Does something like evil exist?

He's actually the result of "Christianity"--a false flag for God which is actually a front group for Satanism.

Their "Christ" is the anti-Christ and the deceiver of mankind.

Hi Muslim, please don't blow up my favorite coffee shop k.

>no act of malice that is carried out purely for malice's sake

Thanks. I needed a laugh.

I've seen the look of focused glee in a person's eyes when they're causing physical pain. It's all the proof I need.

I can imagine a scenario in which someone is forced to kill someone for someone else's ideology and absolutely detesting the act.

>but it's not evil if he was FORCED to do it, then it was the person forcing him to do it that was evil

ok.

"As a mark is not set up for the sake of missing the aim, so neither does the nature of evil exist in the world."

Evil is either corrupted virtue, or virtue that misses its mark. Someone who does nothing is neither virtuous nor evil. It is only people who aim and let loose that do good or evil. So whether evil exists or not is a metaphysical matter, but at any rate evil is just the opposite side of the coin to good. It's "the opposite" to good in perhaps a Nietzschean sense, in that it's cut from the same cloth, and shares 99% in common with good.

really proud to see fellow redpillers here.

Deus Vult, brethren

I'm sorry.

We must never analyze or criticize Christianity because of feels.

Charlie. o_o

Cmon man shut up and drink your fucking hemlock

It sure does, just go to Wikipedia and read about Oskar Dirlewanger.

If you can find an adjective that fits him, but it isn't "evil", I'd like to know.

He was ridding the world of treacherous vermin. Hardly 'evil'.

Except (an addendum) I think sometimes people intentionally choose to miss the mark, which is another kind of evil, perhaps pure evil. It's usually driven by the fallacious belief that one can only express one's freedom by violating what is proscribed, consequently it's commonly found in people who feel oppressed in some way. Every Genocide has this at its root; that to dehumanize and mass murder others feels to a fool the most life-affirming action possible.

Nope, only evil actions (and people who commit actions more evil than the average) do

He failed. Thus, he was not successful against evil. Perhaps he failed because he was only pretending to be against the "treacherous vermin."

Don't be too quick to trust, user.

...

>not evil inactions

oops.

You have a lot to learn about the redpill, brainwashed idiot

True that

...

>elbow bump

when you find out how deep the rabbit hole goes, you will never be yourself again

misguided

This is true. I went there.

Heed this warning, user...

Had to google that shit

>fellow redpillers here.
omg kys

Shouldnt you be somewhere else thrwing around shitty memewords ? You 20 yo aitist r9k basement cuntlet ?

was it worth it

Nice samefagging
now kindly fuck off back to your cesspool which is pol
I heard theres a good hillary vs trump thread ud need to shove up your unlubed butthole

Not much, all I saw were Obama pics

You sound like one who has risen above the false binary of partisan politics.

>binary
Kys

you fucking twat you missed the entire point of the post
>focused glee
precisely. they did it because they enjoyed it. they liked it. stirner would be proud of that person for being an egotist and doing things that they enjoy irrespective of moral spooks

he did it because he felt he had no choice. he didn't do it because of evil's sake.even the person forcing him to do it wasn't evil. he was forcing him to do it because of some political ideology. not for evil's sake itself. there is no evil for evil' sake. it can always be explained as self interest or some ideological consequence.

i don't get why it is so absurd to imagine that every act that is normatively considered evil can be explained as having some cause behind it apart from "evil" itself.

even sadists who enjoy inflicting harm do it because they fucking ENJOY it. not because inflicting harm is evil and they want to be evil for no reason.

there is no true evil. any act of evil that you think of will have an explanation behind it that would be other than "because it was an evil thing to do".

also, how is "is there evil" even a fucking question when there is no universal metric to assess what is "evil".

when a tiger kills a deer, do you call it evil? no.
are animals called evil for whatever they do? no. then why are humans called evil for whatever reason? we're deterministic machines who do things (sometimes normatively considered evi) lto maximize our utility. not because those acts are evil in themselves.

how fucking hard is this for you liberal art reject morons to grasp?

>you missed the entire point of the post

Your poor presentation is not my problem. Work on that.

what part of
> show me one person who was evil for evil's sake and didn't do things because they fit their ideology or sense of gratification in any way.
were you dense enough to not grasp?

i literally asked you to give me an example of an individual who did evil for evil's sake and didn't derive some sort of gratification from it and you literally just told me a person who got gratification from it.

Kek calm your fucking titties mane I said this shit # because you were quite much parroting what Socrates said. But since you don't seem to catch that reference to one of the most iconic episodes ever you could as well sip some hemlock yourself.

Holy shit, you are a cringey as fuck 19 year old.

wait. socrates said something similar? elaborate? i feel glad to have arrived at a theory by myself that is similar to his.

also, what episode senpai?

You started off by saying something that was completely antithetical to your point, but the initial presentation was that it was your idea.

I'm not disagreeing with your point.

Your writing is just shitty, my son

This user is right. The very evil is always done unkowingly

First sip your hemlock
Then check some of the first Plato's dialogues, Apology especially. Google is your friend

>he didn't know he shot 49 people to death

Certainly.

