.
Happy reading… 
.
Left so soon… 
I encourage you to actually process & respond to my words. If Dan is comfortable with you doing that here in his thread, so am I.
1 Like
ILP needs the laugh react 
.
In reply to @Dan1’s op
.
My position stands as…
Degrees/a scale, not opposites.
In wars, both sides kill people… yet one side is deemed good/right, the other side deemed evil/wrong
Opposites = manipulation of the masses / a scale = seekers of truth justice and harmony
That was like playing a game of ‘ping pong’ with both hands tied behind my back…
.
…but yea… y’all are worth laughing at. 
.
When argument is proven to hinder progress… as evidenced, in this [deserted] thread.
Trousers, being > substance
Is evil not based out of ignorance?
but here’s an interesting juxtaposition:
Hosea 4:6 & context
Do we agree on what evil is?
Wiki says, " Evil is commonly seen as the opposite, or sometimes absence, of good. It can be an extremely broad concept, although in everyday usage it is often more narrowly used to talk about profound wickedness and against common good."
In any good story, the bad character is necessary to keep a certain tension in a story. Tension is needed in a variety of cases, not only to let an arrow fly, but also to make music on an instrument. Opposites play a significant role in human discourse, contributing to the richness and complexity of communication and thought.
Opposites also form the basis of dialectical reasoning, where ideas are explored through the tension between opposing forces or perspectives. This process often leads to deeper insights and understanding as contradictions are reconciled or synthesized.
I think there is a case for saying that the “evil” in mythological writing has this role, and although there is always a different perspective, it doesn’t have to be as dark as often portrayed. The opposites that I see in human history should in fact work together, such as the warrior and the sage, the male and the female. As Yin and Yang portray, there is always a little of the opposite in all of us.
Evil is failing to acknowledge, in other words violating, recognized consent. First you must recognize consent. Evil is not necessary in order to recognize consent, or to acknowledge it.
Long story short.
Sorry, but those are just words that intend to suggest content, but are empty.
Try addressing something someone has said and presenting a counter argument. That is what I was trying to point out.
In a colloquial sense, “evil” is anything I am not happy with.
Okay then, you have no intention of discusing the point.
Veni Vidi Vici
See last posts.
…that is why, placing good and evil on a scale -rather than pitting them against each other as opposites- helps alleviate that problem, of daubing all that we dislike or misunderstand, as evil… or as George Santayana puts it:
She compares herself to Gaius Julius Caesar. Silly girl.
I did no such thing.
A good point, but I would refer to my statement: