NationStates Jolt Archive

Evil thrives when good men do nothing. Suppose that in the future mankind discovers many new things which in turn makes life easier. However evil power hungry men begin researching and applying these new scientific finds to further their cause for world domination. After perfecting the science of brainwash, bio engineering and among other things they set up a fascist one world government where everybody is brainwashed and oppressed. The people of earth are now nothing more than pawns that take abuse because of the cult mentality that has engulfed the entire world. However if good men actually got out of their way to prevent technology from falling into the wrong hands earth would still be free.

The question is, would the lazy deserve to be brainwashed, abused and tampered with against their will because they were too lazy to stop those that would?

Here's a more generic version of this question. If lazy people are held responsible for not preventing a disaster if that disaster was something was losing all rights, freedoms and ultimately turned into a plaything for the regime would you say they deserved it?

Evil thrives when good men do nothing. Suppose that in the future mankind discovers many new things which in turn makes life easier. However evil power hungry men begin researching and applying these new scientific finds to further their cause for world domination. After perfecting the science of brainwash, bio engineering and among other things they set up a fascist one world government where everybody is brainwashed and oppressed. The people of earth are now nothing more than pawns that take abuse because of the cult mentality that has engulfed the entire world. However if good men actually got out of their way to prevent technology from falling into the wrong hands earth would still be free.

The question is, would the lazy deserve to be brainwashed, abused and tampered with against their will because they were too lazy to stop those that would?

Here's a more generic version of this question. If lazy people are held responsible for not preventing a disaster if that disaster was something was losing all rights, freedoms and ultimately turned into a plaything for the regime would you say they deserved it?
Well, he's a question for you: does a woman deserve to get raped because she was too lazy/terrified to attempt a defense? Reason why the analogy is valid: your argument is predicated on the idea that people's rights exist only when they fulfill their duty to protect them. A woman who "doesn't" defend herself is "abrogating" her right to bodily security. If this sounds absurd, it should.

No, I would argue that a person does not "deserve" to be oppressed because she failed to act against this government. That is an insane moral burden to place on someone. Governments use terror and gruesome violence precisely to discourage people from doing what is morally right. That people may be acting wrongly is certainly mitigated by their reasonable expectation not to risk torture, murder, or anything else.

However, I would argue that these people still have an obligation to use overwhelming lethal force in a very organized armed revolution to depose of this government. These efforts should very specifically target only guilty individuals (agents of the State), and they should always provide ample warning for agents of the State to convert to the revolution's cause.

Edit: I emphasize that the revolution must differentiate between the innocent and the guilty, and for it to be just, torture must never be used, and when lethal force is used, it must cause as little suffering as possible. That is, no revolutionary should be out to "make those capitalist pigs die a slow and agonizing death"; rather, the revolutionary should bring summary execution to the guilty in a swift and professional manner.

Evil thrives when good men do nothing. Suppose that in the future mankind discovers many new things which in turn makes life easier. However evil power hungry men begin researching and applying these new scientific finds to further their cause for world domination. After perfecting the science of brainwash, bio engineering and among other things they set up a fascist one world government where everybody is brainwashed and oppressed. The people of earth are now nothing more than pawns that take abuse because of the cult mentality that has engulfed the entire world. However if good men actually got out of their way to prevent technology from falling into the wrong hands earth would still be free.

The question is, would the lazy deserve to be brainwashed, abused and tampered with against their will because they were too lazy to stop those that would?

Here's a more generic version of this question. If lazy people are held responsible for not preventing a disaster if that disaster was something was losing all rights, freedoms and ultimately turned into a plaything for the regime would you say they deserved it?

*reads...*
translated: Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

However, I would argue that these people still have an obligation to use overwhelming lethal force in a very organized armed revolution to depose of this government. These efforts should very specifically target only guilty individuals (agents of the State), and they should always provide ample warning for agents of the State to convert to the revolution's cause.

That's why we have the Second Amendment, my friend.

Well, he's a question for you: does a woman deserve to get raped because she was too lazy/terrified to attempt a defense? Reason why the analogy is valid: your argument is predicated on the idea that people's rights exist only when they fulfill their duty to protect them. A woman who "doesn't" defend herself is "abrogating" her right to bodily security. If this sounds absurd, it should.

Your faith that the OP has the capacity to recognize absurdity is, I believe, unwarranted.

