You're talking about the way they die? Not the number who are killed off right? Would you agree that this last century has resulted in the most deaths to previous centuries, right?

A benefit is something that would be good for people though. Selfish is benefit for oneself.

Road rage is not a good anger. It's an example of being sinful. Anger doesn't have to be evil, but anger for no good reason is sinful.

Ok. That doesn't change that gang activity is more dangerous than before.

If you're saying that child soldiers have been around for a long time, and they are still around, isn't that an agreement to the sinful actions being around still?

It doesn't really matter what they were testing for. It's evidence people will inflict pain on others knowingly. Good people do not inflict pain on others. Bad people do that.

Were the americans who tortured Iraq prisoners in jail good americans, or bad americans? I suspect you're answer will be they are good people who do bad things. Why do good people do bad things? I say because they are sinful.

They have been plenty of evil supported by society. Germany supported going after those "nasty jews". They were not oblivious to the pain they caused.

You're talking about the way they die? Not the number who are killed off right? Would you agree that this last century has resulted in the most deaths to previous centuries, right?

There have been no atrocities on the scale of the Holocaust since World War II.

A benefit is something that would be good for people though. Selfish is benefit for oneself.

I don't really see how this relates to my statement.

Road rage is not a good anger. It's an example of being sinful. Anger doesn't have to be evil, but anger for no good reason is sinful.

Sin is a christian concept. I'm not a christian. I define morality through utilitarian ethics.

Ok. That doesn't change that gang activity is more dangerous than before.

What? Yes it does. There is less crime today than there was ten, fifteen years ago. Crime is decreasing, the chance that an individual will be victimized is lessened.

If you're saying that child soldiers have been around for a long time, and they are still around, isn't that an agreement to the sinful actions being around still?

If people are working to end the problem, isn't that an indication that they aren't inherently evil?

It doesn't really matter what they were testing for. It's evidence people will inflict pain on others knowingly. Good people do not inflict pain on others. Bad people do that.

It's because people can be misled by authority.

They have been plenty of evil supported by society. Germany supported going after those "nasty jews". They were not oblivious to the pain they caused.

Is it possible you misunderstood what I was saying? Are you familiar with the concept of the social contract?

Yea, that's what I'm talking about. We have had these atrocities throughout history, and still have things going on all the time. We can be glad it doesn't happen to the scale of millions, but we have things in the recent past past with plenty of horrible wrongs done to people based on a variety of things such as ethnicity, and gender.

Selfishness is sinful. People want things that protect themselves, and saying that because there are laws that are helpful at the cost of freedom is not saying people are selfless, as they are still doing it for themselves.

I'm a christian, I cannot define morality through utilitarian ethics. It's a non christian concept.  ??? That doesn't really change the arguments, does it?

In other words, changing the definitions doesn't change that people are inherently sinful. Look at their actions through out history. Anger, selfish, murder, hate, adultery, rape, addictions, etc.


That doesn't change that gang activity is worse. I'm saying gang activity is getting more barbaric. You're saying it is less likely to affect you. Those are two entirely different points.

Let's also point out more people are behind prison bars than ever. Only a portion are getting help. In other words, while crime is slightly on the decrease, it's a direct result of simply removing the people into a jail setting where they learn more ways to become criminals. When they get out, the number of criminals will be higher in the end. We are not actually preventing crime, we are removing them from society. That has a result on the stats, but it has a poor impact of society. Less fathers to raise their children which will increase likely hood of another generation of criminals.

Quite frankly, with the economy the way it is, civil servants have much to be worried about. California is close to going bankrupt, and so are other states. When they run out of money at some point, the prison guards, police force, etc will not get paid. That will result in these criminals seeing their way back to the street someday, worse then ever. Add the fact that police and public servants will not be as able to deal with such actions if they are not getting paid.


I'll take that as a yes to my question. The response to your question is no. Good actions can occur while someone is sinful.

