Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

this is downright evil

Page 2 of 5 [ 72 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,732
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

03 Oct 2015, 1:56 am

OliveOilMom wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
my personal threshold for seeing something as evil is lower than yours. all those examples you mentioned are to me just various flavors or grades of evil. to me, evil is trying to hurt people who did you no harm [via commission or omission] for no good reason other than personal aggrandizement or out of simple bloody-mindedness.


SO then you agree that it requires intent. This may not have intent to hurt, it may simply have intent to inconvenience or to win an election, etc. An intent to win an election by any means necessary short of harming someone physically is not the same as deciding to smear someone just because you don't like them. Intent is important. In fact, intent is sometimes the deciding factor in what the act is.

Remember when we had a long discussion about absolutes? This falls into that category we were talking about that night to me.


I respectfully disagree. In this case, I see this not just as an effort to counter a liberal politician, but as part of an effort to roll back civil rights by reducing the power of black voters. To disenfranchise any whole group of people is evil in my eyes.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,618
Location: the island of defective toy santas

03 Oct 2015, 2:05 am

^^^QFT :idea:



OliveOilMom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere

03 Oct 2015, 2:10 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
OliveOilMom wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
my personal threshold for seeing something as evil is lower than yours. all those examples you mentioned are to me just various flavors or grades of evil. to me, evil is trying to hurt people who did you no harm [via commission or omission] for no good reason other than personal aggrandizement or out of simple bloody-mindedness.


SO then you agree that it requires intent. This may not have intent to hurt, it may simply have intent to inconvenience or to win an election, etc. An intent to win an election by any means necessary short of harming someone physically is not the same as deciding to smear someone just because you don't like them. Intent is important. In fact, intent is sometimes the deciding factor in what the act is.

Remember when we had a long discussion about absolutes? This falls into that category we were talking about that night to me.



I respectfully disagree. In this case, I see this not just as an effort to counter a liberal politician, but as part of an effort to roll back civil rights by reducing the power of black voters. To disenfranchise any whole group of people is evil in my eyes.


If the intent is to disenfranchise the voters because of their race or whatever then yes that is wrong, although not evil but if the intent is simply to win the election and the person knows that black voters will vote him out then it's slimey and manipulative and not that good, but not evil. It's not malicious to them to hurt them or for any inherent reason but it's just trying to steal the election. Intent is everything and unless you are that person you cannot say what his intent is. YOu can say what it looks like to you, but not for sure what it is. It's not gonna be good no matter what the reason is, but it can be a long way from evil. Don't infer intent without knowing.


_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA. ;-)

The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,732
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

03 Oct 2015, 2:11 am

auntblabby wrote:
^^^QFT :idea:


Sorry, a little drunk - what's QFT again?


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


OliveOilMom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere

03 Oct 2015, 2:13 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
^^^QFT :idea:


Sorry, a little drunk - what's QFT again?


He's doing something right now. IT's quoted for truth.


_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA. ;-)

The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,732
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

03 Oct 2015, 2:14 am

OliveOilMom wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
OliveOilMom wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
my personal threshold for seeing something as evil is lower than yours. all those examples you mentioned are to me just various flavors or grades of evil. to me, evil is trying to hurt people who did you no harm [via commission or omission] for no good reason other than personal aggrandizement or out of simple bloody-mindedness.


SO then you agree that it requires intent. This may not have intent to hurt, it may simply have intent to inconvenience or to win an election, etc. An intent to win an election by any means necessary short of harming someone physically is not the same as deciding to smear someone just because you don't like them. Intent is important. In fact, intent is sometimes the deciding factor in what the act is.

Remember when we had a long discussion about absolutes? This falls into that category we were talking about that night to me.



I respectfully disagree. In this case, I see this not just as an effort to counter a liberal politician, but as part of an effort to roll back civil rights by reducing the power of black voters. To disenfranchise any whole group of people is evil in my eyes.


If the intent is to disenfranchise the voters because of their race or whatever then yes that is wrong, although not evil but if the intent is simply to win the election and the person knows that black voters will vote him out then it's slimey and manipulative and not that good, but not evil. It's not malicious to them to hurt them or for any inherent reason but it's just trying to steal the election. Intent is everything and unless you are that person you cannot say what his intent is. YOu can say what it looks like to you, but not for sure what it is. It's not gonna be good no matter what the reason is, but it can be a long way from evil. Don't infer intent without knowing.


My definition of evil is: if someone purposely hurts someone else, then it's evil.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,732
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

03 Oct 2015, 2:15 am

OliveOilMom wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
^^^QFT :idea:


Sorry, a little drunk - what's QFT again?


He's doing something right now. IT's quoted for truth.


