Does evil exist in your moral universe?

That's not a loophole for you to selectively hold me accountable for the actions of others.

And no, I'm not vegan. I suppose this is a variation on the "meat is murder" nonsense.

Your own logical inconsistencies trap you.
I just underline it, and draw arrows pointing at it.

So, Michael Jackson defenders, evil or dupes?

your clearly emotional response and angry projection proves otherwise.

not too mention your incapacity to perceive anything outside of a binary choice.

Eating animals isn't cruel to them?

The only thing you underline is that you'd better find a way to make a living that doesn't depend on your ability to write fiction.

Evil if they're justifying child molestation, dumb if they just deny it.

They moan in ecstacy when I do it.

There, was that so hard?

So you're just dumb for being an atheist dupe of Christian Nationalists.
Although, the glee you take in it gets up to the evil cliff.

What have I denied they've done, you tedious fucking parody of a man?

Yeah, I'm more or less with Albert here. I wouldn't call most meat eaters "evil." The modern world in which most of us live is built around getting our protein sources from dead animals, and using communication devices full of precious metals mined by little slave kids, and opting out of that paradigm involves investing additional money and effort that many of us don't have. The people at the top that designed that system and keep it in place are evil. The regular people at the bottom whose individual participation or abstention changes basically nothing? Nah.

Unless someone is intentionally eating things like shark fin soup or foie gras that involve an extra level of cruelty, I wouldn't call them evil just for getting their protein from animals.

Irrelevant. Upbringing is not a license to be an asshole.

anyways...
anyone wanna share an ethical position on this?

I've been doing a reno for the past month close enough to home that I bike up. Normally I've got a half decent tank of a mountain bike... dual shocks type of thing. It's a good ride, but at over 20kg, it's a pig to haul up three flights of stairs with narrow turns.

I get in through the back door through a narrow laneway between the houses that leads only to the yard of the place I'm working on. Sitting in front of the gate was a pretty nice Cannondale, fully intact, but unlocked. Clearly stolen from nearby and abandoned so I wheeled it into the yard for the day, figuring it'd jsut get stolen again if I didn't. There's apparently one of "those" houses up the street where it'd get stripped or sold to one of the "used" bicycle shops.

stored it inside that night, and sought out a couple of local FB groups for stolen bikes to see if I could get it back to its owner. Checked the online police registry but didn't submit a report-they'll just auction it off in 6 months anyway. Even called the store it was purchased from as there's a sticker hoping they'd have a database of some sort (they don't, but should).

Took transit in the next day and rode it home that night... never been on one before, and wow... it's like a sports car that just wants to go fast... we have those signs that tell you how fast you're going and I passed a couple coasting at about 20km/h

So yeah, I've been riding it in. I've left the distinct water bottle holder attached on the off chance I ride by the owner and would obviously give it up in exchange for the serial number as proof.

Problems:
My apartment is tiny and definitely not big enough for two bicycles.

THe rack outside is risky overnight but I've gotta get rid of one of them

Turning it in to the cops jsut means they'd profit from it at auction

selling the tank makes the most sense... it's in good shape and I could get half the sticker price.

So the basis of my quandary is having made a reasonable effort to reunite it with its rightful owner, how long till I can fairly consider it my possession? At least enough that if I did run across them (and presuming they've already replaced it-it's not a high end model) I could make a lowball offer? I'd kinda have to, else I'd be taking the subway :/ and I REALLY like this bike.




(side story-two days before this happened, I stopped to top up my tires at the subway station. there beside the pump was a bike that'd been stolen from me a couple years ago. I checked for a couple of discreet marks I'd made on it to confirm... it looked rough)

If you’ve done your due diligence and nothing has turned up, it’s yours.

there's a nasty little correlation between vegan "culture" and white privilege/gentrification that they HATE being reminded of.

that whole thing a few years ago with "Vegan-dale" as Parkdale became the next hip 'hood.

Not in question.

Do you think pedophiles are born that way or victims themselves?
Do you think serial killers are born that way or did something in their childhood make them that way.

Um, still straining to figure out where you got that from what I said.
You know what a dupe is, right?

well, survivors tend to be hypersexual, but frequently kidless in my observation. Not for nothing, it's often a fear of becoming that which hurt them.

the second (and other pathological shit, like arsonists or "bad dates") I think is sometimes a mixture of both. There is a degree of hardwired capacity as part of human nature... kids are sociopaths when left to their own devices, but it gets socialized out of most of us to a varying degree. In a few that set of switches never flips. Toss in everything from alienation to abuse, add a dash of (statistically speaking) affluence, and you get an adult who still pulls wings off of flies and burns ants with a magnifying glass. It's about power as much as sadism....

His definition. People who harm animals are evil. Does killing them harm them?

Yes. Now just fucking explain your accusation.

Maybe I haven’t dated enough, but should ‘bad date’ be in the same category? I don’t think so. That’s another topic entirely and most likely has more to do with expectations of the other rather than psychological issue.

I disagree with this intensely. Kids only know what they are taught. Lord of the Flies was a lie based on a true story of lost boys who’d been shipwrecked on an island and those kids thrived even sacrificed when one was injured. Nearly 2 years later, when they were rescued, all the kids were fine. No one killed anyone.

That’s what I’m getting at here. What strengthens on person in such a situation, but tips another over the edge? And if it is something internal, is it really evil before the person acts on it?

Yea, that’s the result. But, not the heart of the issue.

You've had it explained.
You just have the memory of a goldfish.
The anti-trans movement is 100% ginned up by Christian fundies.
There's no "secular" version. There's no "concerned parent" version.
It's masks; and what's more; it's CRAPPY masks.
Those shitty Halloween masks we had as kids that were vacuum molded paper thin plastic with a fuckin' rubber band?
That's what's fooling you. That's the brilliant disguise that's fooling your dumb ass.
These are the same fucking people that went after Elvis, and the Beatles, and Twisted Sister, and Playboy, and Deep Throat, and D&D.
It's the same fucking shit.
And you're falling for it.
Way to go, champ!

sorry, "bad date" is jargon for dudes who rip off and/or are known to assault sex workers. although it also tends to cover guys in a given community who are known to be abusers/overly aggressive.

already answered though; "it gets socialized out of most of us to a varying degree. In a few that set of switches never flips", before going on to suggest three potential vectors... remember that "Don't fuck with cats" movie a year or so ago? at an extreme, like that guy-luka magnotta... (who was unsurprisingly known as a bad date). Came from money, had a whole mess of issues, and among them was literally still being that weird kid in fifth grade that'd boil tadpoles into his 20s.

That’s what I’m getting at. Is it learned behavior or is inherent?

Let’s say ‘this’ baby is extra needy and doesn’t get the love and attention it needs as a baby. Babies just cry. They can’t articulate what they need. So, someone just raises a baby just like they raised the rest of their children or younger siblings or nieces and nephews, but because that baby is still hostile, was s/he really born that way?

cruelty and selfishness would be inherent-and tied to personal gratification.

empathy and altruism are more learned.

although I'd also factor in that at various stages of development, it'd be unreasonable to expect too high a level of empathy. If you're sad, your 4 year old might know to come hug you, but your 8 year old is capable of asking what's the matter, and your 12 year old is potentially able to understand.

The subject of the thread is trying to define evil, and one of the immediate lines of conversation was about how people are generally biased when it comes to reflecting on their own behaviour.

The idea of people who harm children and animals being evil is very hard to disagree with (and I'm not trying), but the ease of accepting it and broadness of the statement is a big flashing light saying there's probably interesting ideas to be explored in there.

How is harm defined?

Is harm through inaction included?

What about indirect harm?

The veganism statement was presented a little tongue in cheek, but the point was real. Using animals for food definitely harms them. I doubt UA thinks of himself as evil so there's an interesting space to be explored there in particular.

It's not a gotcha. I'm vegetarian, but not a vegan and the dairy and egg industries I support cause plenty of harm to animals. I just personally drew the line there as what I felt comfortable with, and it's fairly arbitrary so I don't think I have any moral superiority over someone who draws the line elsewhere.

Wait a minute, I thought this sounded familiar....

Yeah, people that steal material from their own adversaries don't get to call anyone hacky.

Exactly.

Hitchens was great. I’ll trust his judgment By that definition, slavers, Nazis and communists fall into that category. Mostly everything else falls into a nuanced category. .

That's a real debate in moral philosophy. See Peter Singer and the difference between actions which are obligatory or supererogaty.
Like, do you have the moral obligation to give most of your income to malaria charities? And if not, how is that any different from refusing to save a drowning man?