeps the heat off your face and mask keeps the poor uneducated shia seeking revenge from knowing who to get revenge against.

Well?

I would have to say yes.

yes, with a certificate.

no, because you can't prove it.

I honestly don't know.

we will re educate them first in special camps or gitmo. so they will elect good leaders, or at least come to love the new Shah.


Aha! Sir, I bow to your wisdom. I am shamed for not coming up with that myself.

*Sharpens katana, prepares to commit ritual suicide*

Dunno, mate.

thats why we will wear white mask. the white keeps the heat off your face and mask keeps the poor uneducated shia seeking revenge from knowing who to get revenge against.

Excellent. If they revolt when I'm in the throne room being entertained by dancing girls eating caviar off each other, paid for by their oil revenue while their children starve, I will say "He is not here - he has gone with the Amerikans to mock the starving in a rural village" and they will leave, their bloodlust unassuaged.....

To me, and I base this on how we use the term 'evil' in daily life, literature, etc., being evil is far worse than 'merely' doing bad deeds. Evil is the absence of good, and an evil person (such as the stereotypical evil mastermind) would be someone who committed acts with no good intentions whatsoever.

Thus, folks such as Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler et al, are not 'evil' in my books for their intentions, however misguided, mad or dangerous, were (in their eyes) benefiting mankind; 'good' acts.



I think it's far more likely Pol Pot and Stalin's intentions were merely self benefit. Hitler, I don't know. If he actually believed his own rhetoric, he might have really believed that Aryans were simply more deserving. But Stalin was a thug, and I know thugs. There is no sense of "I am doing this for the greater good" from a thug. A thug is in it for himself, end of story.

That's why thugs are also such effective negotiators and liars. There exists no compulsion to be truthful. Nor will morality persuade a thug.

Now, you may classify this as Empathy Deficiency Syndrome or whatever, but functionally, what's the difference between that evil.

I think it's far more likely Pol Pot and Stalin's intentions were merely self benefit. Hitler, I don't know. If he actually believed his own rhetoric, he might have really believed that Aryans were simply more deserving. But Stalin was a thug, and I know thugs. There is no sense of "I am doing this for the greater good" from a thug. A thug is in it for himself, end of story.
Which, again, is quite different from being evil.

Now, you may classify this as Empathy Deficiency Syndrome or whatever, but functionally, what's the difference between that evil.
Because I don't see how we can condemn those, on our terms of behaviour and motivation, when such individuals cannot behave in certain ways.

It'd be like condemning someone who is highly allergic to chocolate as 'wasteful' for not eating chocolate given to them.

Which, again, is quite different from being evil.

Ignoring what is right for the sake of self-interest is precisely evil.

Indeed, I would extend that description to people whose self-interest leads them to delude themselves into thinking that they do right.

Ignoring what is right for the sake of self-interest is precisely evil.
It's selfish, certainly, and to most folks condemnable, but I wouldn't call it 'evil'. That just seems like hyperbole to me.

Not giving your excess cash to needy persons, instead going out to buy a new Wii game might be considered, in the grand scheme of things, as selfish or mean, but it's hardly evil.

Not giving your excess cash to needy persons, instead going out to buy a new Wii game might be considered, in the grand scheme of things, as selfish or mean, but it's hardly evil.

That is debateable. The person dying because you considered a computergame more important than helping him get medical attention might disagree for instance.

I think he is just misunderstood ever since he was a child, maybe they mistreated him so he is just venting off his childhood anger at the world, look at the bright side, Achmadine.....um whatever his name was is just a figure head. :gas:

The person dying because you considered a computergame more important than helping him get medical attention might disagree for instance.
Sure they would; but that would mean that the vast majority of people on this planet are evil.

Sure they would; but that would mean that the vast majority of people on this planet are evil.

And the problem with that line of reasoning is... ?

Charlton Athletic aren't too fond of him (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7507370.stm).

And the problem with that line of reasoning is... ?
That considering anyone who, in any circumstances, plumps for self-interest over group-interest as 'evil', thus condemning most, if not all, humans as 'evil', is fucking nutty.

It's selfish, certainly, and to most folks condemnable, but I wouldn't call it 'evil'. That just seems like hyperbole to me.

Considering that the cases at issue are Pol Pot and Stalin, I don't see the hyperbole.

Not giving your excess cash to needy persons, instead going out to buy a new Wii game might be considered, in the grand scheme of things, as selfish or mean, but it's hardly evil.

Apples and oranges. For one, there are obvious differences of scale: minor moral failures might not merit the "evil" label the way more massive ones (like genocide) might. For another, positive duties are not equivalent to negative ones: someone who acts as you describe perhaps acts selfishly, but that is not the same thing as acting without regard for right.

If a well-off person actually stole from the needy for reasons of self-interest, I think that would certainly merit the label "evil."

That considering anyone who, in any circumstances, plumps for self-interest over group-interest as 'evil', thus condemning most, if not all, humans as 'evil', is fucking nutty.

Why ? Suppose that AIDS spreads and that in 10 years 80% of the world population would be infected. Would it be fucking nutty to say that 80% of the world is sick ?

That one does not like the idea of there being something wrong with the overwhelming majority of humanity does not mean it is not so. Denying it without thinking is even counterproductive: it means you will not even look for a solution.

Apples and oranges. For one, there are obvious differences of scale: minor moral failures might not merit the "evil" label the way more massive ones (like genocide) might.

I daresay that people buying stuff for themselves has caused the deaths of more people than e.g. the holocaust. Why is one evil and the other not ?

Considering that the cases at issue are Pol Pot and Stalin, I don't see the hyperbole.
The hyperbole comes in describing all self-interested actions which take away benefit from the group as 'evil', which I though you were doing.

Apples and oranges. For one, there are obvious differences of scale: minor moral failures might not merit the "evil" label the way more massive ones (like genocide) might.
And the inevitable question arises: just how many killings (or thefts, arsons, etc.) must I commit before I am evil? If I 'only' kill nine persons, not ten, does that stop me from being classed as evil?

If a well-off person actually stole from the needy for reasons of self-interest, I think that would certainly merit the label "evil."
Why?

What makes this 'evil' as opposed to being 'bad'?

I daresay that people buying stuff for themselves has caused the deaths of more people than e.g. the holocaust.

That's not how we measure "scale." An individual act of refraining from providing for a needy person does not cause anything close to the death toll of the Holocaust.

Why is one evil and the other not ?

Because we are not the universe, and our judgments of what is more important in abstract need not guide our personal actions.

It would be a better world if I didn't have a computer and someone currently starving had enough to eat. But am I strictly obligated to bring about such a world? No. I would be a better person if I did--I would be contributing to making the world a better place--but I am not evil for not doing so. I am not bound to solve injustices I did not create.

What makes this 'evil' as opposed to being 'bad'?

Adjective

* S: (adj) evil (morally bad or wrong) "evil purposes"; "an evil influence"; "evil deeds"
* S: (adj) evil, vicious (having the nature of vice)
* S: (adj) malefic, malevolent, malign, evil (having or exerting a malignant influence) "malevolent stars"; "a malefic force"

Source= http://wordnet.princeton.edu/

Generally evil and morally bad are seen as interchangeable by most people.

The hyperbole comes in describing all self-interested actions which take away benefit from the group as 'evil', which I though you were doing.

I didn't say a word about "take away benefit from the group." I spoke of ignoring what is right.

And the inevitable question arises: just how many killings (or thefts, arsons, etc.) must I commit before I am evil?

Who cares? Really, of what importance is this question? We don't have precise definitions of "big" and "small" either, or any number of other vague quantitative terms.

Why?

What makes this 'evil' as opposed to being 'bad'?

A hurricane wreaking destruction is bad. A willful refusal to honestly consider and do what is right is evil (subject, perhaps, to considerations of scale.)

Why?
Because 'evil' is a special case. It is worse than 'bad'; far worse, in fact.

From my reading of how the term is used in the English language, it implies a point of no return; a level of 'badness' so great that this person is almost non-human. And indeed that's another good point: 'evil' and 'inhuman' are often synonymous.

In Star Wars, for example, the Emperor is evil, for he is nothing but bad, scheming, and with no good motivations whatsoever. Darth Vader is not evil, however, but simply bad. He is redeemable, and some of the terrible acts he has done are a result of misguided intentions.

I daresay that people buying stuff for themselves has caused the deaths of more people than e.g. the holocaust. Why is one evil and the other not ?
Because of a little thing called 'motivation'. (As an aside, under my classification, the Holocaust might not be called evil. It was carried out for 'good' purposes, to 'cleanse' the human race of 'malignant' people. Though this motivation is a terrible one, misguided, abhorrent and unnecessary, it is not a bad act done for badness' sake; as in the idea of the evil villain who wants to destroy the world for the sake of being bad.)

When someone buys themselves a new luxury, instead of giving to charity or the like, they aren't buying the game because they want poor people to suffer, but because they want to play the game.

That's not how we measure "scale." An individual act of refraining from providing for a needy person does not cause anything close to the death toll of the Holocaust.

