It goes both ways. They sacrifice virgins to appease the wind, we forsake the gods on a daily basis and enjoy free love. We do "evil", they do "evil", we're all going to hell together.Syntax Error post=18.75045.856044 said:Isn't that supposed to be the other way around? I remember the Aztecs liked them human sacrifice rituals. To appease the Gods, apparently.cleverlymadeup post=18.75045.856033 said:evil is a bit too subjective because there are things we do today that people a couple centuries ago would think were evil
Pff. Alright, I'll play. Yes, I would disagree that tearing someone's heart out and chowing down while they watch is necessarily "evil". To say that some things aren't relative is to ignore every possible variable a situation can have. Just because you said "not all things are relative", I can now make up some completely ludicrous situation that results in human sacrifice being a pleasant, happy thing for all involved, and you have to attest that it's still "evil". Or you can retract that little statement. Your choice.Would you disagree that tearing out a person's heart and eating it, forcing that person to watch as their life fades away is evil? Not all things are relative, and indeed the things that are relative are not the things I am talking about.
Having actually read this thread now; I need to comment on some of this. Starting at the beginning; that's sadistic, I could never like the person who did it. However, I wouldn't consider it evil, my morals are different than most people's, and I will not hold people to them. Morals are a compass you should use to govern yourself, it is not a tool to be used when judging people.The_Logician19 post=18.75045.855239 said:As I said before, two people can look at a word and think of two different things.EnzoHonda post=18.75045.855218 said:Everyone on this thread would agree that that sucks and is evil. But there are people who would say it's not evil. Hell, there have been times in human history where it was common practice. Were a person to do it, they would most likely think "I'm NOT evil." We feel comfortable calling them crazy, but then you have to define crazy. Is crazy evil? It never ends.The_Logician19 post=18.75045.855208 said:Would you disagree that tearing out a person's heart and eating it, forcing that person to watch as their life fades away is evil? Not all things are relative, and indeed the things that are relative are not the things I am talking about.
To me, the definition of evil is different for all people.
That is the definition: Evil has no definition.
The issue regarding the definition of evil is intriuging to me. I can tell you with complete certainty what makes a person evil, but not what evil is; I think this is becuase "evil" is a judge of a person's worth.
Let me use another example to explain what I mean by evil, one that isn't so ambiguous; Those of you who chose to be the most evil individuals you doulc be, you knew what you were doing was evil (or at the very least wrong) correct? What, though, made what you were doing evil?
thats rediculous. if evil existed that would mean that good existed, and there would have to be a middle ground, and what if evil to one was good to another, then it would be a pardox. then god would be angry, but if he exist there must be a devil, but there is no devil so there can't be a god becaue there is no middle ground there. the only good is in our hearts and thus evil is there too, but ur heart is a lump of blood and flesh, so can it really be evil or good?TheNecroswanson said:Fool, evil exists in all things.samsprinkle said:evil does not exist, evil is a term used by christians and fanatics. So if evil does not exist, then how can you do something evil?
And to answer the OP question.
No. Evil must be in the (wo)man's heart. Otherwise it's just a poser.
If the killing is 'evil', then yes. However, the killing might not be evil itself, thus not making the person evilDoes a man who kills in a time of crisis have a black heart?
An interesting thing is that cats that have never seen a bird have been shown to chase birds in their dreams.tobyornottoby said:I had a discussion with someone a while ago, where we discussed a housecat preying on a bird. I said the housecat had no neccessity to kill and eat the bird, so it was not cool, whereas the other person said killing birds was part of being a cat, so it was cool.
Woah 'cool'The_root_of_all_evil said:An interesting thing is that cats that have never seen a bird have been shown to chase birds in their dreams.tobyornottoby said:I had a discussion with someone a while ago, where we discussed a housecat preying on a bird. I said the housecat had no neccessity to kill and eat the bird, so it was not cool, whereas the other person said killing birds was part of being a cat, so it was cool.
So, in your opinion, cats are born uncool. With that I have to disagree, and so does Artemis.
Cats are born to take advantage of every situation they have, so yes.tobyornottoby said:Woah 'cool'The_root_of_all_evil said:An interesting thing is that cats that have never seen a bird have been shown to chase birds in their dreams.tobyornottoby said:I had a discussion with someone a while ago, where we discussed a housecat preying on a bird. I said the housecat had no neccessity to kill and eat the bird, so it was not cool, whereas the other person said killing birds was part of being a cat, so it was cool.
So, in your opinion, cats are born uncool. With that I have to disagree, and so does Artemis.
But are cats born as housecats?