That's why we have the Second Amendment, my friend.
You're exactly right. That is the justification for the Second Amendment. It is unfortunate, in my view, that more people don't have the courage to say that the right of revolution (i.e. collective self-defense) is the motivation for the Second Amendment, not an individual's right to defend herself. (Even the American Rifle Association won't point this out, when it's quite obvious.)

Well, he's a question for you: does a woman deserve to get raped because she was too lazy/terrified to attempt a defense? Reason why the analogy is valid: your argument is predicated on the idea that people's rights exist only when they fulfill their duty to protect them. A woman who "doesn't" defend herself is "abrogating" her right to bodily security. If this sounds absurd, it should.
Too lazy to protect herself against her rapist?
"Just get it over with and try to clean up when you're done." I'm not even sure how much that qualifies as rape.
It is natural to assume that, however scared the woman is, she wanted to defend herself, but her body wasn't capable. A lazy person who lets himself be dominated by the government, however, didn't even want to fight back.

Of course they deserve it, when they could have prevented it from Happening. Look what happened to Britain( Chamberlain) and France when all they did was appease Hitler, instead of Reckognizing the evil and destroying it before he commited those Horrible Atrocities.

there is no such thing as evil people so naturally the villain in any future society will be busy bodies!

That's why we have the Second Amendment, my friend.

pfft its got nothing on British football hooliganism! *throws plastic chair at bobby*

Too lazy to protect herself against her rapist?
"Just get it over with and try to clean up when you're done." I'm not even sure how much that qualifies as rape.

First, let me just say that I am appalled by what you would count as rape. Rape occurs whenever a person is a party to a sexual act when mutual, uncoerced consent does not exist. It has nothing to do with whether or not you fought back or looked like you wanted to.


It is natural to assume that, however scared the woman is, she wanted to defend herself, but her body wasn't capable. A lazy person who lets himself be dominated by the government, however, didn't even want to fight back.
And thus ignorant people who welcome the fascist government should go hang? Not misanthropic at all. Not one bit.

there is no such thing as evil people...
I disagree. The evil man is a rare man, but he exists.

Your faith that the OP has the capacity to recognize absurdity is, I believe, unwarranted.

I recognize the absurdity behind linking my OP to my opinion since I left my opinion in this thread unstated. All I did was create a scenario and ask a question.

I also recognize the absurd threadjacker who made an absurd analogy to rape. Rape is only rape if the man requires himself to use force which signifies resistance. Thus a lazy society that doesn't lift a finger even though they can with little consequence=/= woman being raped. Also the fact that NArt here would back him up makes me question whether he has allowed past follies of mine to blind his *giggles* judgment and/or his sanity.

Silly human, Us evil men already control the world.

Spoiler: Hitler won.

Silly human, Us evil men already control the world.

Yes, you do; therefore, I am working to rectify that situation with all deliberate speed.

First, let me just say that I am appalled by what you would count as rape. Rape occurs whenever a person is a party to a sexual act when mutual, uncoerced consent does not exist. It has nothing to do with whether or not you fought back or looked like you wanted to.
What do you mean about how one looks? And "laziness" goes beyond the question of fighting back, it implies an acceptance and basic contentment with the way things are.
And thus ignorant people who welcome the fascist government should go hang? Not misanthropic at all. Not one bit.
No, the people who welcome the fascist should be hanged. Those who don't care enough to fight for their own rights shouldn't rely on someone else to fight for them.

Too many moral assumptions in that. Boring.

A far more interesting question is "would it be right for a dictatorship to brainwash everyone else and maintain absolute control, if by doing that they made everyone as happy as they could possibly be?"











The dictatorship is god, and the future world is heaven. Now is the answer the same?

No, the people who welcome the fascist should be hanged. Those who don't care enough to fight for their own rights shouldn't rely on someone else to fight for them.

And if you don't have a rope to hang anybody with? Is it OK to steal one?

Too many moral assumptions in that. Boring.

A far more interesting question is "would it be right for a dictatorship to brainwash everyone else and maintain absolute control, if by doing that they made everyone as happy as they could possibly be?"










The dictatorship is god, and the future world is heaven. Now is the answer the same?

I asked that once, the majority of the posters who voted in the poll voted yes.