You mean that in the Holocaust the Jews were all killed by a single person ?
If not, your point is moot. How many deaths will you cause by not spending your spare cash on helping the less fortunate based on the "selfishness is ok" ideology ? How many deaths did your average nazi cause due to following the nazi ideology ?

If your ideology will have the higher number, why is it less evil ?

I am not bound to solve injustices I did not create.

Who did create the injustice then ? And who is bound to solve them ?

Generally evil and morally bad are seen as interchangeable by most people.
I would debate this.

For a start, it would mean "most people" would be fine in calling a child who hits their sibling 'evil'; something I imagine "most people" would baulk at.


I didn't say a word about "take away benefit from the group." I spoke of ignoring what is right.
Well, substitute that in.

The person who takes a bribe because it will help him and his family; I'd describe him as selfish, greedy, immoral, corrupt and more besides. But 'evil'? It seems far too strong to me.

Unless we accept Hydesland's assertion that evil=morally bad, but I suggest that this is too weak a usage of 'evil'.

Who cares? Really, of what importance is this question? We don't have precise definitions of "big" and "small" either, or any number of other vague quantitative terms.
Exactly my point, which is why I wonder at your assertions that scale is (on some level) important. See above and below.

A hurricane wreaking destruction is bad. A willful refusal to honestly consider and do what is right is evil (subject, perhaps, to considerations of scale.)
Again, why?

Because of a little thing called 'motivation'.

Way of life A will cause the deaths and suffering of X people. The followers of this way of life like the fact that those X people suffer and caused the suffering on purpose.

Way of life B will cause the deaths and suffering of a million times X people, but the followers of this way of life had no ill will towards those 1.000.000 X people.

Following your reasoning A is evil, B is not. But B does produce an awful lot of extra bodies.

Following your reasoning A is evil, B is not.
Only if group A revels in the suffering of X people and does not make X suffer for any other reason but for suffering's sake (i.e., no nationalistic, racist, monetary, health, etc., gain is being sought).

But B does produce an awful lot of extra bodies.
As does ageing, malaria and cars, but I wouldn't call any of them evil.

You mean that in the Holocaust the Jews were all killed by a single person ?

No, but we have reason to assign responsibility for the Holocaust as a whole to Hitler. (Others also have responsibility, but that is beside the point.)

How many deaths will you cause by not spending your spare cash on helping the less fortunate based on the "selfishness is ok" ideology ?

I think you are confused as to what constitutes "selfishness." If the positions were reversed, the moral terms would remain the same.

In any case, undoubtedly I will fail to prevent many deaths I could have prevented. That's unfortunate. I wish they had lived--starvation is horrible. But I, personally, am not bound to end every evil in the world.

If your ideology will have the higher number, why is it less evil ?

It's not "less" evil, it's not evil at all. And the reason has nothing to do with "number." The difference is this: I oppose people starving to death, I think it is a good thing when they are saved, and, indeed, I am willing to contribute some of my own resources to stopping it from happening. The Nazis, on the other hand, fully supported and deliberately brought about the suffering and death of their victims.

Intending the mistreatment of others is evil. Callousness toward it is probably evil, too. But refraining from expending every last superfluous resource to save every last life is not.

Who did create the injustice then ?

Some of it, no one. Some of it, other people. Insofar as I am part of a political community that bears some of the responsibility, I am obligated to use political means to end social injustice. If we had a legitimate world government, I would be obligated to vote for a redistribution of wealth that would leave me without my computer and starving people with food (assuming away considerations of maximum efficacy.)

But my obligations qua citizen and qua individual are not the same. As a citizen exercising political rights, I conceive of myself as a participant in lawmaking, and am obligated to create a just system of laws (which would ensure a fair distribution of wealth.) As an individual with a certain share of property, I need not consider the social structure (in this respect) as any different from laws of nature, and if it means that some people are treated unjustly, that is wrong, but not my problem and not my job to solve.

And who is bound to solve them ?

Possibly no one. That's life.

I would debate this.

For a start, it would mean "most people" would be fine in calling a child who hits their sibling 'evil'; something I imagine "most people" would baulk at.


Evil is merely used when the word bad, that means the same thing, does not fully give appreciation to how bad something is. I really don't see the problem in believing that evil just means something that is really bad. Of course when something becomes so bad that its appropriate to label it evil is entirely subjective and therefore pointless to discuss.

Evil is merely used when the word bad, that means the same thing, does not fully give appreciation to how bad something is.
You're contradicting yourself.

Are you saying 'evil' is the same as 'bad', or not?

For a start, it would mean "most people" would be fine in calling a child who hits their sibling 'evil'; something I imagine "most people" would baulk at.

