Tigers are not evil.

In my opinion nothing is evil.

The Buddhists understand how to create mutual tolerance of other animals even other humans, do you? War, hate, ridicule, condemnation, torture and claiming to believe in a superior god are counter productive in my opinion. Buddhists are still only human and therefore not always successful at doing this, but at least they do demonstrate the possibilities.

http://www.openworldthailand.com/index.php?lay=show&ac=article&Id=294788&Ntype=5

That would depend on what outcome you are trying to produce.

And even among those that do share the goal, there are differing views on the path to that goal.

The normal human mind appears to very consistently push in the wrong direction on this issue. The article that I presented flies in the face of most peoples views on behavior and I realize it will influence very few people, but if I believe it, I have to try.

A post that prima facie purports that Buddhism has a superior philosophical position and viewpoint at contradiction with Buddhist teachings? How does one argue a Buddhist "is" is better?

claiming to believe in a better faith isn't? I'm a wee bit confused.

Nothing is inherently evil. It requires a person with an opinion to determine what is evil. And that opinion may not be shared by others. Evil is the result of a combination of biological, social, and psychological influences. And while we may have common basic assumptions about what is evil the more complex interpretations of evil vary considerably from community to community.

Take tigers for instance: if we shoot them, cage them, skin them, destroy their habitat and thus starve them and so forth chances are they will reciprocate in some fashion.

Take humans if we create a social structure in which some or many lose at every turn, even though it is their own fault, those humans will make every effort to bring down that social structure. So who is evil? The guy who built the unworkable system or the guy who is out to destroy it. I say neither, they are both merely blundering humans who don't know any better. If the haves escalate by using war, ridicule, hate, torture and so on the problem might appear to go away, but it will smolder and surely pop up again. IMO the Buddhists might have opened the door a crack to show us a better way.

Not even...



????

But thats it.

...for making a comment that seeks to avoid thinking about the contents of the pictured aluminum can. Some evil is too great to contemplate. :scared:

Evil is a word, with a definition in the dictionary. Some acts, and some people, fit that definition (tigers don't, though).

War usually produces more bad effects than good ones, but not always.
Hate isn't always a bad thing; it depends what you hate and why.
Still more so for ridicule.
Condemnation is often a good thing; you yourself are (rather vaguely) engaging in it.
Torture is nearly always a bad thing.
Believing in a superior god (or "claiming" to do so...) is a bad thing if you're wrong in that belief, but a good one if you're right; I don't think that one does.

You don't have a philosophy, you just have slogans, and stupid slogans at that.

And they had dictionaries too.

I'm sure that there's nothing I can say that you haven't heard before, so I won't bother, but I'm willing to bet that if I bashed you and took your lunch money, you would feel that what I had done was "wrong" in an objective sense.

I would also be interested to know how you would feel standing up talking to survivors or relatives of victims of the holocaust or some other atrocity, and explaining that what had been done to them wasn't evil.

Moral relativism is an idea that sounds great in an abstract debate, but doesn't survive contact with the real world.

There is no point in explaining the straw man fallacy.

And since you have already used the dictionary argument, there is no point in explaining the irrelevance of semantic argument.

Oh well.

I've read, and believed it, that the Russians were not disturbed by Hitlers elimination of the Jews, but when the Russians noted that in Hitler's view the Russians were also inferior/bad/evil they got very serious about fighting back. So in a sense Hitler's treatment of the Jews was Hitlers undoing.

There is a poem that explains this, it sort of goes: When they came for my enemies I did nothing. When the came for my friends I did nothing. When they came for me there was no one left to help me.

Maybe we just don't realize that every thing we do is evil. Maybe their is some sort of vast galactic civilization that isn't getting in contact with us because we allow tigers to exist on our planet. Or maybe cutting your nails is the height of evil and they don't want anything to do with someone who does it.

Fucking galactic civilization. I say we bomb them.

oh man. I forgot that nothing is evil. Or is everything evil? Or is it evil to be sexist. Or is it evil to say something is sexist when it's not and pretend it is.

Ethical questions confuse me.

I say we bomb ethical questions.

"Lipstick on a pig" won't make it. Of course I guy could try three blue pills with a ten once class of pure Jack Danial's for a chaser.

You had 37 posts in that topic; three of those posts had pie charts explaining your position. You even posted a picture of yourself punching a tiger cub in the ass.

Tigers on skateboards, however, can be very dangerous, and are a public nuisance which will NOT be tolerated!

What a anti-tiger bigot!

Nice post, Sigfried. Next thing you know, you'll only want tigers to stay behind bars, work as slaves for no wages, or be exiled to the jungle.

and all Cats and animals in general.

Makes me feel good