And if you don't have a rope to hang anybody with? Is it OK to steal one?
I'll use the goddamned intestines if I have to, there is no way I'm buying any fucking rope.

What do you mean about how one looks? And "laziness" goes beyond the question of fighting back, it implies an acceptance and basic contentment with the way things are.

Laziness implies nothing other than the unwillingness to do what it takes to achieve something more desirable than the status quo. It doesn't mean you accept it.


No, the people who welcome the fascist should be hanged. Those who don't care enough to fight for their own rights shouldn't rely on someone else to fight for them.
So you would not be particularly given to the idea of forgiving these people for being horribly wrong?

Too many moral assumptions in that. Boring.

A far more interesting question is "would it be right for a dictatorship to brainwash everyone else and maintain absolute control, if by doing that they made everyone as happy as they could possibly be?"

The dictatorship is god, and the future world is heaven. Now is the answer the same?
Well, if this thread is not good enough for you, start your own. Don't hijack this one.

Yes, you do; therefore, I am working to rectify that situation with all deliberate speed.
You can try, but you must realize that you're attempts are really just part of our control system.

You can try, but you must realize that you're attempts are really just part of our control system.
Only when hippie, liberal pacifists claim that I am "stooping to your level."

Only when hippie, liberal pacifists claim that I am "stooping to your level."

On the Contrary, You see my friend, the true marvel of mind control, of controlling the masses, is to make them think that they're really in charge, like somehow their opinions are unique, and that they matter in some small way.

Of course, because you think this, you never notice the true strings of control that are used to control each and every one of you, your every action, your every reaction, is controlled in some manner or another. Your resistance was planed, years in advance, propagated into your mind by our controls and now you, for the briefest of moments, believe that you are free, outside the system, somehow you've escaped from it's chains and you will return to the cave to free the people.

But you haven't really escaped the cave, you've just entered into a much larger one, you aren't really free, you never were, and you never will be.

The evil man is a rare man, but he exists.

and what causes this "evil" some sort of demon?

and what causes this "evil" some sort of demon?

We're really an ethic minority, like the Jews.

So.

Genetics.

The evil man is a rare man, but he exists.
How would you define this evil man?

What makes him evil, as opposed to merely immoral?

Here's a more generic version of this question. If lazy people are held responsible for not preventing a disaster if that disaster was something was losing all rights, freedoms and ultimately turned into a plaything for the regime would you say they deserved it?
Only if it was a wholly man-made disaster.

Rape is only rape if the man requires himself to use force which signifies resistance.

This ignores the rapist with a gun to the head of the victim. No violence is needed, since the threat of instant and lethal violence is sufficient. Or what about the use of knock out drugs? No force there.

Your very limited definition of rape is odious.

We're really an ethic minority, like the Jews.

So.

Genetics.

We ethnic Jews are more of a minority because we're more evil! :p

Think about it... We control the media! We decide what you shall watch and because of that, we shape what you believe.

That, my friends, is the International Jewish Conspiracy for World Domination... MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *Adjusts his monocle and pets his white, fluffy cat*

This ignores the rapist with a gun to the head of the victim. No violence is needed, since the threat of instant and lethal violence is sufficient. Or what about the use of knock out drugs? No force there.

Your very limited definition of rape is odious.

Holding one at gunpoint is force as much as holding a banker at gunpoint is forcing the banker to give up cash.

And the knock out drugs are irrelevant because this thread is about force and the response or lack thereof. Obviously knock out drugs would be used by the rapists that are well equipped, the average woman would not expect this, secondly because of the nature of such an attack the victim doesn't even get the opportunity to resist. Last I checked this thread regarded the choice to resist and what those who chose not to are deserving of.

Thirdly said situation if compared to the OP would be analogous to a society that isn't aware that it is being conquered due to the sublty of the conquerors. Like before the analogous situation would eliminate the oppurtunity for resistance thus defeating the point of this thread.

Take those metal plates of left wing bias off of your heads so that you may partake in reasonable debate. MMMMkay?

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/Assets/ferrouscranus.jpg

Thirdly said situation if compared to the OP would be analogous to a society that isn't aware that it is being conquered due to the sublty of the conquerors. Like before the analogous situation would eliminate the oppurtunity for resistance thus defeating the point of this thread.

And somehow your OP example of brainwashing technology and the like isn't a form of "subtle" conquering hmm?


Take those metal plates of left wing bias off of your heads so that you may partake in reasonable debate. MMMMkay?


Reasonable debate and the premise of your OP are mutually exclusive since you have set up a double jeopardy scenario.

And somehow your OP example of brainwashing technology and the like isn't a form of "subtle" conquering hmm?



Reasonable debate and the premise of your OP are mutually exclusive since you have set up a double jeopardy scenario.

The populace had the means of preventing the villain(s) from acquiring the knowledge and resources required for brainwashing technology in the scenario.

Double jeopardy? The people in question have only one chance to redeem themselves from oppression.

The populace had the means of preventing the villain(s) from acquiring the knowledge and resources required for brainwashing technology in the scenario.

You're using superhero comic book settings in which all it would take is hard work to put a stop to this sort of thing. It completely avoids the question of death, torment, or even the methodologies of prevention, much less acquisition (killing everyone involved in the project?), of the technologies.

And even then, you naively dump the idea of "villain" as if that was sufficient to deem what they are doing as wrong, with no elaboration of what they actually intend or how they intend to go about it.

It is an exceedingly naive and childish scenario that tries to produce a "right" and "wrong" answer, but actually produces a moral double jeopardy when applied to the real world and not comic book story conventions. And even if the "good" people win, what do you think they will do with the technology hmmm? When do the "right hands" become the "wrong hands"? A goodly portion of Americans think that the "right hands" is theirs when it comes to playing despot of the world.


Double jeopardy? The people in question have only one chance to redeem themselves from oppression.

More evidence that your scenario is childish in it's simplicity and ignorance of real world factors.

I also recognize the absurd threadjacker who made an absurd analogy to rape. Rape is only rape if the man requires himself to use force which signifies resistance.

No, rape is sexually penetrating someone without their consent. There are a whole host of reasons that a rape victim might not fight back against their attacker, laziness being very, very low on the list. Until you are sexually assaulted, my friend, perhaps you should stick with subjects you know. Meanwhile, if you don't know for sure whether someone you're interested in wants to have sex with you, I would keep my hands off. That is, they should say "yes" and not be in a situation where they might feel they have to say yes, not simply fail to say "no."

As to the person who has such lovely things to say about France knuckling under to the Nazis, I got two words for ya: Free French. As with cases of rape, just because someone opposes being attacked and taken over does not mean they will effectively repel said attacker before damage can be done. But thanks for playing.

You're using superhero comic book settings in which all it would take is hard work to put a stop to this sort of thing. It completely avoids the question of death, torment, or even the methodologies of prevention, much less acquisition (killing everyone involved in the project?), of the technologies.

And even then, you naively dump the idea of "villain" as if that was sufficient to deem what they are doing as wrong, with no elaboration of what they actually intend or how they intend to go about it.

It is an exceedingly naive and childish scenario that tries to produce a "right" and "wrong" answer, but actually produces a moral double jeopardy when applied to the real world and not comic book story conventions. And even if the "good" people win, what do you think they will do with the technology hmmm? When do the "right hands" become the "wrong hands"? A goodly portion of Americans think that the "right hands" is theirs when it comes to playing despot of the world.



More evidence that your scenario is childish in it's simplicity and ignorance of real world factors.

Good people apply technology to medicine and public welfare. Also evil people will use anything for their own selfish and/or antisocial purposes. Ever here of the expression "if there's a will there's a way", if people want something really badly they'll work for it and attempt to achieve it with what resources they can, if a bad person can gain access to the technologies in question than couldn't a good person with the same resources prevent the bad guy from getting said technologies. Couldn't a genuinely good person with as much willpower apply his/her resources to preventing evil from gaining power as much as evil can towards gaining power.

There were multiple incidents in which technophobes would post "oh noes that technology will be used for evil ban it!" and NSG's response was "if you hinder it's development the evil ones will still gain it, at least when the project is allowed to continue good may still have a chance.

No, rape is sexually penetrating someone without their consent. There are a whole host of reasons that a rape victim might not fight back against their attacker, laziness being very, very low on the list. Until you are sexually assaulted, my friend, perhaps you should stick with subjects you know. Meanwhile, if you don't know for sure whether someone you're interested in wants to have sex with you, I would keep my hands off. That is, they should say "yes" and not be in a situation where they might feel they have to say yes, not simply fail to say "no."