And rightly so, but mostly because a child is, well, a child and does not bear full moral responsibility for his or her actions.

Exactly my point, which is why I wonder at your assertions that scale is (on some level) important.

It's important only because of the way we use "evil"--we usually reserve it for extreme cases.

I have no philosophical, conceptual problem with using it to refer to minor cases. I just think it would sound a little strange.

Again, why?

What kind of justification do you want? Where are you coming from here?

You're contradicting yourself.

Are you saying 'evil' is the same as 'bad', or not?

It is in so far as smelly is the same as a horrible foul stench, they mean the same thing, one is just used to describe something higher up in the scale.

No, but we have reason to assign responsibility for the Holocaust as a whole to Hitler. (Others also have responsibility, but that is beside the point.)

Nonsensical. Blaming the whole holocaust on Hitler is silly in the extreme.

In any case, undoubtedly I will fail to prevent many deaths I could have prevented. That's unfortunate. I wish they had lived--starvation is horrible. But I, personally, am not bound to end every evil in the world.

Why not ? Why is "indifference" or "lack of action" not as evil as action ?

It's not "less" evil, it's not evil at all. And the reason has nothing to do with "number." The difference is this: I oppose people starving to death, I think it is a good thing when they are saved, and, indeed, I am willing to contribute some of my own resources to stopping it from happening. The Nazis, on the other hand, fully supported and deliberately brought about the suffering and death of their victims.

Problem: motivation is something that happens inside someones mind. Actions are something we can actually measure.

Nonsensical.

Hardly, but in any case, our dispute here is not really about history.

Why not ;) ?

Because the simple fact that something is evil doesn't logically imply that I need end it.

Two separate ideas: "This must stop" and "I must stop it." "This must stop" is good enough to give us a reason to care, a motivation to stop it--but not enough to make that attempt a matter of moral necessity.

Problem: motivation is something that happens inside someones mind. Actions are something we can actually measure.

So? The only person who need "measure" is the moral agent in question. There is no need to morally judge others. (Of course, we can often get a good idea of motivation from indirect evidence.)

I don't think he's evil. He's no saint, but I think it's a little sensationalist - not to mention unfair - to describe him as evil. He clearly dislikes American foreign policy and who could blame him? The Americans weren't particularly fond of the British back in the 18th century either, but that's what hegemony does to people. He stands his ground aggressively, perhaps threatingly, but that shouldn't be surprising given that neighbouring countries - effectively representing the same culture as his - have been illegally invaded and totally destroyed.

Plus, I'd feel annoyed by the leaders of a nation a few thousand miles away telling me what I can and cannot do in my own country (nuclear enrichment) even though said nation has more nuclear arms than any other nation and is the ONLY country in the whole world to have ever used a nuclear bomb against other human beings.

I don't think he's evil. I think he's pissed off.

That's just my opinion.

Not evil, just flamingly stupid.

He's not stupid, nor more evil than most politicians.
He's just shrewd enough to try and keep his supporters happy (by telling that Iran is invincible and that Israel is going to collapse etc., so they can forget being poor), while caring nothing of the threats of a superpower that - at the moment - is too busy struggling to keep his feet in Iraq and Afghanistan to start another war. All the while, he's preparing Iran to have nuclear powerplants so they can sell all their oil for cash euro... which scares the Shrub like crazy.
You might call him machiavellian, to a degree. (The Prince wasn't just about political tactics... it was also about morals in politics).

I want to be the new Shah of IRAN....

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE USIANS!!!! NAME ME SHAH... ILL BE A GOOD SHAH...ILL GIVE YOU THE OIL.... AND EVERYTHING YOU WANT... JUST LET ME BE THE SHAH!!!!!


:hail::hail:
:salute::salute:
:mp::mp::mp:
:mp5::mp5::mp5:

NEW SMILEYS!!! HURRAY!!!

Because 'evil' is a special case. It is worse than 'bad'; far worse, in fact.

From my reading of how the term is used in the English language, it implies a point of no return; a level of 'badness' so great that this person is almost non-human. And indeed that's another good point: 'evil' and 'inhuman' are often synonymous. .

I reject your definition, and in fact, your entire philosophy, on these grounds: You have chosen to define so narrowly, and then parse your own definition more narrowly still, that you are left with no actual examples of the thing you are defining. This makes your definition useless to me. Worse, it shields a multitude of examples from the very term that ought to be used to describe them!

