Evil Inherent in All and Active in a %

[henry quirk]

If you respect the autonomy of the 80% who aren't stark raving mad then 'fightin' the symptoms' may not be wise, but it's all you can do.

If, however, you're so a'feared of the stark raving mad 20% that you're willin' to hobble the 80%, well, go ahead, 'sanitize' the public sphere. Pretty sure old guard Soviets can give you some helpful pointers.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If you respect the autonomy of the 80% who aren't stark raving mad then 'fightin' the symptoms' may not be wise, but it's all you can do.

If, however, you're so a'feared of the stark raving mad 20% that you're willin' to hobble the 80%, well, go ahead, 'sanitize' the public sphere. Pretty sure old guard Soviets can give you some helpful pointers.

The approach is to recognize the problem [of evil acts] in this case then deal with it optimally with compassion, empathy and morally.

Note one of the conditions I raised, i.e.

Do Not Blame Muslims!
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24842
but the focus should be on the ideology.

The theoretically solutions is so simple, i.e.
nullify the holy texts with evil elements of Islam and there will be zero Islamic-driven evil acts. In practice this is not that easy but possible if we put in the effort.

We have suppressed Nazism when it is defanged at present.
So it not impossible to defang Islam and its evil elements.

[TimeSeeker]

Your definition of evil is lazy and non empirical and worst of all UNFALSIFIABLE

You cannot subject evil to a falsification test because it is outside the domain of science

And that doesn’t scare the hell out of you?!?

Notice Veritas Aequitas is preaching prevention.
So who decides and how that somebody is “evil”?

A kangaroo court? Some ‘expert’?

If ‘evil’ is unfalsifiable (e.g it has no exclusionary criteria) you have NO way to establish innocence! Only guilt!

[henry quirk]

"Do Not Blame Muslims!"

No, wrong: blame the Muslim! Blame the human individual who does evil, him and no one else.

#

"The theoretically solutions is so simple, i.e. nullify the holy texts with evil elements of Islam and there will be zero Islamic-driven evil acts. In practice this is not that easy but possible if we put in the effort."

Yes, let's play Big Brother, sanitize the texts and -- lo & behold! -- nutjobs will find sumthin' else to latch on to. The problem is the nutjobs, not the texts that might set 'em off. And: in a 'free' world, all you can really do about nutjobs is defend yourself against 'em.

#

"We have suppressed Nazism when it is defanged at present."

No, we beat Nazi ass. Mein Kampf is still available in bookstores and libraries.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf

[Veritas Aequitas]

"Do Not Blame Muslims!"

No, wrong: blame the Muslim! Blame the human individual who does evil, him and no one else.

Btw, do you understand why Prevention is Better than Cure [firefighting].
Do you understand why it is more effective to solve any problem by getting get of its ultimate root cause?

Do you deal with weeds by cutting them or pulling them out with the roots?

I agree there will be results by blaming the individual and Muslims in this case.
The danger with blaming Muslims is, that can lead to natural hasty generalization by most people to blame ALL Muslims. This can lead to innocent Muslims being killed and such thing has happened.

"The theoretically solutions is so simple, i.e. nullify the holy texts with evil elements of Islam and there will be zero Islamic-driven evil acts. In practice this is not that easy but possible if we put in the effort."

Yes, let's play Big Brother, sanitize the texts and -- lo & behold! -- nutjobs will find sumthin' else to latch on to. The problem is the nutjobs, not the texts that might set 'em off. And: in a 'free' world, all you can really do about nutjobs is defend yourself against 'em.

As I had stated ALL humans has the evil potential and some have an active evil tendency to commit ALL types of evil acts.

Note my maxim;
I believe ALL evil acts and violence in the World must be addressed and resolved ASAP. I have discussed this generally.
viewtopic.php?p=378722#p378722

If we get rid of Islam, the result is we will get rid of one major type of evil acts, i.e. Islamic-driven-evil-acts.

Yes, the evil-prones nutjobs will continue to commit other types of evils.
We will then deal with root cause of these other evil and violent acts.
Note there is a whole range of possible solutions in dealing with these other evil acts, one of such preventive measure is discussed in the video listed in the OP.

"We have suppressed Nazism when it is defanged at present."

No, we beat Nazi ass. Mein Kampf is still available in bookstores and libraries.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf

I did not state we should stop all thinking [not possible] nor thoughts in print nor online.
The point is the authorities are very focused in taking specific measures to ensure the ideology of Nazism is not made active politically and they have been very successful in it.

The lesson to be learned from the rise of Nazism is humanity did not take actions when Nazism was on the rise in the 1930 + 1940s where their potential was then very evident.

Currently the same problem is happening with Islam and SOME evil prone Muslims. Despite the obvious evidences in the past and present, the authorities are still promoting Islam as a religion of peace.

[surreptitious57]

Your definition of evil is lazy and non empirical and worst of all UNFALSIFIABLE

You cannot subject evil to a falsification test because it is outside the domain of science

And that doesnt scare the hell out of you ?

Notice Veritas Aequitas is preaching prevention
So who decides and how that somebody is evil ?

A kangaroo court ? Some expert ?

If evil is unfalsifiable ( e g it has no exclusionary criteria ) you have NO way to establish innocence !

You dont actually prosecute someone for being evil and so whether or not they are is entirely academic
You prosecute them instead for actual crimes they have committed for which there is enough evidence

Evil is a word reserved for those who commit the most appalling crimes but it is exclusively an emotional term not a legal one

[TimeSeeker]

You dont actually prosecute someone for being evil and so whether or not they are is entirely academic
You prosecute them instead for actual crimes they have committed for which there is enough evidence

Evil is a word reserved for those who commit the most appalling crimes but it is exclusively an emotional term not a legal one

When your focus is on prevention like Veritas Aequitas then you are necessarily taking action against this which you have defined as "evil". Whether you call it "prosecution" or not - your definition of "evil" has consequences. And some of those consequences may be harmful. Like a rise in islamophobia.

[surreptitious57]

You dont actually prosecute someone for being evil and so whether or not they are is entirely academic
You prosecute them instead for actual crimes they have committed for which there is enough evidence

Evil is a word reserved for those who commit the most appalling crimes but it is exclusively an emotional term not a legal one

When your focus is on prevention like Veritas Aequitas you are necessarily taking action against this which you have defined as evil
Whether you call it prosecution or not - your definition of evil has consequences. And some of those consequences may be harmful
Like a rise in Islamophobia

Never said prosecution was evil
Your answer is a non sequitur as the rise in Islamophobia has got nothing at all to do with the definition of evil
But can you give a specific example where the definition of evil had a DIRECT impact on a certain demographic

[TimeSeeker]

But can you give a specific example where the definition of evil had a DIRECT impact on a certain demographic

Any time any definition becomes too broad - it has an impact on the demographic which fits the definition, even if individuals within the demographic are not themselves do not fit the definition.

Example: The "All men are trash!" movement.

And so now this thought process takes place in my head. I am not trash, but I am a man.

And so IF I am to accept the proposition "All men are trash!" then I necessarily have to either:
1. Accept that I am trash.
2. Reject my manhood.

Shitty options both ways. So I reject the definition of "trash".

The same goes with any definition. Including "evil".

[surreptitious57]

That example is invalid too because what some feminists think of all men does not affect you personally
I am specifically thinking of hate crimes where a demographic is physically and psychologically targeted

[TimeSeeker]

That example is invalid too because what some feminists think of all men does not affect you personally
I am specifically thinking of hate crimes where a demographic is physically and psychologically targeted

Is it invalid? A false dichotomy is laid out. One's refusal to fit the mould and pointing out the fallacy results in the "with us or against us" conclusion by the collective mob mentality. This leads to outrage, doxing, character assassination, social ostracism and being fired from work e.g James Damore.

Try living in California while having a divergent political view from the orthodoxy and see what happens

It's exactly the same mindset. You have only two boxes: evil and not-evil. I disagree with your overly simplistic dichotomy.

Humans are incredibly good at forgetting that the outcome of an ACTION is the actual, harmful part. So they focus on the embodiment and are too intellectually lazy to recognise those who fit the definition but don't actually ACT in a harmful way.

Your answer is a non sequitur as the rise in Islamophobia has got nothing at all to do with the definition of evil
But can you give a specific example where the definition of evil had a DIRECT impact on a certain demographic

To define Islam as evil ideology is to breed islamophobia, much like defining "all men are trash" leads to persecution of masculinity. It may be a side-effect, but it is an effect! This is why I keep drawing attention to 2nd, 3rd or Nth order effects. In a complex system like society you can never do "just one thing"! The law of unintended consequences doesn't absolve you of responsibility for your actions.

I don't need evidence for this. It's a self-evident statistical truth. EVERY binary classifier produces Type I and Type II errors. False positives and false negatives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receiver_ ... acteristic

Until such time you produce a binary classifier which produces no errors, we will always be talking about trade-offs.

Higher PPV for "evil" OR lower NPV of "not evil". It is an optimisation problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_ ... ive_values

What margin of error are you comfortable with? Simply put: how many INNOCENT PEOPLE are you willing to sacrifice for your cause? Two wrongs don't make a right.

Pretty much every argument on this forum could be reduced down to sensitivity and specificity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivi ... pecificity

[surreptitious57]

Evil is NOT someone saying something on twitter and then losing their job
Evil is Rwanda or the Holocaust or the Khmer Rouge or the Stalinist purge
Something for which there is ABSOLUTELY no moral justification for at all
This is how high the bar is and it is why your examples are not acceptable

[TimeSeeker]

Evil is Rwanda or the Holocaust or the Khmer Rouge or the Stalinist purge
Something for which there is ABSOLUTELY no moral justification for at all
This is how high the bar is and it is why your examples are not acceptable

Ok, in the other thread I used malaria as an example of evil. It kills more people than any and all genocides. I used heart disease, and the top 10 causes of HUMAN DEATH. According to Veritas Aequitas that's NOT evil.

I set the bar MUCH higher than you. Still - things that kill 50 million people EVERY YEAR are not evil!?! I am 99.99% certain that whatever you think evil is, then human death is only a secondary concern.

I suspect it has nothing to do with any objective bar either Naturally - I understand that an "argument" is a synonym with "elaborate rationalisation of one's biases". Maybe you don't ?

My hypothesis is that you are more scared of intentional harm than unintentional harm. And I don't understand why.

[surreptitious57]

in the other thread I used malaria as an example of evil

My hypothesis is that you are more scared of intentional harm than unintentional harm

Malaria is an invalid example [ the third one you have now given ]

For the purpose of this thread evil is defined as morally unjustifiable acts perpetrated by humans on humans

I am more scared of intentional harm because it displays motive and as a consequence can be easily avoided

[TimeSeeker]

For the purpose of this thread evil is defined as morally unjustifiable acts perpetrated by humans on humans

Why such a narrow definition?
What is the purpose of this thread?
Why such a narrow purpose?

I am more scared of intentional harm because it displays motive and as a consequence can be easily avoided

This is just a rationalization given your definition above.

It is irrational to be scared of terrorism, while failing to wear a seat belt. Or failing to exercise, or eat healthy. Or avoid processed sugar.

All of those consequences (heart disease, diabetes, cardio-vascular diseases) can be "easily avoided" too...