|
Post by Del on Aug 25, 2006 7:59:32 GMT -5
Okay... I know this is serious, right? But... I'd seriously want to keep it as a pet. ;;>.> Can I do that? o.o You and your pets Mem......if it's not going to cause harm once yo have it, I do't see a problem with it...but isn't it a little too big for you to put on your plate...or at the end of your magic stick? I mean this stuff swallows worlds in darkness....that's a big pet.
|
|
|
Post by Wunderkind on Aug 25, 2006 10:56:43 GMT -5
Well my biggest pet is bigger than the Earth in full form, I don't hink this one would be toooooo big. I'd just have to beg K to let me keep it, he gets annoyed because I have to many and let them loose everywhere. ;D
|
|
|
Post by a'Lan Mandragoran on Jan 27, 2007 21:58:49 GMT -5
My veiws on good and evil is that good is evil and evil is good (I am aware of the cycical nature of this) All things exist in balance and for something to be "good" it also has to be "evil". In otherwords, there is just existence and nature takes care of everything. The higher up the "good" factor is for someone the more "evil" they are... and visaversa... an all "good" god is actually an all "evil" one but evil is good... so everything is neutral. It just needs action. The action with intent is good or evil and that is the black and white of it. However it is possible to do an evil for good... such as killing Bush. <.< >.>
|
|
|
Post by Kata Samoes on Jan 28, 2007 0:24:27 GMT -5
"Good" and "Evil" are subjective perspectives. It's the whole differing morals and "right and wrong" thing, you know?
Meh.
|
|
|
Post by KG on Jan 30, 2007 2:55:03 GMT -5
I totally agree with a'Lan Mandragoran it is all a matter of intent, I really don't believe anything has to be evil, or that anyone is consistently evil or good in motivation all the time... except maybe Bush. LOL Kata also has a point about evil being subjective. I think there is a passage in the bible. "Every man is righteous in his own eyes." People have a way of justifying their own actions, and seeing their own vices as less wrong than another vice they don't care for anyway. I think some things are just evil... taking pleasure in torturing a kitten for instance. That is evil. Yet scientists torture kittens and other small animals when they do experiments. Sometimes those experiments save lives... and only the scientist knows if he takes pleasure in it or not. There are always those annoying shades of grey... even in the most clear cut of circumstances. I witnessed something kind of interesting Saturday. My husband was sitting in a waiting room, and a young man struck up a conversation with him, about this website. www.laughingpond.com/This guy was so innocent it was adorable. He asked my husband. "I don't want to believe it but most of it makes a lot of sense... What I don't understand is; Bush has plenty of money, why would he want more money?" I laughed at the time. IT seemed like a crazy question... but I have thought about it a lot since. Why would Bush want more money? Why would he be willing to kill hundreds of thousands of people just for a bigger number in his bank account? I mean it isn't like he's worried about ever going hungry. He isn't even likely to want any thing he can't already afford. Why does he want more money? IT is actually a very good question. To take someone's very life, just for a number on a bank statment, that you will probably never even use. Part of the answer lies in the fact it is his money, and the other guy's life. If it were the other way around he would think it was very unfair I am sure! I have no idea how someone like that sleeps at night, but apparently he thinks he is the good guy. He doesn't realize that it is wrong to take the lives of others for your own profit. Where would he have learned that? From his grandfather, who supplied the Nazi army with steel at a time our own government needed it, and was at war with them? Bush often brings up family values. To him family values involve not having ilicit sex, especially with same sex partners. Killing is OK though. Torture is OK. It must be very confusing to think that way. I don't get it... and yet I judge him for being that way... not just as a politician, but as a human being. Some would say that was wrong. I have often posed the question... most people would agree that the world would be better off if Hitler would have died in infancy. If you could go back in time, and smother him in his crib... would you? Could you? I mean he'd be just a tiny baby. Could you do that to a baby? If you did, and someone found out they would think you were a monster. They would never believe a tiny baby would grow up to slaughter millions. The very idea that you could know that about him would sound insane. How could you even be sure he would... that time... maybe something could be done to change him... but would it be worth the risk? Millions of lives, vs. one baby... What would you do?
|
|
|
Post by a'Lan Mandragoran on Jan 30, 2007 9:01:18 GMT -5
Going back and doing something with an infant Hitler wouldn't do anything in the long run. Someone else would come up and do the same thing. I believe things that change the entire world are fate. Little can be done to change it. To answer the questions posed though, I would probably find some wayto go back and teach him about the good in people and minimize the bitterness he felt towards his own family. Even knowing that someone would probably come along and pull the same thing.
As for Bush's want of more money, if you have it, you want more, if you have more, you have power, if you have power you want more and the only way to get power is through money... That cycle spins heads as well as wallets... and sadly, the world... It's a self generating reason.
|
|
|
Post by KG on Jan 30, 2007 9:07:58 GMT -5
That is facinating. So you are saying that if Hitler had turned out to be a good guy, someone else would have taken his place and done the exact same thing, because that was just an inevitable plan... that is deep... and kind of frightening, but I see your logic. It was some powerful entity's plan maybe? Or just the natural order of things? Would it have still been in Germany, or would it have happened in another country?
|
|
|
Post by a'Lan Mandragoran on Jan 30, 2007 9:32:47 GMT -5
Who rightly knows except the Divines? For all I know, I might have been the one to bring about something similar. I think the human race and global society has been being manipulated by unseen, non-human hands to fulfil some purpose. We may never know what it is, but anything big that changes the global perspective, ISN'T within our power to control, change or do anything about. However, we can do little things to influance what the big picture will look like. Sort of like ants, I suppose. No one ant is an individual in and of itself and as such, must follow the plan, however if that one ant does something completely 100% different than what it would normally do, it sends a ripple through the entire colony, although not a very big one. Ripples always cause change, no matter how small or where they occur, and even no matter how far back they happened. That said, if Hitler was changed, taught to be good, WW2 may not have happened at all but something else would have. It may not entirly be another person, but chances are more likly that it would be. That other person may be easier to defeat, or he could conquer the world. And again, chances are that if someone would help Hitler to become good and it worked, the other person probably would rule the world when he came into power. Even with a thing like fate, it's not set in stone. There's always SOME variable that needs to be taken into account and this is where Chaos in all its forms comes into play.
|
|