Nah, I prefer the spirit of Socrates itself. He lives through me.

i have read apology, meno, phaedo, euthyphro.

he doesn't claim in any of these texts that there is no true evil. in apology he just fucking destroys the morons trying to convict him. he defends philosophical inquiry and his dialectical exercise and how he wasn't hamrful to society.

dafuq are you talking about.

are you dumb? do you not see the context in which "unknowingly" is used here? it doesn't refer to some state of hallucination or deludedness.

Unknowingly here refers to the state in which a person understands that he is shooting 49 people and doing so because of some reason. either he is deriving some gratification from it or because of some ideology or because of some impulse or because of some vent for hatred. he isn't shooting 49 people because it is an evil thing to do. he is doing it because of some explanation that is rooted in anything BUT "because it is evil".

as i said, there is no evil for evil's sake.

>overwhelmingly acknowledged bad things
>things/acts considered undesirable by consensus
/thread

this is pathetically trite.

but correct? right? i don't care if it is trite or not.

>nobody likes to murder

Aw, that's sweet.

jesus fuck i feel like im arguing with children.

I didn't say "no one likes to murder". in fact i said that "no one likes to murder because it is evil". if someone committed murder it was probably because they liked it or because they had a reason to or because they felt that it was the best thing to do or because of some emotion that they felt. show me one murder done purely for "evil's" sake. it always has a motivation or a sense of gratification behind it.

You are, in fact, arguing with children. But do keep posting, not all of us are brain dead memers. Just stop adressing them.

Read it again
Also I think he discussed that shit in Protagoras but I have to reread it

hitler xDDDDDDD just evil for the sake of evil t. school

>being naughty isn't fun

You must've been a good little boy.

A generally negative attitude toward children is fitting with the Catholic Church's priorities.

I guess Jesus' attitudes weren't to be modeled after all.

That's a relief. It's so hard to be a "decent" person anyway.

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven. (Matthew 5:3)
Trump will go to heaven if there is such a thing.

What did he mean by this?

why would the kingdom of heaven belong to the poor in spirit? unless the "poor in spirit" means something that i dont understand?

He'll be leader of the free world.

You don't understand what "spirit" means.

Try analyzing things more closely. Just a suggestion.

Rookies
Lookie
How can six dicks be pussies?

Ever heard the road to hell is paved with good intentions

eh?

Talking about shit creek
Bitch you could be up piss creek
With paddles
This deep
You're still gonna sink

Wherever you go, there you are.

No charge. That one's on the house.

Now you're speaking my language.

yeah bro it was the lack of the analysis of a word that is the problem here. how tf am i supposed to magically understand the context in which the word "spirit" is used here?

This shouldn't have made me laugh
But it did.

With religion, just go with what "feels" good.

The euphoria that they try to condescending pin on atheists.

What about Μαkάριοι οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι, ὅτι αὐτῶν ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν do you not understand?

the part that claims that the kingdom of heaven is for those poor in spirit. i mean why the fuck do these cunts have to be so cryptic about this shit. goddamn. it sounds like a teenage girl got high on lsd and tried writing deep thoughts about "goodness and stuff".

dafuq is "spirit" supposed to mean here? morality? wealth? naivety? simplicity?

If you don't "get it" you'll never get it.

i might not get it but you could at the very least offer some fucken explanation apart from "nah bro u don get it". i doubt it is an entirely ineffable concept.

Oh boy. You do understand that the bible was not written in English and that is just (a common) translation? Maybe the German translation will help you
>Selig sind, die da geistlich arm sind; denn ihrer ist das Himmelreich.

> das Himmelreich.

Go back to /pol/.

It actually was. You didn't like it so apparently you threw it on the floor and want another one.

Where is the original picture from?

What if that person acknowledges that they are gratified by evil for the sake of evil?

Meaning the evil actions they do will give them no tangible benefits other than a psychic pleasure.

Does something like good exist?

>spirit

Look. I'll explain it.

Look at the cross: . It has two parts. The horizontal one represents the physical plane. The vertical one represents the "spiritual plane." Therefore the "spirit" cannot be described in physical terms.

Our existence is an examination of the meaning of the intersection of the two.

A common idea is our personal essence of identity is not of the physical realm, and is referred to as "spirit."

A side note: People who are overly-"spiritual" are too disassociated from reality.

If you accept a notion of universal ethics (such as Kant) that proves you can have objective secular ethics based on universality, you'll soon realize this is not applied in the world at all. Just because rape is wrong, it doesn't mean rape won't be practiced. Doing good is stopping the rape and doing evil is defending / executing it.

no. what are you, 4?

Evil is real. Doing something that you know will be completely detrimental to other living creatures is a example of something that is evil.

GNOSTICS GET OUT. THIS IS A GOOD CHRISTIAN BOARD!!!! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatitudes

I'm a Confirmation Christian, however a very naughty one, I'll admit to that.

When Kathy Bates hobbled him, she said it was for the best.

>original
Prison Pit

Collectivism is the root of all evil.
Hannah Arendt proved it correct with the banality of evil.

No

complete red herring