HOME | DD
Nekromanda β Stamp: At least not a good one.
Published: 2013-03-14 03:52:17 +0000 UTC; Views: 2746; Favourites: 146; Downloads: 5
Redirect to original
Description
The "X is evil" argument is completely ridiculous and not convincing in the least.I'm removing the example at the request of a friend of the person who made the statement.
My point still stands, though. Labeling something as evil convinces nobody of anything other than your inability to argue your point.
Texture used: by ~BTTRFLYKISS
Related content
Comments: 58
I saw this stamp and found it brilliant. I've got one dude arguing against one of my pictures with that exact pseudo-argument. It doesn't matter if it's about real people or just art, those who say "X is evil" are nitwits (if they weren't they'd have better arguments than that).
π: 0 β©: 0
Lmao check out this chick right here
comments.deviantart.com/4/3106β¦
this proves your point
she blocked me, too.
π: 0 β©: 0
Exactly why I don't tell people what my favorite game is. They claim that it's "evil" and that it's bad in the eyes of God, even though I would never do things in the game in reality, nor would I approve of them happening in reality
π: 0 β©: 0
Dad: But Jhonen Vazquez is evil.
Me: So is God.
π: 0 β©: 0
for me, something good or bad depends on where it carried out and how it done(also other factors)
π: 0 β©: 0
Good and evil are not absolutes. They are subjective concepts that are fluid and have exact definitions that vary with each individual.
π: 0 β©: 0
I really like this. :< I hate it that my beliefs are tied into a lot of conspiracy theories that have nothing to do with it. :/
π: 0 β©: 0
Keh heh heh ...
It's always fun to see how many people have never heard the term "naturalistic fallacy" ^^
"Because X is evil" is right up there with other justification phrases like "X just ain't natural".
It's quite sad, really ...
π: 0 β©: 0
Agree there. I don't think guns are evil, despite what some might think.
π: 0 β©: 2
Also "Because X is good" isn't an argument either.
π: 0 β©: 1
I gave you reasons why public education was good, though.
π: 0 β©: 1
And I gave you reasons why those reasons weren't good.
π: 0 β©: 1
And I accept that you disagree with me.
What else do you want me to say?
π: 0 β©: 1
Do you believe the government has the right to force people to support schools they have no stake in?
π: 0 β©: 2
Everyone has a stake in public schools. Even if you're in Montana and the school is in New Mexico. The intellectual health of the nation directly impacts innovation, income, and industry.
π: 0 β©: 1
You do know our public schools have some of the worst records in the world right...and that's in spite of the fact the government is throwing millions of dollars at them?
So I'm supposed to support the confiscation of my money to pay for schools that just about everyone says suck? Β
Also, just because a school is public doesn't mean it's supporting intellectual health. Β The world and history are full of examples of public schools being used for little more than indoctrination, and from what I'm reading on the current school curriculum, the same thing is starting here in the US.
Point being, I shouldn't be forced to support a school that isn't delivering on my investment, and I should be able to say to a school "Sorry, but you're a waste of money, so I'm withdrawing my contributions". Β There's nothing in it for me to support a bunch of black holes and there's no disputing that.
π: 0 β©: 1
The problem with the US schools is the lack of direction, unity, and innovation. That's why our schools and students rank really low compared to better systems.
Taxes exist and will continue to exist. You have to get over that.
π: 0 β©: 0
I believe that the government has the right to receive taxes from people, and then to use those taxes as they deem fit according to the wishes of those who are elected into office by the people.
That being said, I wouldn't want my tax money going towards the war effort in Iran. Too bad though, huh. :/
π: 0 β©: 1
But they don't receive taxes, do they? They take them, and throw you in jail if you don't let them?
Do you believe this to be right?
Also, what's preventing people from putting their own money to what they want to support, rather than forcing other people to pay for their wants?
π: 0 β©: 1
Certainly. Paying taxes is part of being a contributing member of your country. If you are able and choose not to do your part, then why should the country give two craps about you? I've heard America described as a club, and taxes as its membership fees. I think that's fairly accurate.
I don't know the answer to your final question. Clearly you don't think people are putting enough money towards things right now, but what makes you think they'd be more willing to part with their money later on? There are plenty of well-off people who send their kids to public schools. Is forcing them into a corner, where they are suddenly required to pay their student's full tuition, rather than a relatively small percentage 1 being taken from their taxes (compared to defense and health care, for example), really the right way to go?
Additionally, why should I believe that by getting rid of the public school system and going full-on private funding, we will get the same, if not better, results?
Once schools are privatized, will all the children in America be able to access it, or just those who can pay tuition? Yes, it may be cheaper, but there are still millions who have nothing, or close to it. 2 There needs to be an option for those kids. They deserve an education as much as any other kid does.
1: Tax Receipt article: Surprise, Here's where your Tax Dollars Go
2: Hunger Statistics: Feeding America: Hunger and Poverty Statistics
π: 0 β©: 1
"Certainly. Paying taxes is part of being a contributing member of your country. If you are able and choose not to do your part, then why should the country give two craps about you? I've heard America described as a club, and taxes as its membership fees. I think that's fairly accurate."
The question you should be asking is whether the government is the servant of the people and so must earn its pay like anyone else, or if it is the master and thus can use the threat of force to confiscate one's private property against their will. Which do you think the government is? And bear in mind that politicians are not gods; they are people just like you and me, and anything you or I can't do to other people, they cannot either.
"I don't know the answer to your final question. Clearly you don't think people are putting enough money towards things right now, but what makes you think they'd be more willing to part with their money later on? There are plenty of well-off people who send their kids to public schools. Is forcing them into a corner, where they are suddenly required to pay their student's full tuition, rather than a relatively small percentage 1 being taken from their taxes (compared to defense and health care, for example), really the right way to go?"
Considering those parents are solely responsible for their own children, yes. You can preach about how small the taxes are all you want, but it's still expropriated by force from people who are given no choice in the matter. That makes it wrong, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Force is force, no matter how big or how small.
"Additionally, why should I believe that by getting rid of the public school system and going full-on private funding, we will get the same, if not better, results?"
I can't say for sure, mainly because full, privately funded schooling has never been tried on a large scale, though America's private schools do have a good record when they have been tried. But the current public school's record isn't that good, and America is spending millions of dollars on it every year, yet they still claim they aren't getting enough money.
When people have a personal stake in something, logic dictates they become more interested in it turning out good. If parents have a personal stake in their children's education, they have a greater interest in making sure they get a good education.
[link]
"Once schools are privatized, will all the children in America be able to access it, or just those who can pay tuition? Yes, it may be cheaper, but there are still millions who have nothing, or close to it. 2 There needs to be an option for those kids. They deserve an education as much as any other kid does."
Considering there are doctors out there volunteering their skills, acquired after years and years of study, I'm sure the same applies for education. Also, education in America was started by private volunteers, not government, so if it can be done back then, it can certainly be done now.
And, perhaps if the government wasn't constantly confiscating more and more of the hard earned wealth of people and throwing it on completely useless endeavors, people might have more money to put to things like education. That's another benefit of giving people control over their own lives.
And finally, no matter what a person "deserves", the burden is on them to make the value for value trade to acquire it. As I've said numerous times, there is no right to the life and property of another person.
π: 0 β©: 0
It's generally not a good idea to say one thing while supporting the opposite.
π: 0 β©: 0
I think it makes a perfect point for some things.
Rape, for example, is evil. There really is no gray matter there.
π: 0 β©: 2
No. Rape is not evil. Past societies and eras have shown that.
People today have differing opinions on that.
Men in Cambodia do not see rape as a bad thing. So how can they think it is evil?
Good and evil are labels we attached to things. The rules are not universal.
π: 0 β©: 1
I respectfully disagree.... it is evil as it damanges the mental and emotional status of the victim. Just because no one in the past was mature enough in their understanding knew that doesn't mean its not wrong.
Β
I am willing to bet there are men in Cambodia who believe it IS a bad thing. As well as men in America who don't see it as a bad thing. Just because one doesn't SEE it as bad doesn't mean it isn't. Rape does not aide in the social growth and maturity of society. Therefore it is wrong and evil.
Β
I again disgree. I just believe that there are those who refuse to accept the rules.... despite what they are.
π: 0 β©: 1
You have no idea what evil is then.
There are no rules, you have to accept that fact. Rules are made as societies change.
π: 0 β©: 1
I respectfully disagree.
There are actually three levels of evil. Let's call them Actual... Intrinsic, and Absolute.
Now first, evil is an action, or an idea that tears down society as a whole. Whether that's a society of civilization or of natural infrastructure. It strikes at the order of things.... or at the mental/physical/emotional elements or both.
Actual evil is the lesser of the three, more like a necessary evil. The fact that we have laws for example, is a slight necessary evil on one hand, for it does limit some basic animalinsticive tendancies that play in manyif not all human's consciousness. It limits our wills, and in some an cause frustration in one of the three elements. But in the same stroke these laws preserve our species, survival. And as such acts as a bridge to the order of the natural infrastructure. It does NOT empose a ruination of either civilization nor natural infrastructure. I can't really completely say that in this sense, this would be considered the 'good' then. Not in the purest of forms, as the good would be that which wishes the best for you and for everyone. Actual evil then is more, wanting the best for itself. And as its self preseverence and it doesn't go against any of the elements, its the closest of the three 'evils' to be good.
Intrinsic evil is the middle ground. It violates in some ways the natural infrustrature as well as can be damaging to either one or two but not three of the elements. For example, and I am not bashing anyone. If what I say hurts your feelings, well feelings get hurt. But getting back, other sexual acts that limit the act of pregnancy. It goes against the natural order of reproduction. It can also cause mental/or emotional damage. On one or a very few occasions it can cause physical damage as well, but never (unless the case is violent rape) all three. In the instance that rape was meant for not impregnation but pure lust or physical/mental pleasure of the assaulter, it strikes on all four basis, and thus becomes Absolute evil, which we shall get too. And even if it was meant for reproduction the fact that it damages the three elements as opposed to the natural infrastructure or the benefit of society that needed more individuals to thrive strikes very close to absolute evil for the ends don't justify the means.
Forcing conversion at the point of a gun, or at the tip of a sword or arrow, or burning at the stake, etc. No matter what the philosphy being used, either polythesitic theism/monotheistic theism, or even using atheism to try to make one turn away from any religious belief, is an intrinsic evil. The ends do not justify the means.... and because the 'converted' may not actally have converted, and held a rightly just anger at the action... you risk a revolution even generations later against your society or civilization. In that instance by forcing conversion via violence its an absolute act of evil.
Okay so now that I've talked twice about that subject in the last two paragraphs the third evil is thusly the greatest. Absolute. As in there really is no redeaming value to it. Other examples would be genecide... fanning the flames of racial or class struggle for the wealth of no one's interests but your own, (because while your trying to forge the benefit of your society, it may cost it's demise as the weight of the conflict eventually collapses on it). Etc.
If there are no rules... no laws... then everything is anarchy. Governments should not by right then exist. No evil.. and truly no good. Everyone should do as they please. But such is a fact and thus the ONLY TRUTH as it 'IS A FACT' as you suggested, then logically what I just suggested about anarchy should be accepted. But to do so would damage all four points: society/ and the three elements. As such it is an absolute evil. Its pure destruction.
Β
Please do know that this doesn't mean I'm calling you absolutely evil because you seem to hold to the opinion that there are no rules. The only way one is absolutely evil or even intrinsically evil is to fully embrace the ideals that makes up the two. That is to say one WISHES or enjoysΒ violating the natural infrustuture as well as one or all three elements. To be either partially anarchistic/ or pure anarchistic. And I'm not talking about the live and let live, folks. But the let's burn everything folks.
π: 0 β©: 1
Good lord, you have no clue
π: 0 β©: 1
True, but at the same time the argument doesn't really stand on its own - it requires further explanation or previous understanding on the topic. We know rape is wrong because we know that it's harmful to the victim. In contrast, we don't know that public school is evil, so without further explanation we can't accept the argument by itself.
π: 0 β©: 2
Rape is wrong because it involves the use of force outside of self-defense and prevents a person from freely living their life.
Public schools, their alleged goals aside, are wrong because, through the government, they force people to support them whether they want to or not, among other things.
π: 0 β©: 1
If that were so, then the nearly 90% of American students who attended public schools would all be unwavering in their support of the US government, regardless of what they do. This is not the case.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm referring to financial support. Do I have to spell everything out for you?
π: 0 β©: 1
Well gee, sir, I apologize for not realizing you were talking about financial support when you didn't even mention it in the comment I responded to.
π: 0 β©: 1
I seem to recall government schools being supported by taxes expropriated by force being a central part of my response to your "American tradition" piece.
π: 0 β©: 1
I've been talking to several people on the subject of public schools as of late, I did not remember.
π: 0 β©: 0
There is truth in that. In all truth anything in excess or misuse is harmful to an individual, thus anything and everything could be called evil.
π: 0 β©: 0
it's an empty statement in of itself. what exactly makes thing X evil? do you expect me to just take your word for it?
π: 0 β©: 0
Not to mention that what is "good" and what is "evil" depends entirely on your perspective.
π: 0 β©: 1
So your right to your life is just a point of view, no different than another's belief in his right to kill you?
π: 0 β©: 1
When I wrote that, I meant more in the terms of war. If an American soldier single handedly takes out a camp of enemy soldiers, he is, of course, seen as a hero to Americans, but seen as a monster by the families of the enemy soldiers.
π: 0 β©: 1
If the enemy soldiers country threw the first punch, then they've lost any right to morality.
π: 0 β©: 1
I hate to butt in when the argument is already long over, but I find that's not necessarily true. A government doesn't represent it's peoples (only the people in power) and, depending on where you live, can actually force it's people to do certain things like joining the military.
Even if you join the military of your own choice, more often then not (taking into account the innumerable greedy and self-serving political obsessions rampant in government), a soldier doesn't really know what they're fighting for or even necessarily believe in what they are fighting for if they do know. They still fight for that cause for a number of reasons; money, free education, coercion, tradition, discipline, religious or nationalist brainwashing, a need of a purpose, fleeing from social stigma or they'd just been lied to. This is true of US soldiers as well as any soldier of any government that has in anyway done wrong to it's people - which is every single country in the world.
No one man's cause is able to be truly justified because everyone has a stake in it. It all just depends on who is able to pull that stake out fast enough and with the least amount of resistance. Not saying that's right, but it's just how it seems to be acceptable to work.
π: 0 β©: 1
A government can't throw the first punch, then hide behind its own people and say "You can't hit back". Anything that happens to its people or military remains that government's fault, regardless of whether it represents the people or not.
π: 0 β©: 1
Sorry, it just sounded like you were were saying that soldiers deserve to die if their government throws a punch, which is something I just can't agree with.
π: 0 β©: 1
Whether they deserved it or not is often open to debate, but the overall fact of the matter is the blame for what does happen to them rests on the people who sent them to war in the first place.
π: 0 β©: 1
No one is disputing you there.
π: 0 β©: 0
| Next =>