[Manic]

Ok, I think I've sufficiently villified myself... I'm bowing out of this conversation.
(Mental note, next time, don't consider the extra research required for such conversations- and I use that term loosely- as "a waste"... and stop posting drunk.)
@Delance- Thanks for clearing that one up. And I try to AVOID prejudices. I try to look at both sides of a story. (I wasn't explaining that very well, but what I was aiming at- I think -was that every event I listed could be seen as evil, by someone, yet seen as good by others. I didn't quite get my facts straight, but that was the intent.)
@Quatro- "You can't win by presenting a coherent argument," That's because I was piss-drunk. (don't drink and post, people!) I wasn't trying to spark any kind of flame-war... or, at least I THINK I wasn't... it just kind of coalesced around me. I think I was trying to cite examples of what one side would consider good, yet the other side would consider evil... Also, I'm a bit suprised you joined in the flaming. You don't usually resort to such things.
@d3r3k&LOAF- thank you both, for, instead of flaming away, explaining exactly why said points were flawed. I re-read the thread this evening(in a sober light), and I have got to commend the both of you. You boys did your homework.

In conclusion, I'm going to install a brethalizer on my PC... and some people are just rude... myself included. (This doesn't mean my opinion is changed in any way.)

 

[Maj.Striker]

Hmm, quite late for this debate although I found it quite fascinating reading material. Disagreed with almost everything you presented, Manic, but it at least stirred my mind enough to consider your line of reasoning. Just as an addendum to the crusades within Europe, I believe the attempted Spanish Armada was also sanctioned by the Pope but was soundly defeated by Sir Francis Drake...I'm feeling extremely lazy so no research on this but I want to peg that at around the 1600ish?

 

[Death]

I believe the attempted Spanish Armada was also sanctioned by the Pope but was soundly defeated by Sir Francis Drake...I'm feeling extremely lazy so no research on this but I want to peg that at around the 1600ish?

The defeat of the Spanish Armada was 1588.

 

[Quarto]

@Quatro- "You can't win by presenting a coherent argument," That's because I was piss-drunk. (don't drink and post, people!) I wasn't trying to spark any kind of flame-war... or, at least I THINK I wasn't... it just kind of coalesced around me. I think I was trying to cite examples of what one side would consider good, yet the other side would consider evil... Also, I'm a bit suprised you joined in the flaming. You don't usually resort to such things.

I didn't flame you, really. You have to understand, I don't actually try to be nice to everyone - I do give people the benefit of the doubt, but as a general rule, all I do is merely try to treat people with as much respect as they deserve. That's what I did here, too - I reacted to your post with exactly the amount of respect you deserved (none whatsoever).

To explain further - I'm very happy to discuss almost any history/politics/religion-related topic. Too happy, in fact - the problem is that my posts in such topics tend to be positively huge. I tend to be horribly, wastefully verbose in such debates... I try to explain my point of view with as much depth as possible, and the result is that my posts in such topics sometimes take hours to write. Needless to say, my time is not an unlimited resource. For this reason, I've learned (well, I'm still learning, to be honest) to pick my battles very carefully - I'm only gonna bother posting my point of view if there's any reason to believe the other side is actually interested in it. And since your argument thus far had been based on the idea that if the other side proves you wrong on one count, you bring up five other examples in the hope that they'll have to concede on at least one of them, it was pretty clear that I'd be wasting my time.

For what it's worth, though, I sure am glad to hear that your stupidity was merely alcohol-induced, rather than the permanent kind .

 

[Manic]

True, Quatro, but the posts against my own seemed to all be pointing out that I'd gotten my facts wrong on some cases, not that they could (or could not) be percieved as anything but good (or evil), which was what I suppose I was getting at. It doesn't seem very coherent, now that I look at it... but none actually cited possibilites of things that could be deemed "evil" without any shadow of a doubt(serial killers come to mind as a potential point of counter-response, a point that has come up in conversation before IRL). I think that's what brought on night #2's ramblings. Not too sure, now. Like I have said on occasion, Jagermeister does bad things to one's brain. Especially the morning after.(ugh.) I'll chalk that up as my last party-weekend for some time... I'm getting too old for this crap.

Striker- You actually understood what I was trying to say? I read it now, and I barely can pick out what the hell I was babbling about. Glad I at least made someone think about it, though.

 

[Delance]

Hmm, quite late for this debate although I found it quite fascinating reading material. Disagreed with almost everything you presented, Manic, but it at least stirred my mind enough to consider your line of reasoning. Just as an addendum to the crusades within Europe, I believe the attempted Spanish Armada was also sanctioned by the Pope but was soundly defeated by Sir Francis Drake...I'm feeling extremely lazy so no research on this but I want to peg that at around the 1600ish?

