Evil

[Master Shake]

Lol, they're kids, I see nothing wrong with bullies getting a taste of their own medicine.

[Trench]

Lol, they're kids, I see nothing wrong with bullies getting a taste of their own medicine.

 

If that's so then let me be the doctor.

 

[True_Avery]

There must be a lot of insane people on the planet, then.

Humans do not wake up every morning and say to themselves "I'm going to go do something I know is wrong".

 

People have to justify an action before they do it. If they bash in someone's skull, then they had a personal justification for it. If they steal a candy bar, they need a personal justification. If they give a $20 to a homeless man, they need a justification for doing so.

 

People need to gain something. If they didn't, the action would be "free". It would imply that you could, say, be given a "free" sandwich. The Sandwich may have been given to you free of charge (except, perhaps, the feeling that you owe them or a feeling of guilt), but the ingredients for that sandwich had to come from other places. The pig that made the ham definitely lost something in that exchange.

 

If you give a dollar to a guy on the bus, you are doing so because of a feeling of self fulfillment. If someone bashes that guys head in with a tire iron, then he needs a justification in order. He needs to feel that he is getting something out of it to do so. Perhaps the guy ticked him off, so he killed him in order to alleviate his emotions. Emotional satisfaction. Killed him to get ahead in his career, which the payback is obvious. Killed him because he felt insecure and needed to have control over another person's life, which is one of the main ailments of rapists and serial murderers.

 

If he killed him on a -whim- it would be insanity. Killed him just because the tire iron was there, and the guy was there. Not even because he thought it would be interesting. Just did it without any thought or consideration at all. Killed him without a justification, knowing the outcome would be no different. The same as someone flipping a light switch on and off and expecting the lights to glow blue instead of white even though there is no possible way for a white lightbulb to just randomly decide to be blue.

 

You explained it yourself in the Smoking thread. People justify their smoking habit, despite the clear evidence of it being bad for you and those around you. If, right now, knowing it is bad and knowing you quit, just decided to pick up a pack, smoke, and continue thinking "this is bad" without another thought saying "but is isn't -that- bad" then you are smoking upon an insane whim.

 

That is insanity. Not "evil", but insanity. And, despite what you keep saying, Insanity is not common. It is something that can be documented, followed, and diagnosed. Unlike "Evil", which is a religious label originally intended for sacrilegious actions, people, and so on.

 

And you would be right about that.

Since we have no objective meaning of what is "right" and "wrong" in this world morally, we each come up with our own opinions and, despite how right we may think we are, that doesn't change the fact there are other opinions. We don't do what we think is wrong, because we always do and believe what we think is right. It is why we call right right, and wrong wrong. Would you do something you know is wrong just because?

 

Lets take your opinions on gun control. You think guns should be open to the people, and that the second amendment is our right as Americans. You believe gun ownership is right. Now, this election, under those same beliefs, you go into your booth and vote to ban all guns with no change in opinion.

 

It doesn't make sense. You wouldn't vote to ban guns, because you think they are right. To you, doing so would be wrong. If you had utter control, with every justification in the world and the unlimited power to control whether or not guns would be banned forever and you voted to ban them... it may as well be an act of insanity, as you are clearly doing something you have justified as being wrong and know the consequences of.

 

Only villains in fictional movies and books claim to be evil, and do things knowing they are evil. People who do this in reality are mentally ill to a point that I don't think you fully understand. Yes, there are mentally ill people who just LOVE to kill things and love to see things in pain, but the point is that they -love- seeing it. It pleases them. It gives them something in return. They don't do it because it is "wrong", but because, to them, it feels right and makes them happy in the same way that voting to keep guns in the public makes you happy.

 

The only way for "evil" in such a definition to exist is for someone else to incorrectly label someone else, or something, evil. The word "evil" exists only as a word, not as a realistic concept. It exists as a label, or a classification. A justification for personal comfort. It is a word that promotes blissful ignorance of the person or thing, and simply conveniently wraps them into a word that can be easily hated without ever unwrapping it again.

 

So, I'll ask, what defines an "Evil" person as you seem to be very nonchalant about using the word. What situation exists in which someone could possibly do something they absolutely know is wrong, will not benefit them, will not help them, will not aid them emotionally, physically, or in any other -possible- way imaginable?

 

I am not asking for "Well, the kid robbed the store, made off with the money, and then got caught so obviously he did something evil as it did not benefit him in the end"

 

Why? Because the kid assumed he would be getting money out of it. The final, end result is not the issue. The objective result is not the issue. The personal justification is what I care about. An insane, or mentally sick, person is lacking a justification for their action.

