he must think good is make-believe too, then
which means nothing would be inherently right or wrong
I don't necessarily believe that
I don't believe in good and evil as forces that exist outside of man
but, I think they are identifiable inside of man's psyche

Lol oats never seen uh oh debate tactics in action

didn't read whole thread

assuming off what I did read, and the fact that uh oh wrote it, this is a "white ppl rule get over it" thread?

An he also goes into his usual weird Roman empire comparisons too lol

To begin with good and evil are completely relative thus there is not now, nor will there ever be, an answer to this question.

Secondly I would point out that 'good' and 'evil' exist in all of us, relative to our own sense of the words.

Our actions on the 'good' and 'evil' in us are provoked by any (and every) influence (and action) that surrounds us.

and the circle of life is complete

Absolutely. In the context i used them though nothing was wrong.

I dont believe in good or evil. Things just are.

Pharoah attached his view of isis being evil to the conversation saying it wouldnt be right if they took over because they are evil. But it would be right. Because it happened. There are no rights for the defeated.

You make an argument...

Pharoahe rebuts it...

You contend his point by making a completely different argument...

But...

Nvm. Not gonna do it. Carry on.

Maybe you should read it again? I didnt change my point at all.

Isis would be in the right whether he believes they are morally right or not. Because they won. Where is the difference in my argument?

For real though @uh-oh your beats are dope.

Oats enlighten me on where i am wrong here. Dont take the coward route. Ill admit im wrong if you can point it out.

Where did i change tact/argue something different?

You said no such thing as good and evil. Pharoahe said there is, and while there are some gray areas, there are innate human senses of morality. Your response was "might makes right" and that cultures have different concepts of morality etc. it didn't engage with his argument, you made an irrelevant point to what he was saying. If anything, you're saying that morality is culturally subjective, not that it doesn't exist. I get where you're conflating the two, but conflation is what it is

I think he basically just means the definition of evil is not set in stone....something evil to us may be normal to other cultures. There is definitely a sense of basic right and wrong in all of us, but when it comes to what is evil...it's hard to say what is evil, even by our own standards. Murder is evil? According to our society it is, but given many murderers have mental health problems, can they really be called evil?

That's why I agreed it doesn't really exist, although basic human morality shared by the majority of us worldwide definitely exists, and those who go against it are in the wrong whether they are victorious or not.

was hitler a bad guy?

Thanks oats. All the coherence in your old UFC article must have rubbed off on me.

@uh-oh

I see now a bit more what you mean by clarifying/somewhat revising what I had quoted from you.
I also am not a fan of the overly simplistic "good vs. evil" paradigms.

And, at the risk of appearing to overly "hedge", I just want to be clear that I also do not think the Israeli shelling of Lebanon a decade ago, &the violent invasion of Gaza more recently-- I also do not think these are "good" for the well-being of humans. They are bad. Very bad; it's like torching and bulldozing your entire house because there a few dangerous wasps in it. (Funded and armed with the major help of the US gov't I might add).

But simply by elaborating on such things, I am basically falling into the "trap" or "construct" of "the West" vs. "Them"-- the very construct which the religious whackos want to frame everything. So I guess that's bad too but it's an easier way to explain things.

I am basically just making an argument for moral relativism. Which can be prickly of course, but I truly believe that there are "degrees of right&wrong" which can be starkly objective.

The Ghandi nonviolent resistance for India's independence, to me seems a rightful cause... again, for the health&well-being of humans living there.
Now, the British Empire may have strongly disagreed; and said our well-being is helped by territory, goods, power, and profit...
And yes, until their Independence, what Britain Said...Went.. so to speak. I see that part of the argument you're trying to make. Doesn't mean it's right or good. On the sliding scale I feel like Ghandi was more in the right, whether he "won" or "lost" (again to use simplistic terms).

writer etc

word i see what you are saying now, you just misunderstood my point. witty is on the right track

i'm saying good and evil doesnt exist. the group of people that wins sets the standards for what that society deems is good or evil. good and evil doesn't need to be a real thing for people to believe in it. if we all believe it is a good deed to give a homeless person money, that doesn't MAKE it a good deed. we just perceive it to be a good deed. and if we're the only ones perceiving it, we just believe that its right or whatever

so if isis were to conquer the west and install sharia law, they would absolutely be justified or whatever and it would be a good deed to them. whether we deem it good or evil is irrelevant, all that is relevant is what they think because we would be no more.

thats my main point in all of this. but i will take blame in being too illiterate to put my point across. i didnt even realize i was refuting any arguments as much as just stating my own viewpoint

that evil is a figment of our imaginations, and the conquerer is always right. because if you conquer someone, the only viewpoint left is your own as the conquerer

writers

but, conflation...