I don't know of any Pope who directly sanctioned an specific expedition against England, but Pious V declared the Queen of England an Heretic and excommunicated her, something she might not care much about, since she left the Chuch on her own, but the bull also released any Catholics from allegiance to her, something she probably cared about a lot. This meant Catholics were free to take on arms against the Crown, and it actually did not help them very much. Later on, Gregory XIII eased the tension by clarifying that Catholic should obey the Queen on civil matters. Of course that had nothing to do with Philip II.

The episode of the Spanish Armada and Drake is actually very interesting. At the time the English victory was boosted for morale, and that's certainly the perception today on the parts of the world, but it was more an early victory on a long war. In the following year, Sir Francis Drake would lead the Royal Navy on an expedition to break the Spanish Naval Power only to be suffer a defeat at the hands of the Spanish. The war itself would last until 1604.

 

[Quarto]

True, Quatro, but the posts against my own seemed to all be pointing out that I'd gotten my facts wrong on some cases, not that they could (or could not) be percieved as anything but good (or evil), which was what I suppose I was getting at. It doesn't seem very coherent, now that I look at it... but none actually cited possibilites of things that could be deemed "evil" without any shadow of a doubt(serial killers come to mind as a potential point of counter-response, a point that has come up in conversation before IRL).

Well, I definitely strongly disagree with your line of reasoning... assuming I even know what your line of reasoning is, since all I've got is your drunk-posts to go by . You seem to be saying, for example, that there's no such thing as evil, because if there was, all American presidents up to (and possibly including) Lincoln would have to be considered evil. What this means, then, is that you're basing the assumption that evil doesn't exist merely on the fact that people don't want to consider these particular presidents to be evil.

Now, whether or not they were indeed evil is a side issue - I'm sure somebody more familiar with American history than me could present a very solid argument in regards to why these presidents were not evil (or maybe why some of them were indeed evil), but that's besides the point. The trouble with your reasoning is that you are arguing for a re-definition of good and evil based on majority-wins voting. You're claiming that the American presidents in question meet the definition of evil, but the majority doesn't consider them evil, and therefore there's no such thing as evil. This does not make sense in any shape or form, however - if you put a group of blindfolded people in a closed room and start flicking the light switch on and off, the light in that room will in fact be switched on and off, entirely regardless of the group's inability to perceive the state of the room at any given moment. It's the same with morality - you can certainly argue that a part or even the majority of society is morally-blind... but such blindness does not change the fact that some things are undeniably and unchangeably evil, while others are undeniably and unchangeably good. This is simply not something that's decided by democratic vote - and that's why moral relativism is bullshit.

 

[Manic]

Point taken. As I mentioned before, I do have a "right and wrong" list of my own, which, generally, fits in with the ten commandments (deducting of course the religious overtones)... and a lot of what I was failing to get at, is the moral objectionability of so many occurances in this world. I suppose this babble all stems from my own religious beliefs(or lack thereof)... it's more of a "who the heck knows what's out there, but I sure don't want it angry at me" sort of thing... so I wind up thinking a lot on whether mankind got the concepts of good and evil wrong on some counts. Let's just chalk it up to "Manic has a screwed up belief system" and leave it at that

Upon looking at Dictionary.com on the exact definitions of some things, I've come to the conclusion that evil does exist, in a literal sense...
Evil(n)-The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
Moral(adj)-Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
So... yeah. My own religious beliefs got in the way of the fact that evil is not defined as "god doesn't like it", but as "It goes against moral standards"... and I suppose there are very clearly defined (and socially accepted) moral standards in the majority of religious texts (do not kill, do not rape, do not steal, etc.) to warrant there being a pretty clear line of "right and wrong"... or, going by the definitions... "good and evil." So, there you have it folks, I was full of crap. Bask in the moment, because I seldom admit such things. I suppose I'll just chalk it up to a learning experience, and leave the insane ranting to Neitzche.
(but you gotta admit, SOME things can be seen from one side or the other in a vastly different light. not everything, however. Sometimes, wrong is just... wrong.)
By the way, Thanks for actually posting a counter-point, Quatro. Now I feel my drunken idiocy wasn't a complete waste.

 

[Primate]

Another good modern example... Israel vs. Palestine. Jews throw rocks at Palestinian schoolchildren, Palestinians retaliate with a carbomb, Jews respond with 500lb. bomb in apartment complex... ok, I guess both sides can be considered"evil" in that case. Or just incredibly stupid.

I apologize in advance for this because I know that Manic, to his great credit, already recanted a lot of what he said but just for the sake of people reading this, I don't really see were this particular series of events came from.