 

Now, if an "Evil" person is someone who has a personal justification, but the justification will hurt someone...

 

Then how, may I ask, is anyone innocent?

 

Where do you think your food comes from? Where does all of the merchandise that says "made in china" come from? Who's job was lost in order for you to work there? Who is disappointed that they lost their game in order for you to feel great about winning?

 

"Innocent", as this and other thread seems to imply, is more or less someone who has cheated the system and gotten everything in life for "free", without pain or loss on the part of any other life form on this earth.

 

Hell, go back to one of the main points of this thread. Children. Kids. The most honest of all of us. Screaming "I want this". Picking on other kids because it makes them feel bigger, more mature, and more adult. Feels like they have control in a part of their life in which they have almost none. Babies come out of the womb demanding milk and will scream and holler until given. A baby does not come out and politely ask for painless, harmless milk. No, it demands for milk, which is a painful experience for the woman, or must be gained through the means of forced milking from another animal.

 

We all indirectly hurt each other, but the ones who do it to someone directly are doing so in a face-to-face, direct, and honest manner.

 

As far as I'm concerned, we all hurt people to get what we want. If you've confused Insanity with Evil, then yes the world is insane. Then yes, the world is evil.

 

In that case, I will agree with the only definition of "evil" I'd be comfortable with, except to me it simply translates to "selfish", which translates directly to "life".

 

But using the word to label certain people and things is what I have a problem with, because despite the nonchalant use of the word it does have very, very strong historical meaning and the word and concept has more blood on it than either of us can imagine. It implies they are less than human, which is a justification we've used in every single war and conflict in human history. It is a label that, when placed, puts them on a pedestal over other people.

 

In other words, High Horsing. The entire word, history, concept, meaning, etc is just a poor excuse to High Horse.

 

That is why I don't like the word. But you can stick with the idea that I dislike it because I'm evil if you'd like.

[Insignia_Enithma]

^ True_Avery,

 

You are very interesting, and I enjoyed reading your post, and I actually understand your points. Especially about "Evil" and Insanity...

 

I really don't know what mroe to say tbh.

[Totenkopf]

Because you don't like to hear the truth about yourself? Because you're throwing a party because I refused to hurt your puppies and kittens? Because you know that I think that you are a phenomenal person of incredible taste and beauty and I would never dream of making Jae edit my post while she's on her Florida vacation?

 

No rest for the wicked, Jae.

 

 

@TA--I would tend to disagree w/you insofar as that I think there are people who do things that are evil and do so knowingly. A sociopath knows what he's doing is wrong, but doesn't care. Satisfying a "evil" urge doesn't make the action any less human, though humane is something else altogether. A person can be both human and evil. You don't even need to drag religion into it. Afterall, one atheist can look at another and see an evil person.

[Q]

^Precisely.

It is a label that, when placed, puts them on a pedestal over other people.

 

In other words, High Horsing. The entire word, history, concept, meaning, etc is just a poor excuse to High Horse.

 

That is why I don't like the word. But you can stick with the idea that I dislike it because I'm evil if you'd like.

We're all evil. That includes me. I've said that before in previous conversations, if you remember. We're born that way. It's what we do with it that defines us.

 

Sorry about all of the emo-ness, but this is an important subject to me, and something that I've had first-hand experience with, you might say.

[El Sitherino]

Avery I'm afraid I must point out you are quite wrong in underestimating the depths of the mentally ill. Simply saying they do it because it feels right doesn't change some peoples draw to actions specifically because it is a misdeed, or wrong. There are many illnesses that leave people compelled to commit violent acts because it's against normal social structure. Sociopathy is a very broad category with very vague terms that can't be easily understood outside the realm of it's study. There is a truth to the overused icon of evil, some people are wrong simply for wrong sake. It's not that unreasonable to conclude either, people live completely to help others, simply because a large percentage of people are the everyday jerks blasting their car horn at an old lady, doesn't mean Jesus, Ghandi, and mother Theresa are the only examples of people devoted to good faith acts.

 

That said, it's rare someone has a genuine bloodlust.

[True_Avery]

@TA--I would tend to disagree w/you insofar as that I think there are people who do things that are evil and do so knowingly. A sociopath knows what he's doing is wrong, but doesn't care.

I agree on the difference between humane and human.

 

But, note that I am talking about your run of the mill person and not, say someone of mental illness as I pointed out. Insanity is only one example I chose to use, but I will not rule out any other illnesses anyone wants to bring to the table. Sociopath's are indeed an exception to a lot of what I said, but, from my limited understanding, they still do "evil" things for the reason of it feels good. To be more precise, lack "empathy" for other creatures in some aspects. But, as far as I know, their bound to the same justification pattern that most people live their lives on.

 

If you'd like to call actions done by someone like that "evil" then that is your prerogative. They would fit the definition, but I'd be more inclined to call the person "sick" as I feel it has a better understanding of their situation. But, then again, they are sick only in the way that they do not have the same physical/mental development as others and do not fit social contract.

 

Satisfying a "evil" urge doesn't make the action any less human, though humane is something else altogether. A person can be both human and evil.

I cannot really comment on an "evil" urge, as I've yet to get a proper definition of what that exactly is. Satisfying a Selfish urge, I think, is perfectly natural and human. But, again, human and humane are different and I think that is where consideration between the two has to be made.

 

If inhumane is "evil", then we may be on a closer road here. But, again, I cannot really comment on "both human and evil" as I do not yet have a definition to differentiate between the two.

 

A lot of what has been pointed out for evil is, like, "harms others" and so on but I associate that with being human in the first place, so I think I agree with you but for different reasons. While the mentally ill may just do things, I think every person is capable of all kinds of colorful things that even we would deny at the moment.

 

You don't even need to drag religion into it. Afterall, one atheist can look at another and see an evil person.

Agreed. Atheist does not mean immoral after all. But, the word "evil" does have religious roots in superstition. The concept, however, is not religious so I'll go ahead and drop that point.

 

We're all evil. That includes me. I've said that before in previous conversations, if you remember. We're born that way. It's what we do with it that defines us.

So, either calling me "evil" was redundant, you want me to accept I'm "evil", or you think I've done something that defines me as "evil". I'm not denying that I am human, but merely pointing out that I hate the use of the word "evil", and even the word itself. I simply think it is an ignorant word.

 

As I said in the morality thread, I still think we're talking about basically the same thing, except I'm getting the vibe that my choice over the word "evil" to use "selfish" has convinced you that I'm giving free passes to anyone that does anything horrific.

 

Sorry about all of the emo-ness, but this is an important subject to me, and something that I've had first-hand experience with, you might say.

Anyone who has lived around another person for more than a day has had first-hand experience, and someone always has it worse. The reason this subject in particular gets heated is because everyone has had their little experiences with people, had/seen/experience pain, and so on. Even the pampered have to deal with something.

 

To start, I have not even begun to discuss my own views on right and wrong, good and evil. All I've done so far is explain why I think the word "evil" is rubbish, yet I seem to be getting that vibe that it is being mistaken for "oh, so she means there is no bad actions" or something else.

 

You level the playing field with the word "evil", I level it with Selfish. The difference is that you think people can do actions in life that put them lower or higher on the bar, while I think the bar never moves. That, given the correct circumstances, I could give to charity, adopt a kid, or bash some guys head open with a tire iron. Yes, actions do define people but so many of these actions are circumstantial with so many justifications each that to just look at the actions and label it evil seems pointless to me. It is a word we used when we would call someone a witch and burn them at the stake without jury. A label that, I think, is mindless.

 

This is not to say that I don't really hate a lot of people, and like a lot of people. I think some people can be living examples, and others scum. My point, though, is that the majority of these people live upon a simple system of self satisfaction regardless of what they do with their life. That, with the exceptions of the "sick", we're all basically driven by our own search for happiness, or at least a feeling of self worth. I hate my ex-uncle for how he's treating my aunt, but I can't exactly claim moral high-ground over him for how I've been known to treat people. I've even known jerks who give to charity.

 

I think another main difference is that, when you say evil, I think you say it with a bad taste in your mouth and that it is something we should aspire to be higher than. When I say "Selfish", I say it like I would describe any other person. To me the word is not negative, but as natural as eating and a fundamental part of the human condition, and a central part of human society, especially capitalism. Hell, capitalism is built upon the subject.

 

But, at Toten said, you find the difference between humane and human. A "good" way to vent your selfish desires may be to give charity, or hell devout your entire life to others. I still think it is selfish, but it is a shared fulfillment.

 

For the most part I think we just have different experience with the word "evil". I'm not going to speak out of personal experience (as it hardly has much significance as I pointed out above), but I've researched various experiments in which people who have their morality tested. A famous test is one in which a test subject was asked by a doctor to shock a man until death.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

 

65% of the people went to the highest voltage of 400. Only 1 person refused to go past 300 volts. I've even seen the entirety of the original experiment on the original video.

 

This was all staged, but later a test would be done on live puppies. 20 of the 26 people went to the final voltage and killed the puppy, even while protesting.

 

Even while protesting. All it took was a man pretending to be a doctor, and 65% of people would kill a man, and roughly the same would kill a puppy if pushed, even while crying themselves.

 

The protesting is the most interesting part about experiments like this. They would continue only because a doctor, a man seen high on the social ladder, told them to do so and assured them. Because people, even while protesting, will always look to someone even a step higher then them for an answer.

 

The protesting is why I think evil is rubbish. I know, that sounds insane because, hell, wouldn't that make all of them evil?

 

If 65% of those people went in and they all just did it and laughed and had a great time while being told they were killing someone then I'd agree with Evil. But they didn't. Most of the protested. Meaning that somewhere in their minds they didn't want to continue hurting the man.

 

People aren't evil. We don't go looking for ways to hurt people; we look for ways to help ourselves. Despite popular belief, the two are not the same. If anything is evil, then pick the man in the white doctors suit. The president in power. Hell, even the concept of god. If anything turns people to just violence towards someone else it is control, real or suggestive. But, in the end, isn't our appeasement to a higher power just as selfish as anything else?

 

To me, it all comes back to just being selfish.

 

Avery I'm afraid I must point out you are quite wrong in underestimating the depths of the mentally ill. Simply saying they do it because it feels right doesn't change some peoples draw to actions specifically because it is a misdeed, or wrong. There are many illnesses that leave people compelled to commit violent acts because it's against normal social structure. Sociopathy is a very broad category with very vague terms that can't be easily understood outside the realm of it's study. There is a truth to the overused icon of evil, some people are wrong simply for wrong sake. It's not that unreasonable to conclude either, people live completely to help others, simply because a large percentage of people are the everyday jerks blasting their car horn at an old lady, doesn't mean Jesus, Ghandi, and mother Theresa are the only examples of people devoted to good faith acts.

I wont sit here and pretend to be an expert on mental illness.

 

My point, however, is that non-ill people who just do something to do it because it is "wrong" may do so for the high it brings to be a rebel. Their justification is the high they get from doing the misdeed. And, on the other side, Jesus, Ghandi, etc devoted their life for the same "high". The same selfish reason, but this time vented in a way that appeased social contract better than the misdeed. They may help others, but they help themselves just as much. Hell, Theresa is well known for having depression. Did that have anything to do with her selflessness?

 

The category of mental illnesses that don't fit into that is broad and ever growing, but many of them still share a justification system.

[Rabish Bini]

And then there are some with perfect families (though that depends of one's definition of perfect) who grow up into serial killers. Granted, it is rare, but does happen. Some people are just born that way.

Of course, there's always an exception, but they majority of 'em usually aren't brought up in a "perfect" family.

[vanir]

Bullying is a serious issue often very poorly handled by the authorities and this is most definitely a cause for great concern.

 

I was the victim of "chronic bullying" as the authorities put it, but then became a homeless youth and found entirely new terrors to worry about. Long story short the stakes went up somewhat, yes you can be battered and broken, hospitalised by bullying but meter that with waking up next to dead bodies you've been sleeping in abandoned warehouses with, and other things I don't want to talk about just now. I was eating out of bins at 16 for Chrissake, I don't even remember it as me, some sort of out of body experience it was. A learning curve.

 

When I was 18, street life already partly a memory, partly some life experience I went to a nightclub for the typical reasons, meet chicks, and ran into one of the guys who'd given me a pretty bad time back in school, still towered over me he did.

But it was different. He still looked like the same moron, but I felt like an old man standing in front of a child.

I'd played this out in my head dozens of times, as you do. I was going to do this and that to him, man up and all.

But I was standing there, he was standing there and we both knew, I mean the look on his face was pure fright and I was having flashbacks of knife-fights on railway stations and in alleyways, inches from death with nobody to know or ever care, I could've put this guy away for a very long time in two hits and a bit of boot and he knew it.

I didn't say anything, didn't feel anything, except that old man thing, and he just bowed and left smartly. I wasn't going to do anything though, why would I? There was no threat, and one thing I learned from all that experience is that I'd not put somebody else through it, even or in fact especially the ones who would others.

If my life then to now has ever proved anything it is that I am not like them.

 

Saying somebody deserves violence is spite. We've all got it coming, don't kid yourself about that. Sooner if you're spiteful, 'coz that bully you're putting in his place is more likely to carry a knife or a gun than regular Joe, and all that self righteousness doesn't do you much good when you walk funny for the rest of your life.

