his
whats more fricked up individual in your view?
a human who does evil for evil sake or in better language who errs knowingly
or a human who does evil but for good sake or with good intentions murder rape or theft.
so,who´s worse his?.
 |
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
|
Frog posters are the most fricked up.
There is no scenario where you can commit rape with good intentions Anon. You can kill someone who was threatening an innocent, you can steal food for the hungry, but you can never commit rape with good intentions, only lust and depravity.
You really need to spend less time on IQfy.
Unrelated to the question but what do you think of the book?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Natural_History_of_Rape
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Natural_History_of_Rape
"They also criticize the assumption that there is a connection between what is naturally selected and what is morally right or wrong, which they refer to as the "naturalistic fallacy""
Just because males, evolutionarily would like to impregnate as many females as possible does not make it moral.
Can an animal commit rape in the same way a human?.
Naturalist fallacy. Animals do all kinds of things that would be indefensible for a human to do.
But Evil See op Post can be natural?
Can animals be evil?.
Well, animals kind of have the ultimate lack of mens rea here because we dont believe they are sentient beings (and certainly don't treat them as such). Thus, they cannot be evil, only natural.
Is malice evil more common than stupid dumb illogical or is evil extremely common for humans to do?.
Jpg related
This is a bit off topic. I initially openly conceded that things like murder and theft could be done with good intentions, even if they were ultimately evil. What I don't believe is that there is any scenario in which rape specifically can be done with good intentions.
To answer your question, I would say the latter is far more common in humans.
Yeah thanks for answer on meta and ethics related questions.
>There is no scenario where you can commit rape with good intentions
Easy one, last man on earth, the last woman is uncooperative.
Not going as far, I want children and get rejected so I force my will on her. That is what beasts do, beasts aren't evil and I'm not. This is not depravity, this is me responding to a biological imperative and be met with resistance. Consider me a beast to be put down if you want but I'm certainly not evil.
Why? Because I don't care if I cause the woman I rape suffering beyond what would impair her ability to produce my offsprings.
If I were doing evil I'd make her scream on purpose and take pleasure in the harm I am doing to her.
Of course I'm not going to do any of that, it is in my best interest to have the woman I reproduce with not be mentally broken and willing to offer motherly care to my offsprings. So I will pursue normal courting behavior and engage in a lasting relationship taking a fatherly role of provider. But if I'm desperate every tool in my arsenal is going to be considered.
Do you think sex is a need or not in the same water and food is?.
Saw a lot of arguments that humans can live without sexual contact in not in the same way water or food.
Do you agree with the statement'Sex is not a human need'.?
Sex as in engaging in reproduction is not a need at the individual level, one can live a full century without it somewhat fine if not lonely and regretful. It is a need at the population/species level and thus is made into an imperative on the individual level through means such as libido, we are genetically programmed to crave for it. A behavior encouraged by hormone releases. Not responding to that crave can cause severe discomfort that can lead to depressive and aggressive state.
We have removed the reproduction part of sex, we engage in fruitless fornication by preventing the intended follow up of impregnation. Tricking our bodies into thinking we have accomplished the intented action rewarding us with a release of hormones. It is an abuse of our own physiology and arguably a potential cause of despair, getting rewarded without working.
Who is the blame? Ourselves for abusing and exploiting our own physiology or it for causing distress if we fail to respond to its calls?
The blame is on both really
>last man on earth, the last woman is uncooperative.
At that point humanity is already doomed, one breeding pair isn't enough genetic material to restart the species from.
adam and eve homie
You underestimate resilience of human nature
Adam and Eve is a myth. It is not literally true.
>he doesn't know
It is, if done right you can restart the species but it might take generations to flush out certain negative recessive traits causing unusually short lifespans and heakth complications.
It has been done and documented with the such of farm animals left on islands.
How do you do it?
You put penis in vegana until baby pop out
No, how do you flush out negative recessive traits.
You do it many times until mutations appear or dominant alleles become the norm.
That's many babies, a lot of penis in vegana.
>I must sire an heir to ensure the stability of the realm
This doesn't imply rape to mong
>Be married to woman with neither my nor her consent
>She refuses to consumate marriage
>Children with anyone else would be considered illegitimate
>If my wife doesn't bear me a son and heir than my kingdom will suffer a succession crisis
>Rape and breed your wife to avoid a civil war that will kill thousands
You cannot rape your own wife, the Bible is explicit on that.
>The bible
Who gives a shit? More importantly however is that you can absolutely have it be rape practically speaking.
>Wholesome consensual sex where your wife is screaming, crying, begging, scratching you, and trying to kick you in the balls to get you off her
All morality comes from God and is inscribed in the Bible. Repent sinner least you wish for eternal damnation
A contrived scenario, but suppose someone has kidnapped you and says "we'll nuke your hometown unless you rape this person"?
I'm not afraid, what else are you going to nuke?
Okay, suppose they said they're going to initiate a global thermonuclear war that will wipe humanity out at worst and knock us back to the stone age at best.
You can not go too far.
False accusations,age of consent through human history.
That´s simple a simple case of clear cut evil can be made complicated through these examples that i talked about it.
What if the only way to stop an ethic genocide is to rape the person who would order it if left unraped?
The latter.
Although, the scenario is flawed.
But, yeah. The latter is more pernicious, because it invites the idea of a noble cause. Which others could potentially adopt.
Sorry if my language failed.
Here´s the scenario.
1.A. "I know that what i do is evil but i do evil for the sake of it.
2.A. "It´s for the greater good, for you good,i do everything in life with the best intentions!.
Who´s worse,know that i changed the language for clarification?.
It’s impossible to do evil for the sake of evil. Everyone always acts out of their interests. Sometimes those interests happen to be in the best interest of others, sometimes not. End of story.
It's not impossible. People can be sadists.
I think he mean born evil in labor hospital for example.
If the individual is born evil?it´s his fault or what it´s nature fault?.
Again, we should define what's "for the sake of evil" means, is it hurting someone to propagate suffering, or hurting someone to satisfy one's urges?
>evil but for good sake or with good intentions murder rape or theft
What good intentions would rape have?
Your own good.
Good can be selfish.
Wait,isn't selfish evil?or self-interest immoral?
Isn't all ethics and morality entirely rooted on altruism?.
Put in the place of the victim.
No it's not.
Evil would be an action that is sadistic and self-destructive.
Self-interest is the only reason you follow a moral system, to appeal to your peers and benefit from them. Altruism originates from shared individual interests. Even self-sacrifices are rooted in it no matter how illogical it may seem, the intent is to live one beyond death, to convert your life into value. The same way some animals kill themselves passing their genes.
People seek to pursue "the greater good" for what it can offer them and their progeny which are an extension of them. If you give an individual wealthvand power, without a lot of self-discipline he will be quick to take advantage of it for its own gains.
We are deeply opportunistic.
Define the Good.
Not him,but altruism.
Good in my definition is simple altruism.
Is coffee altruistic for you
>(lust provoking image)
>irrelevant time wasting question
Positiveness
The very nature of murder and rape preclude them from being enacted under good intentions
Evil cannot be a means to an end.
You can harm and cause suffering for your cause yet it cannot be described as evil, those are sacrifices or causalities. You are fighting for your cause or struggling to survive and thrive.
Evil exists only for its own sake, not for the evil doer's sake. Its only reason is itself, it is a perversion of the will. There is nothing to gain from it but destruction. Evil doers are self destructive.
Evil is a purely human ill, arising from its intelligence and unbound curiousity as the misuse of empathy, sadism. It recognizes the wrongness, badness, harm, destruction and suffering it causes yet persists and that is what makes evil what it is.
What it reflects in nature is cancer, a growth of cells in an organism straying from it, not because they're attempting to overcome it and rise above but simply because they came astray and started multiplying without restrain. What awaits the cancer growth upon causing the death of its host/progenitor is the same fate, its own annhililation.
Evil has failed to restraint itself, it has become unbound. It is fully conscious yet not fully complete, abnormal. Degenerate.
One easy way to recognize evil is question the motives. If it is unable to justify its own existence then it was never meant to be.
Why do morons think that because rape, murder and theft are all crimes they all should be judged equally to one another?
Are not they all things that humans should not do. Don´t you agree that´s better to put in the same bag or judge each to each standard?
Example,manslaughter is not first degree murder,negligence is not second degree murder etc.?
I'm referring to morons who unironically compare theft and rape and go
>Well uh their both crimes but why is rape treated differently then theft
They're the same, theft is just easier to find situations where it can be justified.
We judge crimes differently based on their severity and the amount of damages caused
Why are there actual psychopaths in this thread? Seek Jesus