Thanks.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

03 Oct 2015, 2:17 am

All redistricting is gerrymandering

there are far too few representatives in this country

our founders intended it to be like 1 for every 70,000

so we'd have north of 4,000 congressmen and women

lets see them lobby all them

districts are bigger than the smallest states, it's a completely nonsensical system



trayder
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 15 Aug 2015
Age: 1949
Posts: 280
Location: New Zealand

03 Oct 2015, 3:06 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
OliveOilMom wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
my personal threshold for seeing something as evil is lower than yours. all those examples you mentioned are to me just various flavors or grades of evil. to me, evil is trying to hurt people who did you no harm [via commission or omission] for no good reason other than personal aggrandizement or out of simple bloody-mindedness.


SO then you agree that it requires intent. This may not have intent to hurt, it may simply have intent to inconvenience or to win an election, etc. An intent to win an election by any means necessary short of harming someone physically is not the same as deciding to smear someone just because you don't like them. Intent is important. In fact, intent is sometimes the deciding factor in what the act is.

Remember when we had a long discussion about absolutes? This falls into that category we were talking about that night to me.


I respectfully disagree. In this case, I see this not just as an effort to counter a liberal politician, but as part of an effort to roll back civil rights by reducing the power of black voters. To disenfranchise any whole group of people is evil in my eyes.


The problem with that sort of thinking is that there are some for whom this brand of evil is quite ok. On the other hand ask them just how much faith they have in someone who is not competent enough to fight fairly at the hustings and then see how they react. Sentiment has a habit of flying out the window when the pocket book is at risk.

This woman is an incompetent and opportunist if the truth be told and there is no shortage of them. They fear the more highly cognitive for example as they know that given the space to do so (as in not harrassing which is what they excel at), we would run rings around them.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,618
Location: the island of defective toy santas

03 Oct 2015, 3:42 am

IMHO people who refuse to at least not fight dirty are evil. that would be a working definition.



Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

03 Oct 2015, 4:00 am

I like Corrine Brown. She's funny.



trayder
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 15 Aug 2015
Age: 1949
Posts: 280
Location: New Zealand

03 Oct 2015, 4:20 am

auntblabby wrote:
IMHO people who refuse to at least not fight dirty are evil. that would be a working definition.


I can appreciate your sentiment AB. You are a fine human being. Problem is these specimens can be quite charming and articulate as you see with our friend Humanauts affection for the woman. What they do have in common I have found is total and complete incompetence which they use emotional invective and of course, hanky panky to hide.

I would seriously love to expose these losers.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,618
Location: the island of defective toy santas

03 Oct 2015, 4:23 am

trayder wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
IMHO people who refuse to at least not fight dirty are evil. that would be a working definition.


I can appreciate your sentiment AB. You are a fine human being. Problem is these specimens can be quite charming and articulate as you see with our friend Humanauts affection for the woman. What they do have in common I have found is total and complete incompetence which they use emotional invective and of course, hanky panky to hide.

I would seriously love to expose these losers.

I wish I was smart enough/not addled sufficient to do the same.



OliveOilMom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere

03 Oct 2015, 4:48 am

auntblabby wrote:
IMHO people who refuse to at least not fight dirty are evil. that would be a working definition.



And you don't think that's a little much? Kind of overkill there?

Sometimes you have to fight dirty to not get hurt. You made a generalized statement so it applies to everything. All forms of fighting, not just political fighting. You are thinking too broadly and too much in terms of all sorts of other issues to do with this. What is the one thing that specifically irks you about this issue? What can you put your finger on and say succinctly is wrong with it?

As for fighting dirty, I do it all the time. Have to.


_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA. ;-)

The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com


trayder
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 15 Aug 2015
Age: 1949
Posts: 280
Location: New Zealand

03 Oct 2015, 4:50 am

auntblabby wrote:
trayder wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
IMHO people who refuse to at least not fight dirty are evil. that would be a working definition.


I can appreciate your sentiment AB. You are a fine human being. Problem is these specimens can be quite charming and articulate as you see with our friend Humanauts affection for the woman. What they do have in common I have found is total and complete incompetence which they use emotional invective and of course, hanky panky to hide.

I would seriously love to expose these losers.

I wish I was smart enough/not addled sufficient to do the same.


The potential is there...it takes some working on though. And a big dose of self confidence as it can get nasty for someone on the spectrum to aim high. And even when you do make it, you've got to watch your back.



trayder
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 15 Aug 2015
Age: 1949
Posts: 280
Location: New Zealand

03 Oct 2015, 4:53 am

OliveOilMom wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
IMHO people who refuse to at least not fight dirty are evil. that would be a working definition.



And you don't think that's a little much? Kind of overkill there?

Sometimes you have to fight dirty to not get hurt. You made a generalized statement so it applies to everything. All forms of fighting, not just political fighting. You are thinking too broadly and too much in terms of all sorts of other issues to do with this. What is the one thing that specifically irks you about this issue? What can you put your finger on and say succinctly is wrong with it?

As for fighting dirty, I do it all the time. Have to.


A politician who fights dirty to grab the hustings is breaking the law as are inside traders and businesses that break occupational safety legislation. So I stand with AB on this.

That is to be distinguished from being resolute.