It is like defining a Blueberry as a small, spherical blue fruit growing close to the ground in cool temperate environments- and then declaring that you have in fact measured them with calipers and micrometers, and determined that they are not precisely spherical, (and "small" is after all only a relative term, right?) leading you to conclude that THERE ARE NO BLUEBERRIES!

If you cannot accept the term "evil" for the likes of Stalin, who most certainly perpetrated many of the most vile atrocities of the last century, then I submit that you have a tremendous gap here- a very obvious condition in need of a word describing it, for which you do not permit yourself the luxury of the word the English language has provided. You may choose to call Stalin "abominable" or "demonic"- but those are mere synonyms, and if you choose a lesser word like "bad" or a word seperating him from moral judgement and consequence, like "mentally ill", I reject it as insufficient.

It is not necessary to outline the precise boundary conditions to define a term. We need not create an arbitrary point where something is "evil", just as we create no arbitrary point for "art". When you fly, take a note of the clouds as you pass through them. From the ground, they appear definitive. Up close, you cannot fix the border between Cloud and Not-Cloud. Yet, clouds exist. So do evil people.

What kind of justification do you want?
I think we can all agree that 'evil' is worse than 'bad'; at the very least it describes, for want of a better term, a great deal of bad, and at the most it describes a complete absence of good (my position).

I'm simply trying to understand why you'd use such a strong term as 'evil'.

Where are you coming from here?
Firstly, from my understanding of the use of the term 'evil' in literature, the press and everyday speech. The truly evil villains, to take an example from superhero literature, are those that want to destroy the world for the sake of destroying the world, not because they're on some mission.

Real-life villains, Hitler and Stalin are two good examples, don't live up to that 'ideal', they did the terrible actions because of something; 'cleansing humanity' or 'eliminating the counter-revolutionaries', etc.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, 'evil' and 'inhuman' often go hand-in-hand. I think this is a cop-out. If we reduce people like Hitler or Stalin to evil villains, we excuse ourselves. Those who are condemned as evil are irredeemable; they are wholly bad, authors of all the terrible actions done in their name. Think of how many fictional stories are written about 'if only we could have killed Hitler/Stalin/evil baddie X, then everything would be all right'.

These people were human, just like me and you. Of course, they had different upbringings, educations, etc., but if they are reduced to simply evil men, men who didn't care passionately for certain things, we are in danger of absolving everyone else's blame. The two-dimensional portrayals of dictators, etc., that is often shown is, I think, highly dangerous. They allow us to ignore the institutions of power, hierarchies, agencies, etc., that enabled these people to hold such power.

I'm not saying, obviously, that Hitler was good person, or that his actions are excusable, or that he was simply a product of his environment, none of that tripe. Nor am I discounting that many actions carried out in his name, or in the name of any other powerful dictator, etc., could be evil in themselves (i.e. devoid of any good motivations or outcomes), but I would really stay away from calling any human evil.


I reject your definition, and in fact, your entire philosophy, on these grounds: You have chosen to define so narrowly, and then parse your own definition more narrowly still, that you are left with no actual examples of the thing you are defining.
Not at all. There are thousands of evil characters in fiction; those who have no redeemable qualities, and who do bad for badness' sake. The Emperor in Star Wars is one example I've already given.

If you cannot accept the term "evil" for the likes of Stalin, who most certainly perpetrated many of the most vile atrocities of the last century, then I submit that you have a tremendous gap here- a very obvious condition in need of a word describing it, for which you do not permit yourself the luxury of the word the English language has provided.
I do not question in any manner that Stalin perpetrated terrible, terrible acts. I would describe him in a number of ways, bad being the least of them, but I do not see what is lacking by refusing to call someone evil.

You may choose to call Stalin "abominable" or "demonic"- but those are mere synonyms,
But I wouldn't use these terms either, for they are just as bad. Stalin was neither a daemon nor an abomination, as, unfortunately, the world's long history of brutal dictators has shown. As I said above to Soheran, these terms allow us to breath more easily; we can sleep happily knowing our little Johnny won't turn into a Stalin for Stalin was a devil, an abomination.... he was evil!

and if you choose a lesser word like "bad"... I reject it as insufficient.
I can describe Stalin as a brutal dictator, one of the worst leaders in the modern world's history, an immoral man who, through his orders, killed millions of those he pretended to look after, forcing people into abject poverty, disease, famine and death.

Why, then, must I dehumanise the man? He was, after all, one of us. To call him evil is, I think, to ignore a glaring problem; that a human who can be kind and gentle towards those he loves, can turn and knowingly order the destruction of thousands of lives.

Not evil, but 99% of the crap that comes out of his mouth is the result of pandering to a set of Islamic nutcase oligarchs who are holding his nutsack hostage.