As to the person who has such lovely things to say about France knuckling under to the Nazis, I got two words for ya: Free French. As with cases of rape, just because someone opposes being attacked and taken over does not mean they will effectively repel said attacker before damage can be done. But thanks for playing.

Hey, the other guy brought it up. As far as I'm concerned the definition of rape is absolutely irrelevant to the subject matter and I'd prefer not to discuss it since threadjacking is not my cup of tea,.

Evil thrives when good men do nothing. Suppose that in the future mankind discovers many new things which in turn makes life easier.
Like radio, computers and motors.
However evil power hungry men begin researching and applying these new scientific finds to further their cause for world domination.
Like WW2 or Cold War. Or today's world.

After perfecting the science of brainwash, bio engineering and among other things they set up a fascist one world government where everybody is brainwashed and oppressed.

No need for bioengineering. TV, cars and computers are ALREADY employed by the one-world-corporate government, and they brainwash most people quite efficiently.

The people of earth are now nothing more than pawns that take abuse because of the cult mentality that has engulfed the entire world.

Already happened.

However if good men actually got out of their way to prevent technology from falling into the wrong hands earth would still be free.

Not very realistic, anyway let's assume.


The question is, would the lazy deserve to be brainwashed, abused and tampered with against their will because they were too lazy to stop those that would?

I don't think it's about "deserving it".

Evil thrives when good men do nothing. Suppose that in the future mankind discovers many new things which in turn makes life easier. However evil power hungry men begin researching and applying these new scientific finds to further their cause for world domination. After perfecting the science of brainwash, bio engineering and among other things they set up a fascist one world government where everybody is brainwashed and oppressed. The people of earth are now nothing more than pawns that take abuse because of the cult mentality that has engulfed the entire world. However if good men actually got out of their way to prevent technology from falling into the wrong hands earth would still be free.

The question is, would the lazy deserve to be brainwashed, abused and tampered with against their will because they were too lazy to stop those that would?

Here's a more generic version of this question. If lazy people are held responsible for not preventing a disaster if that disaster was something was losing all rights, freedoms and ultimately turned into a plaything for the regime would you say they deserved it?

Yes. Liberty is hard, freedom is difficult. if you're not willing to defend them, they are going to be gone, even if none of the technological nightmares you describe ever, actually, occur.

You get the government you deserve.

If people do nothing they deserve it. I strongly believe that democracy elects what is deserves. Sadly most people deserve next to nothing

Good people apply technology to medicine and public welfare. Also evil people will use anything for their own selfish and/or antisocial purposes. Ever here of the expression "if there's a will there's a way", if people want something really badly they'll work for it and attempt to achieve it with what resources they can, if a bad person can gain access to the technologies in question than couldn't a good person with the same resources prevent the bad guy from getting said technologies. Couldn't a genuinely good person with as much willpower apply his/her resources to preventing evil from gaining power as much as evil can towards gaining power.


You completely miss the point, no surprise given your insistence on a naiveté world mechanic. What is evil? Do try to define it. And then apply it to the real world. No one in the real world is "evil" in the comic book fashion. There is always a driving motivation, and it is never for the sake of evil as commonly believed.

And even if some comic book villain were to spring forth into reality with all his mustache twirling villainy, the act of stopping them may not be in itself, "good". There is always a cost that is associated in doing something, and the more drastic that action, the more it will affect others, and often for the worse.

How would you stop them from acquiring a piece of technology for example? Kill scientists who may not even be involved with them? Burn down labs? Destroy entire cities where the experiments are taking place?

And how would you know one is evil? Do you possess a magic eye that will pronounce you the villain? Give you the ability to drive by a neighborhood, point a finger at random and yell "There's the bad guy! He's the villain".

Where is your good and evil now? Where is it? What form does it exist in? Why is it evil? Can you stop it merely with "good"? Can you answer that question?

You cannot. Because the act of "good" will inevitably stain you with the actions of "evil". To prevent the possibility of "evil" is to do "evil" in itself, is to become a despot of thought and speech.

US deserves patriot act? yes they do.

You completely miss the point, no surprise given your insistence on a naiveté world mechanic. What is evil? Do try to define it. And then apply it to the real world. No one in the real world is "evil" in the comic book fashion. There is always a driving motivation, and it is never for the sake of evil as commonly believed.

And even if some comic book villain were to spring forth into reality with all his mustache twirling villainy, the act of stopping them may not be in itself, "good". There is always a cost that is associated in doing something, and the more drastic that action, the more it will affect others, and often for the worse.

How would you stop them from acquiring a piece of technology for example? Kill scientists who may not even be involved with them? Burn down labs? Destroy entire cities where the experiments are taking place?

And how would you know one is evil? Do you possess a magic eye that will pronounce you the villain? Give you the ability to drive by a neighborhood, point a finger at random and yell "There's the bad guy! He's the villain".

Where is your good and evil now? Where is it? What form does it exist in? Why is it evil? Can you stop it merely with "good"? Can you answer that question?

You cannot. Because the act of "good" will inevitably stain you with the actions of "evil". To prevent the possibility of "evil" is to do "evil" in itself, is to become a despot of thought and speech.

I suggest casting Detect Evil...its a very simple level 1 spell.

Like radio, computers and motors.

Like WW2 or Cold War. Or today's world.

No need for bioengineering. TV, cars and computers are ALREADY employed by the one-world-corporate government, and they brainwash most people quite efficiently.

Already happened.

Not very realistic, anyway let's assume.


I don't think it's about "deserving it".

1) point being?

2) I meant to say they began applying the new technologies based on my knowledge that they have throughout the ages and would continue to do so. When technology reaches a certain level of advancement then it's game over when the bad guys to what they have been doing for the last few centuries.

3) that is bebatable

You completely miss the point, no surprise given your insistence on a naiveté world mechanic. What is evil? Do try to define it. And then apply it to the real world. No one in the real world is "evil" in the comic book fashion. There is always a driving motivation, and it is never for the sake of evil as commonly believed.

And even if some comic book villain were to spring forth into reality with all his mustache twirling villainy, the act of stopping them may not be in itself, "good". There is always a cost that is associated in doing something, and the more drastic that action, the more it will affect others, and often for the worse.

How would you stop them from acquiring a piece of technology for example? Kill scientists who may not even be involved with them? Burn down labs? Destroy entire cities where the experiments are taking place?

And how would you know one is evil? Do you possess a magic eye that will pronounce you the villain? Give you the ability to drive by a neighborhood, point a finger at random and yell "There's the bad guy! He's the villain".

Where is your good and evil now? Where is it? What form does it exist in? Why is it evil? Can you stop it merely with "good"? Can you answer that question?

You cannot. Because the act of "good" will inevitably stain you with the actions of "evil". To prevent the possibility of "evil" is to do "evil" in itself, is to become a despot of thought and speech.

In my personal opinion, evil for humans would be anything detrimental to society and/or the race as a whole. Good however is beneficial or natural to a healthy society and/or humanity as a whole.

Also I'd like to point out that never did I say the villain was a comic book one, I left the whereabouts of said villain up to the outrageous imagination of NSG. All I mentioned is that the evil existed whether it was because the villain had a tough upbringing, has mental illness or as the NSG populace put it "hopped out of a magical comic book" the cause is irrelevant to this discussion, the fact is the evil in this scenario exists for one reason or another and it must be addressed. As for pointing him/her our, actions speak louder than words and usually the well informed and those with good insight can find out wit hour good ol' buddy 'research'. Heck, being well informed was what past generations did to keep crooks out, there's more corruption today because people are too damn lazy to look into things, they prefer to be as lambs being led to the slaughter.


As for the last paragraph, I must say you are truly more of a pessimist than even I. I've learned that the best way to hurt liars and to destroy their lies is with truth, the truth being the more reliable weapon since it
is factual, people will believe it and there's a chance it will point out the falsehood of the lies. There's that good solution but no you say that the only way to handle this scenario is to become the thought gestapo.

In my personal opinion, evil for humans would be anything detrimental to society and/or the race as a whole. Good however is beneficial or natural to a healthy society and/or humanity as a whole.

Denying humanity political access and restricting governance to tailor made AI might be good for humanity as a whole, but nobody would see it that way.

Restricting human population growth might also be good for it, or simply killing undesirables in it. But that would still fall under the purview of "evil" by most definitions.

Your assumptions of what is evil, and worse, how "easy" it would be to find it, is ludicrously naive. Worse yet is your assumption that it won't cause harm or evil in it's own right.

