Evil isn't evil.

Evil is simply a concept created by us. Outside of our perception of it, evil just "is".

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    One side is always love, but the other side has lots of different names, evil, hate, fear... maybe this is what that guy is saying about Jesus vs Satan Lucifer Etc?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Love is just biochemistry that compels mating rituals. I doubt there's some big cosmic enigma behind it.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        You think the world is pure materialism and nothing has any true meaning. It's convenient theory for someone who doesn't live in the real world. In reality, things like love - not sexual desire like all you know but love between kinsfolk and friends - and the malice of evil deeds are the only things that are real. You say that what's real, rather than that, would be something like the count of each species of bacteria on my skin which is completely meaningless and worthless.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Purely human constructs.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's not true at all, but even if it was, the world was created for humans. All of a sudden after countless generations we have you people who think you've transcended your human nature, culture and history.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Even if it was, lmao.
            Also, all of a sudden!!
            I've literally never heard of a religion or spirituality before.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I have a question for you, champion of ignorance. Is consciousness a human construct? If not, what is it?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Apologize or we shan't continue.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          No, that anon was right. The feeling of love is a chemical byproduct of a genetic propensity towards procreation.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I love my relatives and have no desire to procreate with them. I love my pets and the birds outside and even the trees. The feeling of "love" that you describe is the lowest form in existence. It is fitting because the lowest form of existence is the only one your ilk acknowledge as real.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Again, these anons are right. You have no desire to capitulate to truths. Your intention here is to inundate others with your preconceptions. You're right that I was referring to romantic love, but while some part of me wishes to elucidate you as to why, you're overtly an unlikable idiot unbeholden to empirical truths offered by sources other than yourself. Intent on remaining steadfast to a half-conceived agenda. Ignorant of the equivocation of evil to unnecessary pain. Remain in your iniquity.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            An incredible word salad. I will summarize:
            >you're not an empiricist and therefore I refuse to speak to you with anything but condescending dismissal
            What is consciousness?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            This seems more like sexual attraction than love. This difference appears in St. Thomas Aquinas for example but even in secular literature like Plato. Immanuel Kant for example will talk about self love, love of a neighbor and love of an idea.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Metaethical realists and even antirealists will hold that we can still reason to know what we should or should not do. Just because something is made by humans doesn't mean it is any less real. Think something like economic concepts of profit.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's interesting, but the essential qualities of evil aren't a human creation. I wouldn't compare that to profit which ultimately corresponds to a quantity of a particular item anyway. A better comparison would be something like dishonor, which also certainly exists without anyone needing to create, perceive or interpret it

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Usually, we call these social kinds. They are held to be different from natural kinds. Magintudes and quantities are also human made, that does not stop them from being core to scientific endeavor either. Henri Poincare's work on magnitudes is a great example. Dishonor is highly human contingent too. That may not mean it is worthless.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't think the distinction between natural and social kinds is meaningful. Honor and dishonor are objective things, it doesn't change if your society and culture ascribe honor to a dishonorable deed, that's just falsehood. The same is true for classes, races and others. To say magnitudes are human made is completely false, if something is moving twice as fast as another thing or is twice as large or bright, that's an objective fact with no relation to humanity. What would be true is the quantity - which is properly the means of measurement rather than the result of the measurement - is created by men, but only within the context of that proper definition; as if I have 5 apples that number is not man made.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Objective and subjective really are only concepts rooted in Heglian philosophy, the idea of an abstract universal or objective idea for example. Generally, it is better to think in terms of what is epistemically justifable. The issue of the reality of numbers is different than what we can know about numbers. Mathematical structuralism, the most common position on number holds that numbers are structures that reflect the necessary organization of the human mind. Much like you can't imagine a world without space, you can't think without mathematical structures. This structures are neither physical or mental constructs but kinda hard coded into human repersentation itself. It is more primary than many things that are knowable. This differs from things like class, race, or many other natural and social kinds. Social and natural kinds just refer to the material cause to use a technical term for what makes something up. Things like class for example have to be justified as explanatory useful and generally they are not held to be as primary as number. In terms of things like race, below is an example of such a detailed look.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            If it's not epistemically justifiable to suggest that five apples actually are five outside of human perception then your epistemology is absurd on its face. In the case above we can swap objective and subjective for factual and opinion - to say honor is social because different cultures interpret it differently is really to say nothing, because honor exists just as much as a species of plant or animal. I'm not interested in watching your video which I'm sure will suggest races are not real on the basis of a continuum fallacy and perception differing from reality based on cultural context. Really, if we come back to the beginning of this discussion we will also arrive at its end.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Fact and opinion are legal terms and not very useful outside of the law and journalism . Below is a professional philosophers explanation of this.What you seem to getting at is that there is a need for conceptual analysis to acquire a concept and then justify the existence of said concept in reality. Disagreement does not rule out the existence of things. Agreement might be necessary for the existence of some social kinds.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not interested in a professional philosophy that spends lifetimes of work and study to say that facts don't exist and numbers are all in your head. That's absolutely insane. I will continue to follow the obvious truths that were known to everyone on every continent before you modern people ruined everything with your theories and science.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I've read before that the definition of evil is the inability to think long term. I think that's a pretty good definition.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    You are approaching this conversation with an unalterable premise so what I will ask you is why?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >unalterable premise
      What the frick do you mean?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Who the frick shit in your cereal you worthless piece of shit? An unalterable premise is a form of conversation in which the initiation of said conversation is phrased in such a manner that the other conversant cannot respond.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          That's the most god damn moronic thing I've heard today. Congratulations, don't forget your fricking dunce cap you giga homosexual.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I can use your chakras to make you commit suicide I would advise against further antagonism.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    That's a mason pedophile as op.

