It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Genetically Modified Salvation: Three "Evil" Questions

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight




Evil and Good are actually objective Fail...do some real philosophical reading.


Real philosophical reading means philosophy, so sophy is objective.

So Evil and good also are. Free speech is good but please earn it.




A community of people with good intentions? What like the Pentagon? It is a closed community after all.


no, objective good




posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis




While not directly related to the "suppression of evil", some people with chemical "imbalances" (also subjective), have been known to cause harm to themselves and/or others until they are medicated.


Thats what Thomas Szasz spoke against this so called "chemical imbalance" trope, leading down the slippery slope of psychiatry being used as a coercive arm of the State in incarceration of the non-compliant or "anti-norm actor". People would not be judged using the criminal code in a court of law on their actions but on what the powers at any given time decided was anti-government. A great way of controlling political dissidents. His fears were well founded as Psychiatry still hasnt found that magical elusive chemical imbalance baseline.

en.wikipedia.org...


he was best known as a social critic of the moral and scientific foundations of psychiatry, of what he saw as the social control aims of medicine in modern society, and scientism. His books The Myth of Mental Illness (1961) and The Manufacture of Madness (1970) set out some of the arguments most associated with him.

Szasz argued throughout his career that mental illness is a metaphor for human problems in living, and that mental illnesses are not real in the sense that cancers are real. Except for a few identifiable brain diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, there are “neither biological or chemical tests nor biopsy or necropsy findings for verifying or falsifying DSM diagnoses", i.e., there are no objective methods for detecting the presence or absence of mental illness.[5] Szasz maintained throughout his career that he was not anti-psychiatry but was rather anti-coercive psychiatry. He was a staunch opponent of civil commitment and involuntary psychiatric treatment but believed in, and practiced, psychotherapy and psychiatry between consenting adults.



posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis




would people have themselves "treated" in order to remove the ability to convince oneself to act harmful?


Given enough resources and brainwashing of course they would line up to be vaccinated from evil,; just you would not tell them it was an anti-evil vaccine. You would sell it as some miracle anti flu or anti obesity aid. I mean some people still consider McDonalds food even in the light of facts at ones fingertips.

The glaring elephant in the room you have missed is that would a military driven expansionist Government want the next generation of babies doing anti evil things? Like refuse to go to war. I think not, where in the world would they get their cannon fodder? In fact


www.independent.co.uk...


For a soldier, memory-altering drugs such as this could mean violent combat becoming no more troubling, retrospectively, than a visit to the gym. "The problem is," Professor Moreno says, "what else are they blocking when they do this? Do we want a generation of veterans who return without guilt?"



www.fishpond.com.au...


Super Soldiers
The Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (Emerging Technologies, Ethics and International Affairs)
... only now as we progress into the twenty-first century that we are getting closer to realising the Spartan ideal and creating a soldier that can endure more than ever before.

edit on 6-3-2016 by TheConstruKctionofLight because: edit



posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: elementalgrove

thank you, we think alike in a lot of ways. I'm hyper vigilant whenever I see caring for man left out of the picture. It seems to be a wave of guilt thrown at us so we become self loathing. Great way to programme us for Agenda 21. And of course there is that Prince Philip quote where he wants to be reincarnated as a virus to wipe out us "useless feeders" A bit rich coming from the mouth of the "entitled"



posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol




Real philosophical reading means philosophy, so sophy is objective

In fact philo - lover - objective, sophos - wisdom - subjective, again fail

This is not a discussion of the philosophy of language, but as you insist heres the difference

www.everything-voluntary.com...


Subjectivity and Objectivity

I don't mean to make this discussion too long, but I feel I should define a few terms. Subjectivity is judgment based on personal feelings and opinions, rather than external facts. Objectivity, on the other hand, is judgment based on external facts, rather than on personal feelings and opinions.Value, for example, is subjective. How one feels about something, say an item for sale, will determine how much he is willing to pay. If the price is set too high, he will forego the purchase. Another example, the color of something is an objective fact. Feelings and opinions are irrelevant.





So Evil and good also are. Free speech is good but please earn it.


Again they are not. So you would coerce me with the threat of removal of free speech because I dont agree with you.
Nope I dont have to earn free speech, its not something you can trade or barter. Where did you read that I have not earn't the right to free speech or that I somehow implied or said you are not entitled to your beliefs. I also guess all the cases before the courts over free speech in the US, had to have earnt it beforehand, never mind the US constitution. hahaha




no, objective good


Or good intentions, as you said earlier,
or



Everyone already has "good" intentions according to them, though time may change their perspective.


I smell something fishy here, are you trying to sneak in "original sin"?



posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight




I smell something fishy here, are you trying to sneak in "original sin"?


your quote entirely

enjoy your understanding of how things work and what failure is



posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 05:19 PM
link   
(no reason given)

edit on 6-3-2016 by HarryJoy because: changed mind



posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis

Evil indeed is perspectival

What one man consumes another regurgitates

The heavy rain is life giving to the farmer in the valley but destructive to the hunters there.

I look at Buddha’s criteria of suffering as a yardstick. Any thing that results in any sentient suffering is evil

Of course there are always nuances of any law that brings complexity to the formula

Ultimately the source of evil, according to this paradigm, is ignorance that is itself based on a metaphysical corruption of the soul machine.

Somewhere down the line the human soul machine produces negative energy with the inevitable results on suffering through ignorance done by the human being

When the soul machine resolves its negative energy productive capacity it will erase ALL evil from human experience.


Any artificial attempt to rectify this will only lead to a pernicious repression of reality that may do more harm than good



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 04:09 AM
link   
a reply to: wisvol




how things work and what failure is


hahahaha - your in denial



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join