Discuss libertarianism for the Nth time

[Elder Iptuous]

you're saying that the responsibility for an act transfers the qualities of that act (including evil) to the actor.  

Evil isn't a resource, like oil, that lays around waiting to get used, or that gets used up.

It's the behavior exhibited by evil men.

is a man evil before he commits the act?

[Doktor Howl]

If Bob does 1000 good things, but kills George in a fit of passion... he should still be punished according to the rules of the society he is in. However, I would argue that the one act did not make him Evil.

No, because he was operating under diminished capacity.

Now, if Bob does 1000 good things, but kills George for personal gain, then Bob is an evil person.

Unless it's "Bob", in which case he probably killed George the day before George was going to go nuts and massacre everyone at his job.  Not that "Bob" would know this, of course, it's just how things would work out.

[Doktor Howl]

you're saying that the responsibility for an act transfers the qualities of that act (including evil) to the actor.  

Evil isn't a resource, like oil, that lays around waiting to get used, or that gets used up.

It's the behavior exhibited by evil men.

is a man evil before he commits the act?

Obviously.  For how long prior to the act would vary...but if the act was evil, it was intentional, which means that the person doing it must be evil.

[Elder Iptuous]

See?
how long is a man 'evil' before he commits an evil act?  well, depends... who knows?
what is 'diminished capacity'?  well, depends.... who knows?

see, i agree with you that there are evil people.  you can point to some extreme like hitler, and say 'thars an evil summbitch!', and you'd be right.

but if you go down that road as your only way of looking at it, then in less sensational contexts, it becomes..... messy.  and unsatisfying.

so in the way that Regret put forward, you can divorce the act from the actor, and it's clean. it works. 

then you run into something sensational like hitler, and its.... weak. and unsatisfying.

[Doktor Howl]

See?
how long is a man 'evil' before he commits an evil act?  well, depends... who knows?
what is 'diminished capacity'?  well, depends.... who knows?

That's not what I said.

[Cramulus]

Do you think the 4,392 Catholic priests accused child molestation have ever done anything good?

or are their charity donations and community outreach efforts meaningless because of a single act of evil?

If they're guilty, then yes, their good acts are irrelevant...and it's not a single act. 

59% of them were only accused of a single allegation.

I have trouble believing that if one of these guys helped me out in some way, I should consider that irrelevant because he touched a boy.

Just like I have trouble believing that if you're a paragon of goodness, you are incapable of doing shitty, evil things once in a while. I mean, even Martin Luther King Jr cheated on his wife.


and what about those horny hairy greeks? are they evil for touching boys? or did they lived in a different culture which makes it problematic to impose our contemporary moral values on them?

[Elder Iptuous]

See?
how long is a man 'evil' before he commits an evil act?  well, depends... who knows?
what is 'diminished capacity'?  well, depends.... who knows?

That's not what I said.

no it's what i said.
you said

For how long prior to the act would vary...but if the act was evil, it was intentional, which means that the person doing it must be evil.

so how do you draw the line as far as how long before the act he was evil?  intention isn't clean cut in time....  that's messy.

and what constitutes 'diminished capacity'?  you say a 'fit of passion' is diminished capacity?  that seems very generous of you.  does someone who has been subjected to brainwashing act in a diminished capacity that absolves him of being evil?  like some wingnut tells them something that gets them riled up and they do something dispicable... are they not evil because of their capacity?  can a plain stupid person be evil?  an inherently gullible person?..... that's messy.

[Doktor Howl]

59% of them were only accused of a single allegation.

Yes, but there are other serious things that I hold members of the Catholic clergy accountable for.  Like promulgating overpopulation, for example.

and what about those horny hairy greeks? are they evil for touching boys? or did they lived in a different culture which makes it problematic to impose our contemporary moral values on them?

I consider that part of their culture to be evil, in the same way that I consider slavery to be an evil portion of our own history.

[Doktor Howl]

See?
how long is a man 'evil' before he commits an evil act?  well, depends... who knows?
what is 'diminished capacity'?  well, depends.... who knows?

That's not what I said.

no it's what i said.
you said

For how long prior to the act would vary...but if the act was evil, it was intentional, which means that the person doing it must be evil.

so how do you draw the line as far as how long before the act he was evil?  intention isn't clean cut in time....  that's messy.

and what constitutes 'diminished capacity'?  you say a 'fit of passion' is diminished capacity?  that seems very generous of you.  does someone who has been subjected to brainwashing act in a diminished capacity that absolves him of being evil?  like some wingnut tells them something that gets them riled up and they do something dispicable... are they not evil because of their capacity?  can a plain stupid person be evil?  an inherently gullible person?..... that's messy.

Not as messy as insisting that there can be no evil people.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

59% of them were only accused of a single allegation.

Yes, but there are other serious things that I hold members of the Catholic clergy accountable for.  Like promulgating overpopulation, for example.

and what about those horny hairy greeks? are they evil for touching boys? or did they lived in a different culture which makes it problematic to impose our contemporary moral values on them?

I consider that part of their culture to be evil, in the same way that I consider slavery to be an evil portion of our own history.

Why was that an evil part of their culture? You stated earlier that Bob's 'evilness' was based on his intention (if he did it for personal gain, he is evil)... There's no evidence that the Greeks had 'evil' intentions when they were poking boys bums. They thought it was normal, the boys thought it was normal and they were all very proud of not being EVIL and cheating on their wives.

[Doktor Howl]

Why was that an evil part of their culture? You stated earlier that Bob's 'evilness' was based on his intention (if he did it for personal gain, he is evil)... There's no evidence that the Greeks had 'evil' intentions when they were poking boys bums.

What, they slipped on a wet rock and accidentally sodomized a boy?

[Cramulus]

they thought that love between a man and a woman was "earthly", something useful for procreation.

they thought that the love between a man and a boy was "heavenly", something mystical and beautiful.

butt love was just one part of the boy's education. In all likelihood, there was nothing non consensual about it.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Why was that an evil part of their culture? You stated earlier that Bob's 'evilness' was based on his intention (if he did it for personal gain, he is evil)... There's no evidence that the Greeks had 'evil' intentions when they were poking boys bums.

What, they slipped on a wet rock and accidentally sodomized a boy?

No they usually did it as an act of pederasty.  They apparently often considered it an important bond between two individuals (in some cases practicing a 'chaste pederasty', in other cases the boys were spoiled with gifts, in others it was part of their military training... all standards set by the given social group and practiced by the individuals in that society. There no evidence that it was 'abusive', in the sense we consider pedophilia to be abusive today. The physical acts may be the same, but the reasons, the psychology and the social system appear very different.

[Doktor Howl]

Why was that an evil part of their culture? You stated earlier that Bob's 'evilness' was based on his intention (if he did it for personal gain, he is evil)... There's no evidence that the Greeks had 'evil' intentions when they were poking boys bums.

What, they slipped on a wet rock and accidentally sodomized a boy?

No they usually did it as an act of pederasty.  They apparently often considered it an important bond between two individuals (in some cases practicing a 'chaste pederasty', in other cases the boys were spoiled with gifts, in others it was part of their military training... all standards set by the given social group and practiced by the individuals in that society. There no evidence that it was 'abusive', in the sense we consider pedophilia to be abusive today. The physical acts may be the same, but the reasons, the psychology and the social system appear very different.

Well, then, I am not qualified to render a judgment on this specific example, as the culture is too alien for me to consider.

Now, do you consider it a good act to hang a 16 year old girl from a crane for talking to a boy?  Do you consider the judge that passed that sentence down to be good or evil?

[LMNO]

butt love was just one part of the boy's education. In all likelihood, there was nothing non consensual about it.

Whoa, whoa, whoa.


You really think that if some kid said, "no, please don't put your cock in my ass," a Greek nobleman would say, "oh, okay," rather than just clipping the kid around the ear and shoving it in anyway?