Say goodbye to Gunkid...

[mp510]

I bet the trial will be a short one.

Not if they put his big mouth on the stand.

But the deliberations will be

 

[Werewolf]

Interesting question, Werewolf, and likely one with no clear answer. I would vote choice.

Choice must surely be one component of what differentiates evil from mentally ill but it cannot be the only one. Why not? If choice were the only component then the allies in WWII would unquestionably be evil as they chose to bomb purely civilian targets with the intent to cause terror and hopefully destroy morale and inevitbly the enemy's will to fight. Killing to cause terror would I think be defined as evil by most folks but rarely have I heard anyone say the bombing of civilians in Germany and Japan was evil (well - actually I talked to a number of Germans about that in the early 70's - surprisingly the ones who actually lived thru the war didn't have a problem with the bombing - meaning to them it was just a fact of war and not inherently evil - while the younger Germans born well after the war did in general consider the bombing of civilians just to kill civilians evil).

So choice is one but not the only factor in defining evil.

What other factors besides intent and choice would be necessary to completely and truely define evil?

 

[PATH]

The man is obviously mentally unstable. I used to think he was some sort of Jester but he appeared after a time to take himself seriously. I thought the Assauly Wheelbarrow was particularly funny though. I laughed so hard I nearly soiled my pants!

Can we have a list of sites he frequented?

 

[Biker]

Werewolf...

Anyone who has ever taken a life might say that no pleasure was derived from the act. If pleasure *was* a consequence, aside from the revenge factor gained from perhaps killing the rapist who destroyed/ended your wife/daughter, insert whoever, then this could be construed as evil.
A certain 'satisfaction factor' might come into play knowing that the deceased will never again do harm, but pleasure should not be part of the equation.
Damn, hope y'all are ready to go fishin' 'cause I do believe that I just opened a can o' worms, methinks.

Biker

 

[Just_a_dude_with_a_gun]

So this was the guy....

You know, there are quite a few entries that come up when you google
"tactical wheelbarrow".

 

[Eleven Mike]

Erich, if you'd like to think I said that all mentally ill people are evil, I suppose it doesn't hurt anything. Go ahead.

 

[Werewolf]

Anyone who has ever taken a life might say that no pleasure was derived from the act. If pleasure *was* a consequence, aside from the revenge factor gained from perhaps killing the rapist who destroyed/ended your wife/daughter, insert whoever, then this could be construed as evil.
A certain 'satisfaction factor' might come into play knowing that the deceased will never again do harm, but pleasure should not be part of the equation.
Damn, hope y'all are ready to go fishin' 'cause I do believe that I just opened a can o' worms, methinks.

Hmmmmm...

So ridding the world of a mad dog killer rapist and not taking any joy in the act is good but taking pleasure in it would be evil? Not sure I agree with that. I'm real sure I don't understand it. Why should good not celebrate the destruction of evil whenever and however it may occur?

And then there's a real, real fine line between satisfaction and pleasure if indeed they aren't one and the same just with different degrees. Not sure why taking satisfaction in a deed that causes harm is not evil while taking pleasure in it would be.

Maybe it comes down to the consequences of the act? If the result, on balance ends in more good than harm is it good? Or does it remain evil. If it is good does that not open up the can of worms called "the end justifies the means"?