    Guy brain gets destroyed on cigarettes pre18,
    Even size pre 18,

    Don't go on me or I will Mr. Corpse and humiliating cloning, harvesting , no more using your traced money to bang Italian gangs.

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Hypocrisy is bad

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nobody knows what that fricking means. When I start sawing off your leg you don't talk like that.

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's you to do the cloning, come at me mafia

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    You're actually very close to some deep truth, but still seeing it from the wrong angle. The angle of acceptance.
    In the language of consciousness "evil" (or more accurately "darkness") is like a contradiction.

    When you see 1+1=3 do you say "it just is" and learn to live with it?

    The reason I said you were close to a truth is because you do have to see it for what it is. Before your mind can solve a contradiction you must first see the contradiction for what it is.
    So many people think "enlightenment" means to ignore all the contradictions, making their soul ignorant to the higher logic we occupy.
    You do have to realize that it is what it is... But not to accept the contradiction, but so that your soul can remove it.

    All "evil" is really nothing more than ignorance. And all pain and suffering are actually the souls _knowing_ that there is something wrong... That there is a contradiction.
    It's only when souls are twisted into thinking they have to "love their suffering" (i.e. love the contradictions, and love the ignorance) that they can be brought into lower realities.

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Just come at me mafia, make me pretty!

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Evil need not be the same thing as ethical bad. In fact, in most theistic religions it is not the same thing as ethical. Many prohibitions like on food or so on are not about ethics but simply because God wills it. It is a different normatively. Some evidence things might be ethically bad too though.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    sage

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Nothing exists outside of my perception.
    This is pure narcissism.

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    There is no evil so let me knock you out tie you up on a burning radiator and force you to watch me cum on your grandmas corpse and then feed you her rotten crusty pubes. Remember its all a matter of perspective

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      this. OP is moronic. Saying evil is an invalid concept because it's a word, while utilizing other words to defend their (non-)argument. Worst part is they're a condescending butthole unwilling to listen to reason. This thread is a waste of time

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Pretty much this. The whole "Dude evil isnt real man, its a matter of perspective" is literally Im 12 and this is deep territory. There is a reason that the Bible, no matter if people believe in such or not have this verse:

      Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

      Anyone claiming bitter for sweet is in most cases a pseudo intellectual thinking they have tapped into some universal vibration being deep af.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Correct, but I will drop kick you before you begin your vicious gay shit.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Just accept it bro evil is subjective plus you might like it. now shut the frick up and hold tight while I skin a kitten alive, gut it, and rub its shit in your nose.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Nah, just two bros having a friendly life or death struggle. Who said anything about me not liking it, it's time to exchange blows.

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Anon, you're obviously an idiot, so I'm going to try to explain this to you in a way even you can understand. Words might accurately be said to not possess objective meaning, but they still bear ostensible resemblances to reality, and thus have utility. This is called the correspondence theory of truth. Thus, this utility informs their contextual worth. Just because evil isn't a literal physical object doesn't mean the phoneme isn't useful in informing us of objects or scenarios which may cause us harm — evil. Thus it has a definite purpose. "Evil" is usually used in a context warning of dangerous situations and/or unnecessary harm.

