• @TheGoldenMole I'd say evil is learned by experience 'writing' on our blank slate.


  • @Rayse Yes, this is also what I was starting to think. Evil could have been around forever, we just decided to label what we thing "good" and "bad" when really there is neither


  • well evil can be a mental ilness some people take pleasure in pain and that can be inhereted why woulden't since it's proven that masochist get dopamin of it, and if you ever see dunedin study documentary it gennerally prove that we dont change our behavior, and that we a born in to our behavior, so i would say that it's possblie to be born evil and you should probally kill evil peopl.


  • @alkal33 So you don't think people can change?


  • @TheGoldenMole no not really and i would argue thats a postive


  • There is no such thing as "evil" because it is only a perspective.


  • @SexyLexi4204ever
    it's more of a feeling so it is true


  • @SexyLexi4204ever But the same reasoning would lead you to conclude that there is no such thing as shadows, as long as we know they result from something casting them. Everything, of course, is perspective.


  • It's easy to establish that concepts such as 'good' or 'bad' are simply perspective, but that's not a very strong position to hold.
    Consider, the concept of 'truth' now; that a thing is objectively the case it presents as. Does truth fall prey to the same perspective fallacy?
    Yes, and this is concerning because by its definition truth must be singular, and self-evident. What limits our judgement here is availability of information.

    Consider the "Hubble Sphere or Volume"
    It states that the expansion of the universe is such a rate that light from a far enough distance will never reach us at the centre, therefore we will have no knowledge of what is outside of our "hubble bubble" so to speak.

    This lack of information would lead us to conclude that, say, there is only a single galaxy (if all others exist outwith our frame of reference. While this would be a form of truth, it is only so from our -limited- perspective, and simultaneously wrong and false objectively.

    Therefore, I conclude that there is only one form of evil in the world, though it takes many forms, each aspect of it involves the destruction of information, or restricting access to information.


  • @Randy_Butternubs we can see shadows, we can control them and they are clearly there. What I consider a shadow, you will also know as a shadow, as will someone from another country, background, ethnicity, etc. They might have a different word, but we all know it as a shadow.
    Evil is different. What you call evil I might call kindness. What I call evil another person might consider good. I think that's what they meant by evil being a perspective. A shadow on the other hand isn't perspective, it isn't subjective, it is real. We can see it and name it.


  • @Randy_Butternubs but we already know that there is nothing we know about this universe. To conclude there is only a single galaxy would be to have a theory, which is very different from truth or fact. There would be a "single galaxy theory" just as there is a "big bang theory" and "theory of gravity". We are aware we have lack of information and until we are able to completely prove something true it will fall under theory.


  • @TheGoldenMole
    That's what I was trying to say, it's not enough simply to be aware that we may be lacking information which puts perceived "truths" at risk of being found wrong. We must be aware that our very understanding of what is true, will be less effective as time goes on due to the degradation of either the information quality, or the availability of information.

    Estimates put the rate of universe expansion at ~70kilometers-per-second-per-megaparsec. That means that, with three galaxies initially within a megaparsec of one-another, we could easily measure the existence of any object in that sphere from any other object, yet after some time and some distance travelled, a galaxy could disappear, never to be heard of again.
    Consider that galaxies A and B are now within the same sphere, yet galaxy C has accelerated so that it is outside of this sphere. The acceleration (km/s) increases with distance (megaparsecs) as space appears to actually generate more of itself between objects as they move, so objects farther away from the point of reference are actually travelling faster than those which are closer. This gives the impression of the receding galaxy C having moving faster than the speed of light, which is not strictly possible, but due to spatial expansion between it and the observer, is actually the observed case.

    The implication here is that at a particular distance, no information can be gained about a thing; it cannot interact with us now in any way as nothing can travel faster than the speed of light without space itself increasing in volume between them in addition to their movements.

    So, we would be correct, provably and mathematically to conclude that "Because I can measure these objects in my galaxy being affected in certain ways due to objects in the only other galaxy available to me, there are just two galaxies." The third has ceased to be of any meaning, because it can affect no change on our now too-distant galaxies A & B.

    If we want to hold that mathetmatics is a language we discovered, inherent to the universe and not simply an idea we made up; ie, that mathematics, that numbers are objective truths (one is always a singular, for example), then I think the conclusion has to be that the only evil is an action which degrades quality or, or access to available information. As to whether it is inherent or learned, since we could never settle Nature-Nurture debate, I think that question ceases to be relevant.

    What are your thoughts?

    (Excuse the length here, I'm realising I'm not very concise!)


  • @Randy_Butternubs Yeah pretty much. It is an endless question with no definitive answer. That's why I asked it, I wanted to know opinions, thoughts, and reasonings. I like asking these questions because there are no right or wrong answers, just ideas and thought processes. Somehow that's more interesting to me than a straight answer


  • This post is deleted!

  • @TheGoldenMole
    Adam ate an apple of sin. ThereaFteR evil transferred from his SpErM to uS. 😂😂😂

  • Gamers

    Once in a while, a child would be born with a brain disorder not allowing them to comprehend empathy or feelings, which is basically what evil is. But not all evil people are born evil. If these people who are born evil grow up to become parents with perfectly normal kids, then their child will grow up only knowing bad or evil behaviors, therefore making them evil. So basically, evil is sometimes learned and sometimes inherited, but the instances where evil is learned are derived from the instances where evil is inherited. I don't know if this is the answer you're looking for, but it's what I think.


  • @AllAboutGay GhoSt mAdE stRaiGht peOple inTo hiS imAgE


  • @TheGoldenMole that’s a great question! I think the capabilities of both good and evil exist in every person. Maybe the deciding factor relies on the morals of the individual.


  • @Intellectual animals are born with no empathy or complex feelings all of the time. Using this logic, could they be considered evil?


  • Evil is actually like God , we can't see them by this eye and can't hear their sound by this ear. we can't feel them by our five senses. but we have five senses else that we can feel them by those senses.
    I have an Instagram account which explained about these notes.