The ALF is convinced that burning down labs, universities, factories while causing untold local ecological damage is "Good". Some Americans still believe that slaughtering the entire populace of the countries they conquer is "Good". The various extremist groups think that killing in the name of their movement/religion is "Good". And there are those who believe they are evil.

So where is your good now? Where is your evil?

Would you kill a man who is evil but has a good family? Can you do evil in the name of good? Can you?


Also I'd like to point out that never did I say the villain was a comic book one


Your naive assumptions of what constitutes evil and the ease of which evil can be found leaves only comic book villains as the possible candidates.


As for the last paragraph, I must say you are truly more of a pessimist than even I. I've learned that the best way to hurt liars and to destroy their lies is with truth, the truth being the more reliable weapon since it
is factual, people will believe it and there's a chance it will point out the falsehood of the lies.

Take a good look at the world today. Take a good, hard look. Direct your attention to cults, religious movements, scams, marketing schemes, political promises or attacks. Look at how many people fall for outright falsehoods.

Then come back and tell me that people will believe the "truth".

Denying humanity political access and restricting governance to tailor made AI might be good for humanity as a whole, but nobody would see it that way.

Restricting human population growth might also be good for it, or simply killing undesirables in it. But that would still fall under the purview of "evil" by most definitions.

Your assumptions of what is evil, and worse, how "easy" it would be to find it, is ludicrously naive. Worse yet is your assumption that it won't cause harm or evil in it's own right.

The ALF is convinced that burning down labs, universities, factories while causing untold local ecological damage is "Good". Some Americans still believe that slaughtering the entire populace of the countries they conquer is "Good". The various extremist groups think that killing in the name of their movement/religion is "Good". And there are those who believe they are evil.

So where is your good now? Where is your evil?

Would you kill a man who is evil but has a good family? Can you do evil in the name of good? Can you?



Your naive assumptions of what constitutes evil and the ease of which evil can be found leaves only comic book villains as the possible candidates.



Take a good look at the world today. Take a good, hard look. Direct your attention to cults, religious movements, scams, marketing schemes, political promises or attacks. Look at how many people fall for outright falsehoods.

Then come back and tell me that people will believe the "truth".

1) What people think is good maybe clouded by emotion or our lesser natures, as is the case with your examples. Deep down many of us can tell right from wrong.

2) How does evil desiring power and control limit the candidates to comic book villains?

3) It's because the truth is hidden, suppressed or unseen. And I my statement about the truth is wrong then why is it that evil men and women try their utmost best to make certain that the truth remains hidden?If the truth came out they would lose.

1) What people think is good maybe clouded by emotion or our lesser natures, as is the case with your examples. Deep down many of us can tell right from wrong.

Who's right and wrong hmmm? ALF believes what they are doing is right. So did the IRA when they planted bombs in crowded places. So did any number of people carrying out horrors and atrocities throughout history. They all thought they were doing the "right thing".


2) How does evil desiring power and control limit the candidates to comic book villains?

Because you think desiring power and control automatically makes one evil, conveniently forgetting that "attempts to stop evil men from acquiring so and so" also requires power and control.


3) It's because the truth is hidden, suppressed or unseen. And I my statement about the truth is wrong then why is it that evil men and women try their utmost best to make certain that the truth remains hidden?If the truth came out they would lose.

Factual evidence is disputed by people because they want to believe despite the truth. Try telling a Mormon that everything in his holy book is wrong. You can use all the evidence you want. Come back and tell me if it works.

Who's right and wrong hmmm? ALF believes what they are doing is right. So did the IRA when they planted bombs in crowded places. So did any number of people carrying out horrors and atrocities throughout history. They all thought they were doing the "right thing".



Because you think desiring power and control automatically makes one evil, conveniently forgetting that "attempts to stop evil men from acquiring so and so" also requires power and control.



Factual evidence is disputed by people because they want to believe despite the truth. Try telling a Mormon that everything in his holy book is wrong. You can use all the evidence you want. Come back and tell me if it works.

1) You missed my point completely.

2) Desiring it to the point where one disregards morals and ethics completely is evil, the good would desire it because of morals and ethics.

3) I may actually try that. The memoirs of Rick Ross, Margaret Thaler Singer, and Dr. Lillian Glass may have supplied me with the information neccessary to show the cultist that the truth is alot better than a lie.