The experiment gave the people a small does of the shock. They knew it would hurt. They inflicted pain on others knowingly. I really do understand the experiment revealed other results such as authority, but do you understand that the people knew they would inflict pain on others knowingly?

It's possible I didn't understand. I'll try and go over this. You stated society could not exist if they were evil. I pointed out a society that was evil,and existed. Could you clarify your point? I pointed out an evil society that existed. To me that counters your point it could not exist.

Falkus and TitL, I think this is once again an issue of definitions, and you're missing the substance of the disagreement because of it.

From what I can tell, Falkus thinks people are good, even if they ocassionally commit evil acts.  TitL thinks people are evil, even if they ocassionally commit good acts.  You're coming at this from different definitions of good and evil.  For Falkus, "good" means comitting good acts more than evil acts (correct me if I'm wrong, there, Falkus).  For TitL, "good" means not committing any evil acts, ever (correct me if I'm wrong, TitL).  You both would agree, I think, that people commit acts that are both good, and evil.  What you're arguing about is not the nature of people, but rather on the label to apply to it.

You're both looking at humanity, seeing some good things, and some bad things.  Falkus is saying "it's getting better, so let's call it good."  TitL is saying "it's not perfect, so lets call it evil."  You both agree that things are perfect.  You both agree that people can and do do good things.  You're just arguing over what to call it.

Vexen's original question was more along the lines of "what can we do to make things better?"
--TitL: is your answer "nothing, because we're by our nature bad?"  If so, do you really think non-christian people can't improve their behavior in anyway?  If so, is it possible for them to improve their behavior if they are christians?
--Falkus:  you clearly think people can improve their behavior.  How do you suggest we help that process along?

What can we do to make things better?

Everyone just submit to my rule and everything will be bubble gum and roses.

I swear.

;)

But seriously, I am on TitL's side that men are inherantly evil and, on our own, we can never truely get along.

Hitler tried, the Romans tried, all have failed miserably.

Communism is probably the best stab at it, but it still failed due to the ones in charge being too greedy.
This message was last edited by the player at 10:54, Mon 13 Oct 2008.

Are you suggesting we're doomed to fail no matter what, so we shouldn't even bother?  Are you saying that a christian theocracy is the only way likely to be successful?  If so, what do you say regarding past christian theocracies?

In reply to Tycho (msg #24):

Yep I am saying we are all doomed anyway.  We can't save ourselves and are doomed to fail when we try.  That is what the message of salvation is all about.  Christians are loosers as much as athiests are.

Theocracy doesn't work because of our fallen nature gets in the way.  The only theocracy that will work is when Jesus comes and sets up His kingdom.

Make sure you don't misunderstand that I am some doom and gloom guy.  Infact I have nothing but hope.  It just that I am a realist and understand what the human condition is.  I have been at the bottom, and almost ended it all, but I was helped by my beautiful wife and the saved by a reunderstanding of what I did it the past could be forgiven.

I know some of you will be saying "What?!?!".  Basically I lied to God in my early adult years and got so much guilt in my heart that it almost destroyed me.

Again, though, are you saying there's no point in trying to make the world a better place, because no matter what we try, we're going to fail?

Thank you Tycho. Indeed, this was becomming a bit too much about the nature of good and evil than I had intended. There are threads for them, if you want to continue that route, but this is a much more specific problem.

It's about belief and political positions in the philosphy of hate. We seem to allow, as a society, hatred on a massive level based on one's beliefs, against those who believe differently. Calling a black person out on a basis that he's black is unacceptable. Insulting a person who is a muslim, on the basis that he's a muslim, is unacceptable. But insulting a person because they don't have the same opinion on abortion, or the Iraq War, or on gay marrige, that seems to be completely acceptable. For example, a person is often called a surrender monkey, a faggot, a pinko, a commie, a traitor, and a terrorist sympathizer if they just happen to be a libral. And the implications can be even worse.