    Your "argument" is unsound and your temper is unrestrained. You defend ignorance with aggression and are a waste of resources. The fact that your initial impulse is to post a pepe with holding a paper that says "fact" implies you're so unconfident in your argument, you felt the need to appeal to authority and bandwagonning. have a nice day. /thread

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    THE CURSE OF GREYFACE AND THE
    INTRODUCTION OF NEGATIVISM

    To choose order over disorder, or disorder over order, is to accept a trip composed of both the creative and the destructive. But to choose the creative over the destructive is an all-creative trip composed of both order and disorder. To accomplish this, one need only accept creative disorder along with, and equal to, creative order, and also willing to reject destructive order as an undesirable equal to destructive disorder.

    The Curse of Greyface included the division of life into order/disorder as the essential positive/negative polarity, instead of building a game foundation with creative/destructive as the essential positive/negative. He has thereby caused man to endure the destructive aspects of order and has prevented man from effectively participating in the creative uses of disorder. Civilization reflects this unfortunate division.


     POEE proclaims that the other division is preferable, and we work toward the proposition that creative disorder, like creative order, is possible and desirable; and that destructive order, like destructive disorder, is unnecessary and undesirable.

    Seek the Sacred Chao - therein you will find the foolishness of all ORDER/DISORDER. They are the same!

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    evil is equivocal to anti-sociality

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Repeat that when it's someone or something bashing your head in repeatedly until you stop breathing just because, if you can get any words out. I'll be sitting here laughing at you.

  18. 2 months ago
    Aninymous

    Some of us are evil as fuuuuck... I couldn't count on both hands how many of you wouldn't feel the slightest bit of guilt killing someone.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Nothing wrong with killing if it's to counter a greater violence.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        It becomes an issue there of normative ethics.

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    "We have formed symbolic figures such as the devil to express evil. Social conditioning can also represent this figure, since there are people who act [in an evil way] because they are in an environment where it is difficult to act to the contrary"

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The real issue is whether we hold that the concept of evil is necessary or whether the idea of good in ethics is enough and whether the concept of evil if it is necessary includes only ethically bad things or other things not related to ethics like aesthetics, religious truths etc.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        If you've experienced evil you know it's not a concept. We can't empirically measure, for example, how people with ouija boards or voodoo dolls get all sorts of bad shit happening to them. We can't consistently reproduce it in a scientific setting, quantitatively measure it, or explain its cause or the means by which it comes about. Someone like you will say it's not true.

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    But there is degeneracy.
    And it will be crushed again, for a time.
    G is back.

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Then you are claiming that evil is some nature or substance. For example, in Christianity is the lack of being as echoing St. Augustine. This is means not purely about ethics but includes metaphysical claims like the being and the lack of being.

  22. 2 months ago
    Red Robin

    We have laws for a reason bro… can’t just shoot someone in broad daylight

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      right. What you do is follow them home and shoot them out of sight, right? It isn't completely out of rhythm with how people approach "morality".

      • 2 months ago
        Red Robin

        If a tree falls in the woods does it make a sound…. Laws are laws you either broke them or you didn’t. If you don’t get caught good for you…

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          yeah, exactly.

  23. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    pedo cope

  24. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Evil is to do whatever one wants, whenever one wants to, without limitations.

  25. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    no evil is definitely evil when it "is"
    you just have trouble discerning between what is and what is not

  26. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Okay... but you've already cemented your opinion as a fact (it isn't). So, what the frick is the point of this thread?

    Are you just looking to argue with strangers on the internet? Is that your American idea of what a 'debate' is?

  27. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I in no way with to battle you in debate but the way I see it's like this. Opposite of good, is bad. Yes that's a construct. We gave it a name, and a word to associate with the opposite of good. Cake, good. Don't like cake? No good. Stub your toe. No good. it would be a stretch to say anyone enjoys a stubbed toe. Being were on the same page and accepting of the fact, nobody really likes to stub their toe, we lead up to life. What's the opposite of life? I guess death. but some would say evil. Live eviL I think a baby being born is good. Where as, old cryptid frickers in office defending your right to abort babys, even to some degree encouraging others to do so because the economy is bad and the planets getting too warm is...not what I would call good. sounds bad. some can call it evil.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *