Is perspective really everything Veeky Forums?

Given 20x the amount of time, yes.

Yes but obviously there are exceptions.

Define evil.

That which seeks to cause harm to my in-group

Who are the men in the back?

Yes to both.

anything done in order to promote one's ego

Ignorance.

There is only 1 objective reality.

You might take the philosophical perspective that nothing is absolutely certain, ignoring the obvious contradication that this assertion itself is not for certain, there is no reason to assume anything if there is no evidence thus relegating this philosophical tidbit to meaninglessness.

In short, it does not justify mysticism.

Though humans can be wrong and scientists dispute different theories, their arguments have a basis, whereas the pseudoscientists and pseudointellectuals who demand their arguments be given equal credence have nothing.

Read this: poleandpaddy.com/stalin-v-churchill-who-was-worst/

Famine, kick-starting the Cold War, indefensible colonial policies... Churchill was a monster.

...

prove me wrong
protip: you cannot do such thing

everyone believes they're doing the right thing, so yes.

Churchill was an asshat but the writer arguing for him being worse than Stalin is a delusional lefty. Most of his writing his writing is drivel and falsehood, like the supposed volleys at Tonypandy which never actually happened.

Also can't prove you right.

you're wrong

Holy crap! I'm absolutely refuted! How will I ever recover!

>deserved

As soon as you think you know what people deserve, you have failed.

I haven't posted the arguments yet

People on both sides of your spectrum tend not to realize how much of a tool perspective is.

That's the point of my sarcastic statements: please try to support your conclusions, dumb frogposter.

Careful there, someone might adapt that stance and murder and rape your family in front of your eyes. If you are American at least the former is already happening with a lot of people.

>Nah the axis powers were genuinely evil and terrible nations
true
>Totally deserved the entire destruction of its people
false

gb2 leftypol

It all goes back to Buddhism and Karma
anything you do that strengthens your concept of self and that you are separate entity causes suffering

The world is imperfect so everyone could be called a "bad guy", however some are far worse.

The famine in Bengal which arguably Winston did little to help with is another ballpark from the intentional genocide by Adolf.

Including a surface level interpretation of Buddhism to rosy up the smell of your own farts, ya tool.

yeah I dummed it down

Long as you're aware, we try to be as well for what it's worth.

He gave every family a car, banned smoking in hospitals, stabilized a failing economy, burned a ton of jews, made Germany great again ... need I go on?

We have just witnessed logical perfection

Murdering zillions of people was a shitty thing to do. Should've just did what the Jews do and promote degeneracy and feminism to destroy their society instead of taking the easy way and killing them.

>He gave every family a car
is that what you learn on /pol/...intriguing

>There is only 1 objective reality.
Says a dull novelist turned right wing pundit turned welfare queen

themindunleashed.org/2015/06/new-mind-blowing-experiment-confirms-that-reality-doesnt-exist-if-you-are-not-looking-at-it.html

The biggest problem with the one objective reality theory is that Ayn Rand is no longer alive to tell you what that objective reality is, so people disagree on the nature of that one objective reality even if they happen to be near perfectly aligned ideologically, sort of like how, say, the TOC and the ARI can never seem to agree on anything despite religiously adhering to Miss Rand's body of work.

So in a practical every day sense saying there is one objective reality has about as much theoretical ground as solipsism: it can't be disproven because it's a language structure taking refuge in its own self-consistency, not in falsifiable science. So it's really just a fancy way of saying "There's only one person in the world who knows what reality is all about and that's me".

Perversion of The Good.
>define the good
That which is Good.
>mud defining of define.
Define "define" without appealing to a definition, till you can violate the laws of Reason itself you must concede to the absolute good.

Depends on if you have a standard for good and evil. Most religions would answer yes most other worldviews would answer no.

>Implying that Communism was on the same level of incompetence as 3/3 of the Axis nations.

me on the left

>everyone falling for this bait
I think Veeky Forums might be the most autistic/easiest to troll board

Does Winston not enjoy the sick beats they are all listening to?

>>define the good
>That which is Good.

Holy shit you must be some kind of oracle or something, because that's the most accurate and useful definition I've ever seen

Good and evil is a matter of persepective.

Nah cunt, while evil acts may be justified, that does not stop them from being evil acts

By the social standards of modern history, acts that destroy large groups of non-combatants or revoke the freedoms commonly found in democratic nations like the UK, France, and USA.

In this way you could argue that every major nation in WW2 was evil for their wanton destruction of civilians.

Everyone already knows evil is relative user

>made Germany great again

Plunging your failing husk of a country into a state of perpetual war to keep it alive isn't making it great.

The economy was still absolutely fucked, it was just kept on lie support by the war economy.

Pretty sure that guy was joking considering how an “entire destruction of its people“ did not occur.

>Hitler wanted perpetual war
What the fuck am I reading. Hitler did everything in his power to make the war as short as possible, perpetual war was his worst fucking nightmare He wanted to gain the resources Germany needed to become completely self sufficient. if Germany wasn't great how the fuck did they bulldoze through half of Europe. Don't even reply to me m8, arguing whether or not something is great is ridiculously subjective

"Everyone dies. It's the final and only lasting justice. Evil exists; it is intelligence in the service of entropy. When the side of a mountain slides to kill a village, this is not evil, for evil requires intent. Should a sentient being cause that landslide, there is evil; and requires justice as a consequence, so that civilization can exist.
There is no greater good than justice; and only if law serves justice is it a good law. It is said correctly that law exists not for the just but for the unjust, for the just carry the law in their hearts, and do not need to call it from afar.
I bow to no one and give service only for cause."

seeing Stalin and Churchill hang at Nuremberg would have been the greatest thing ever

>if Germany wasn't great how the fuck did they bulldoze through half of Europe
Literally through dumb luck.

Only because there's genuine desire for conversation and discussion.

Also being a fairly new board, the memes aren't firmly established.

>Evil Brother Luther? Evil is a perspective which no longer concerns me.

>trial is in german
>Churchill isn't wearing headphones

shooting them both with one bullet at Nuremberg would have been the greatest thing ever

Says the guy that wants to summon an elder god

JUST A PERSPECTIVE NOT EVIL

You don't define good or evil with simple perspective. You need a moral system defining which actions are desirable and which are not. For many of the people in the U.S this seems to be "bible" and "pursuit of individuality". And freedom I guess. Communism and national socialism did not use that moral system at all.

Btw they were kind of justified: The current moral zeitgeist in the U.S is shit.

ALSO: The guy who said that evil was anything done to further one's ego is just a moron. Prove you wrong? Tons of people donate to charity to further their egos. Now unless your definition has convinced you enough that you think donating to charities is undesirable in itself, well...

People who unironically use evil to define something should just be banned.

Also, summoning elder gods might not necessarily be bad!

Think about it this way: Worshipping a greater entity in a lovecraftian "cosmic horror" scenario might mean you become an active part of the universe and not just its victim. What use is freedom or happiness to a dying species? Survival may be paramount.

Easy mode: Define entropy. Define sentient
Intermediate lvl: Define justice. Define intent.
Hard mode: Define causality.
Bonus: Why is civilization considered good?

Communism was a bigger threat to the West than Nazism desu.

Seriously, ethical philosophy can get impossibly complex if you actually take it seriously. Like, you know, most philosophy. Guys feeling clever when they say something like "NAH GOOD VS EVIL IS PERSPECTIVE YO" is just cute. But I guess we can't expect much better in the times of such gloriously retarded expressions as "red pilling".

Sure it can be, but we're on Veeky Forums board with huge amounts of autists and foreskin snippers.

I would deny good and evil at an absolute form,
though it's clear that certain bodies will serve to your assistance or detriment in a practical sense.

While certainly difficult to ignore, it is still a distraction which takes away from contemplation.

Huhu, so contemplation is good then? Desirable? Why?

And your assistance and detriment? So individualism then?

...

I guess to preface, this is pretty much a view formed from my own personal beliefs,
and I cannot attest to the truth of them.

But, from what I have seen and thought of, I feel that the best course is contemplation.
Though, my best justification is that it is simply because I enjoy it.
I can't say that there is really any base cause that extends beyond that.

I also think that the classification of assistance and detriment to be the most accurate terms I can think of.
Part of it is that it seems to me that Good and Evil are controlled perceptions, in that, while you certainly may be influenced, at the end final judgment lies within yourself.
Conversely, the actions of others which bring practical detriment or aid cannot be to the same extent controlled, as they are outside of your consciousness.

At the end of the day, I think it is a waste of time to have to continually spare thought to the somewhat liquid nature that Good and Evil entail, when I would much rather explore more universal questions.

That's fine, Epicurism is a fairly ok kind of moral system, and it seems to be what you are defending. Old school as fuck and, as a result, a bit blurry on the edges but it works to a much greater extent than most of the stuff. Check Epicure if you haven't done so already, I think it might be up your alley.

Didn't get: "Part of it is that it seems to me that Good and Evil are controlled perceptions, in that, while you certainly may be influenced, at the end final judgment lies within yourself.". Doesn't make sense to me. Sorry.

Also, don't be too defensive, no one can attest fully to the truth of their beliefs. And you don't have to write in such a heavy way either, it dilutes your position. But kudos for actually trying a bit harder than most.