These shouts at the rallies really scares me, that people in our society can have such a feverent hatred for a man for simply having ideological differences. So much so that they call to kill him. And even boo their candidate for simply saying that he's a decent person. McCain didn't salute Obama, he just called him a decent family man, and appearently, that can't be true either. Why is such acidic vitriol allowed to be spewed?

Why? Why is this acceptable? Has America really adapted an "you have to agree with me, or there's something wrong with you" attitude? Shouldn't the political pundits who spout such things be reprimanded? Why can't we discourage such behavior, much like we did with the hatred of Mormons, Jews, Blacks, and Homosexuals?
This message was last edited by the player at 22:14, Mon 13 Oct 2008.

It's acceptable because people are sinful. :)

Seriously though, while your view is clearly one sided Vexen, it clearly is considered acceptable on all sides. The reasons behind it are due to man's nature. In order to change that, you have to change man's nature. There's only one way to change man's nature.

One sided? I said before the Democrats are just as responsible. I simply point the rallies because they're a clearly visible, extreme end of this point. Librals do it to Conservatives. And Conservatives do it to Librals. Not saying any party or believe system is immune to it.

Again, I have to disagree. You seem to imply that no one can change, and society will never change anything about itself, because we're all evil. As I've said, we change the hatred in this country before. It's no longer acceptable to hate on race. It's no longer acceptable to hate on religion. It's no longer acceptable to hate on sexual preference or gender. Why can't we include political beliefs to that list?

All of your examples were items where liberals were being made belittled. In other words, it kind of put liberals as the victims.

While I can appreciate that you feel those hates have been put to a stop, I don't see mankind as having changed. Look at USA as they fight against "foreigners". Or how about people who attack muslims as terrorists? How about countries who still use ethnic cleansing, such as in africa? How about the way boys are treated better than girls in China? This covers religion, race, and gender.

People have tried to do things on their own for a long long time, right from the beginning pretty much.

What I am saying is that we can try, but we will fail.  Working against the forces of evil is what we are called to do, like fighting injustices, but in the end as a species we will fail.

Like fighting for the down trodden is a nobel cause, and as individuals, we should do it, but as a society, we will botch it.

Like what is happening today in the US is a prime example.  The government takes our taxes and gives them to the "less fortunet".  This has two problems, this hurts the haves because they don't get personally involved and thus didn't actually do anything good and makes them hard nosed to the havenots.  The second problem is the havenots are not inspired to work harder and thus they stay were they are forever leaches on the system.

There is technically a third problem that I just thought which is the government can now drive a wedge between the two and use that to their advantage to get benefits, that if they were united, the normal populous would not stand for.

In one post, yes, I didn't portray a Republican victim in specific examples. In my first post here, I cited just as many libral accusations as I did conservatives. You could argue I have a slight bias for libral. Does that make my call for political consideration and respect any less honest? I'm sorry, but it really seems like you're focusing on a side issue.

It really seems like you're fighting an argument I haven't said. I never said stop all evil everywhere. I never said that we would be able to  make the world into a loving peaceful world completely devoid of malice or hurt. That's what you're seemingly arguing against.

All I'm aruging for is in this society. I never said that there aren't people wo are racist, sexist, antisemitic, anti-muslim, or what have you, in this society. You seem to address it as if I did. But those things, at large, are no longer acceptable. They are not considered positive things to do or say.

Did the civil right's movements never happen, TitL? Did women's liberation never happen? Were laws never passed to protect people's right to believe in the religion of their chosing? In your constant criticisms, you never seem to acknowledge any of this happening. This is the world you're seeming to indicate, that things never change, that people never change, that we've lived in a world that's completely static, except for those who are Christians. I'm not by any means saying that we've rid ourselves of selfish motivations, but we have make certain evils unacceptable, have we not?

Is it not possible that we can simply disagree with people and not hate them or find them deficient? It's really all the basis I need for this. We don't have to like or love people who think differently than us. But can we simply not hate them?
This message was last edited by the player at 23:18, Mon 13 Oct 2008.

