Shakya didnt provide proof for his claim, and masochists dont 'enjoy' pain, they just have mental problems that causes them to want to inflict it.
__________________ "Nothing pisses me off more than when I have an amazing new idea, and then someone says, 'Wow, God is soooooooooo smart for thinking of that.' It makes me want to throw a brick in their face."
Because pain is an unpleasant feeling. Period. And masochists dont have this magical ability to 'enjoy' pain, they just like inflicting it on themselves. The feeling doesnt change however. Pain is tolerable at certain levels, though due to its unpleasantness its still universally evil.
__________________ "Nothing pisses me off more than when I have an amazing new idea, and then someone says, 'Wow, God is soooooooooo smart for thinking of that.' It makes me want to throw a brick in their face."
__________________ "Nothing pisses me off more than when I have an amazing new idea, and then someone says, 'Wow, God is soooooooooo smart for thinking of that.' It makes me want to throw a brick in their face."
'Humanity' is not a species... as Bardock said, a more accurate word would be humankind. And the fact that we cannot even agree on what humanity is makes the statement "harmful to humanity" subjective.
I would even argue that harm is subjective. Something that's harmful to one person may not be to another... Not only that but harm doesn't neccessarily mean explicitly physical harm... If someone stole a bag of food from a wealthy man it would probably not be harmful to him, if someone stole a bag of food from a poor man in poverty it could be fatally harmful to him...
Subjective only if you consider humanity from a universal perspective. If you believe in space aliens..then their is only one species on this planet eart...and that species is earthlings....
But if you steal from the poor man, you are not really stealing...because he has nothing to steal because he is poor. So the only person it is really harmful to steal from is the middle income man..because he is always getting screwed by the rich man..and stolen from by the poor man....
__________________ A horse is a horse Of course of course
And no one can talk to a horse,
Of course
That is, of course
Unless the horse
Is the famous Mister Ed!
What is strange? To you I may be strange..but to others I may not be strange. You are arguing using emotionalism...instead of intellectuallism, and the only thing strange is on relative to your emoticons...not your intellecticons..
__________________ A horse is a horse Of course of course
And no one can talk to a horse,
Of course
That is, of course
Unless the horse
Is the famous Mister Ed!
1. Perhaps I should broaden my scope then, I sort of agree that I was being egocentric when I was just talking about only humans. Harm to any being capable of being harmed, is evil.
2. No... I think your getting confused here. Stealing a bag of food from a poor man isnt harm in of itself, its just a cause... leading to the effect of hunger, which is pain.
Last edited by Great Vengeance on Aug 10th, 2006 at 01:34 AM
Hmm... isn't that kind of like saying shooting someone in the chest isn't harm itself, just a cause, which leads to cardiac arrest which is harmful and likely to be fatal?
As would someone taking your only supply of food... indirectly. Just as shooting someone is harming them only indirectly. The fact that you pointed the gun at them and pulled the trigger isn't the problem, it's what results from doing so... Except for the fact that the harm is felt more quickly from being shot, I don't see the difference. In the end, they are both harmful situations...
Taking a supply of food is indirect like you said. To call that harm, would be like saying being born is harm, because your birth was the necessary event for all the harm in your life. Getting shot in the chest however, is direct harm. It will cause you massive pain, which I have argued is evil.
Being born may be a necessary event for harm, but it is not the responsible event as depriving someone of food would be... I can see where you're coming from though.
On your last point, though, I disagree... If the cause of any pain is evil, then the act of giving birth would be evil... which is more than a tad bit absurd.
1. It would be indirectly responsible. I suppose you could argue that taking the bag of food would be 'directly responsible' though the point remains that no direct harm is being done in any case.
2. Maybe thats where your getting confused...Im not arguing that the cause of pain is evil, Im arguing that the pain itself is evil. Arguing whether the causing of pain is evil or not would be subjective, because you can justify anything from your own point of view. However...the actual pain isnt open to interpretation, it is simply evil.
KMC Community Forums
Aug 8th, 2006 10:34 PM