It does make it a little less honest, yes. The way it would read would seem that one side is more at fault.

I thought the question was why people don't stop hating the "other side".  I thought I was answering questions and the responses put forth.


Of course they were. But I was addressing questions asked, or comments made.

Maybe this is why people don't come together. Because people criticize others for when they don't agree with what they have to say. Constant criticism though? Considering out of a handful of posts, I've been answering questions from you that's a bit much. Perhaps that's part of the problem though. Disagreement does seem to bring out the "best" of people.

Strangely enough, I think this reinforces the point about how disagreement really seems to leave some people unable to accept the other view.

Evil is unacceptable in all forms. No one has ever considered murder ok, unless they are angry enough to do it themselves, and it's for a "good" reason, such as terrorists should die, and so should those bad criminals. It's never been ok to commit adultery, unless your spouse has been neglecting you. It's never been ok to call someone names, unless they are so arrogant to deserve it. It's never been acceptable to lie, unless you want to avoid conflict, and need to get out of some trouble.

I'm not saying that people cannot change. As everyone can. I'm not saying the world is static, and that change doesn't take place. I'm saying the reason why people cannot be nice to each other is because they are sinful, and that will not change unless they put Jesus in their life.

Everyone can find salvation, and make changes in their lives through Jesus.

I'm am not saying you did, Mr/Mrs(?) Vexen just making a general statment and answering a question is all.

Also civil rights were not in the founding father's ideas.  There were two camps when the bill of rights were written up.  One was you must state the basic rights so that government can never take them away and the other was that if a bill of rights was written up then people would believe that these were their only rights.  It seems the second camp has been proven right.

Why do I make trouble for other people?  Well, it wouldn't be very interesting otherwise ;)  Truthfully, competition in ideas and methods is ultimately a good thing.  It forces us to challenge what we hold dear (whether within ourselves, our outside in the real world), to help us all determine which are truly the most worthwhile.

Why are we seeing such reactions in politics?  Because people are afraid.  Between the economy, terrorism, the war, etc., people are afraid, and with good reason.  I think Obama is more targeted than McCain because Obama is more revolutionary than McCain.  No one feels personally threatened by McCain because, at worst, he's Bush II, and we've already lived through 8 years of that, so it's a continuation of the current situation.  Obama seems interested in making substantial changes, with no real parallel.

I also think it interesting that Obama is the one who gets the stronger positive emotional reaction too.  His rallies seem like something out of an evangelican church, really.  Just absolutely crazy for a political rally.

More general than that, people are wired so they recognize 'in group' and 'other'.  They can only mentally handle up to a few hundred in their real 'in group', and everyone else is some degree of 'other'.  When people are afraid or angry, that is generally projected towards an 'other'.  The more emotional attention the other gets, the more anger and hate he attracts.




I find this statement inherently contradictory.  "Good" here is defined by 'working in support of their community'.  And of course, the only reason we are posting here on the internet is because people successfully made communities through people being good.  Creating communities is a evolutionary benefit.  So giving in to social norms isn't "good" in any objective sense, nor selfless.  It's, evoluntioarily speaking, simply a successful strategy.  There were just about as many people who were not selfless or did not give in to social norms and they generally failed to reproduce.  That the remainder were socially compatible is tautological.  Now the percentage of behavior contrary to society is naturally kept to a "safe" but effective percentage.  But I really don't think this has anything to do with people being "good" or "bad", but with some strategies being successful or not, and using the ideas "good" and "bad" to enforce that mentality.

*whew*

How can Obama's socialism be any better than McCain/Bush's socialism.  Both will destroy this country.  Carl Marx was seen as a revolutionary.  Just before he had all his buddies killed.



Actually I am hearing the reverse from Rush and Beck.  Do you know how he brought such a large crowd in Germany?  By having two free concerts just before, but the liberal media will never tell you that.

For proof go here http://newsbusters.org/blogs/r...ed-obama-s-big-rally

Now if Obama was such a good speaker, why does he need a warm up band?



I don't hate him, just don't trust him.  For that matter I don't trust McCain either.

McCain/Bush are more fascists than socialists.  The US has survived fascism several times before.  It's never undergone true socialism.



I was talking about his rallies domestically.  Getting the reports I've seen, "Obamamania" is absolutely, clinically insane.

Just want to check if you really meant "cannot" here, or if you just meant "are not."  Are you really going to say that non-christians are incapable of being nice to others?  I really, hope you agree that it's not only possible for non-christians to be nice to others, but that it happens all the time.

In reply to katisara (msg #37):

Amen to the insane part!!

It's almost like what The Anti-Christ will be like.

Can you be a bit more specific?  What, in particular, do you feel is insane?

Also, you seem to be more disturbed by people having positive feelings about their candidate, than you are by them having negative feelings about the opposition.  Is that actually what you were meaning to imply?  If so, why?

One man was quoted in the paper talking about how he touched someone who touched Obama, and that was special.  People are regularly fainting at his rallies.  There's a new term, "Obamessiah".  He's been called (and quoted in the MSM) the "Lightbringer".  I think that sort of fanaticism is dangerous.  That's why I think it's better to have strong negative feelings against someone, than strong feelings for them.  Strong negative feelings result in slowing momentum, a lack of change.  Strong positive feelings result in fanaticism, in crusades and witch hunts, with powerful people finding themselves unchecked.

Wait, I still don't get it.  Positive feelings about someone result in witchhunts, not negative ones?  I think you've got it very, very backwards there.  Witch hunts are caused by demonizing those you disagree with to the point that you think they're not people anymore.  I'm far more worried by people hating those they disagree with than I am of them loving those they do agree with.

What sort of "fanaticism" are you talking about?  What actions have fans of Obama taken that are frightening to you?  What crusades and witchhunts do you think will be the result?

Also, do you realize that Palin is now considered the most dynamic of 4 candidates?  That people are more excited to go and see her than Obama now?  That the crowds react to her more than they did to Obama?

You're more worried about someone feeling it was "special" that he touched someone who touched obama, than you are about the people yelling "kill him!" at Palin rallies?  I have to say, I find that very strange.

Most witch hunts don't start with a witch in mind.  You start out with an individual, perhaps someone like McCarthy, who drives up support for his cause.  Then, after you support the cause (in this case, fanatical support of democracy), you find an 'other' to attack for it.  After all the years here, I've never heard anyone claim witch trials were conducted because the victim was scary, it's always been because Christianity drove people to it.  No one goes on suicide attacks because they're fighting something they fear, they do it because they're fighting FOR something.  People only fighting what they fear fight long enough to get away from it.



Comparing Obama to Jesus is definitely a warning bell.  Seriously, Jesus?  What does this say about a man who is obviously a flawed human like the rest of us?  I fear anyone who says he is fighting for his god.



I don't think Obama will lead any.  When it comes down to it, he is a rational person and I don't think he would intentionally look to marginalize people, muchless start violence.  However, given his comments about people clutching their religion and their guns, and especially given the racial rift that has come up, and those people he surrounds himself with, I could see him accidentally being the touch-point for this.  I'm worried about what those people who seem to associate Obama with God will do.  Obama will just pass a bunch of stupid laws that inadvertently support them.



Palin has been on the scene for about a month now.  I'm still forming my opinions about her.  Plus, again, I've not heard Palin compared to any religious figure.  If I see pictures of her holding the baby Jesus and stepping upon a serpent, I'll definitely worry.



The person who yelled to kill Obama is most likely reacting out of fear (having nothing else to go on, it's hard to say).  Fear will push him to drive people away, but he's not going to actually try to kill anyone (because he would be giving up his own life in exchange.  The cost is too high to address one's fear.)  However, someone who regards Obama as related to God does give me cause for concern, because dying for God is certainly considered acceptable.  I don't want to see any politician inspiring any martyrs.