 

Now I've jumped in on street muggings, stood up for girls at parties, dobbed criminal workmates in to the boss, when someone attacked me at my unit I simply locked the door and called the Police to handle it, no fear, no problem, and when I got jumped by some drunk youths near a park, I took a short quick beating and got up and walked away relatively uninjured, for two good reasons, they had several glass bottles and it could've turned much more serious quickly, and I'm a little too serious in a street fight and would definitely get into legal trouble if I cut loose. I can take a few hits, it doesn't even affect my day, honestly. When I left I genuinely felt good about doing the right thing, my friends agreed those boys were lucky and I did good.

 

There's nothing to be ashamed about taking a few hits. Bullied kids ought remember that, for the day they get into something really serious, God forbid.

 

Bullying is a serious problem, but truth be told the damage is primarily emotional as far as serious life combat goes. Take it on trust that's true, as I've been there several times and each time I can actually walk away I think myself lucky. Very lucky.

 

My genuine advice is don't be so quick to visit violence on the violent. If there's a real life threat to somebody, and I do mean a real one, just get the job done in the best possible way, typically Police involvement as soon as you can manage (they're gonna be there anyway, if it's really that serious).

Otherwise work on your smarty pants comebacks and keep it talk.

[Insignia_Enithma]

 

There's nothing to be ashamed about taking a few hits. Bullied kids ought remember that, for the day they get into something really serious, God forbid.

 

Bullying is a serious problem, but truth be told the damage is primarily emotional as far as serious life combat goes. Take it on trust that's true, as I've been there several times and each time I can actually walk away I think myself lucky. Very lucky.

 

My genuine advice is don't be so quick to visit violence on the violent. If there's a real life threat to somebody, and I do mean a real one, just get the job done in the best possible way, typically Police involvement as soon as you can manage (they're gonna be there anyway, if it's really that serious).

Otherwise work on your smarty pants comebacks and keep it talk.

 

Sounds liek you had a hard time.

 

And yeh there is no shame in taking a few hits, often ill jsut let someone go after they hit me cause it didnt hurt. I'm actually quite well known now for my super pain toelrance (i put my hand in a fire to save my freind mobile that a bully had thrown into bonfire, burn alot of skin off but it didnt really hurt. but there are times when my stupid sense of pride and dumb bravery gets i nthe way, ive been in gang fights hit with metal polls had a chair broken on me been threated with knives. All of these time I probably did the wrong thing, so In a way I geuss I do stand up for people and fight back for a reson. This feeling of pure adrenaline punmping through me is like cocaine to me... my own personal brand of heroine.

 

And a dangerous one.

 

And I geuss Ihave to say, I'm glad there are pople who have experiance what I have and turned out good.

[urluckyday]

Just remember that most people are inherently good and while it seems like all we hear about is evil-doing on the news...almost none of the good things that go on in the world get reported on....the world is more good than bad no matter what anyone can say...

[vanir]

The very best subcultures, the most exclusive clubs, the better personal opportunities are all inaccessible to brutal and violent people. The members don't want them.

 

A whole new world opens up to peaceful, honest and forthright adults. Employers want you to manage the store, customers want your service, personal contacts want to know you, exclusive women think you might be the one for them, accomplished people want your advice, the authorities want to defend you, people who believe...believe in you, people who want to believe ask you how, and yes sometimes you are a target. The vast majority of this targeting is good however.

 

The violent and vicarious really have no idea just how damned they choose to be.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Good and evil, right and wrong, good and bad... these are all relative terms.

 

I would say that younger people or societies are not evil so much as that they haven't developed a sense of values that keep them from doing to others what they wouldn't want done to themselves. If a school bully matures and gets beyond that, it doesn't change what he did to victims early on, but I think that it was inspired more by the effects of being young and inexperienced. A person who learns to think that he can push people around his entire life is going to become more vile and cruel because they come to value being above others. I have a chapter in progress that reflects this.

 

Seriously, if a person is raised to think that s/he has the right kill another because they were insulted, being part of a criminal family and all... that person won't consider it wrong, nor lose any sleep over it. THAT is truly evil, yet they are not doing what they believe is wrong. It's that what they learned to be right goes against what everyone else thinks is right.

[vanir]

Ah but Yuthura, anthropic principle challenges this notion you present. Whilst certainly it may be said that many practioners of evil behaviour arrive there by self justification, it must also be said another perspective entirely...

 

If good and evil were truly only ever relative terms, how could anybody have come up with them then? How did anybody come up with the notion of morality if there is actually no such thing? I mean it would be like imagining a twentieth dimensional reality, since it has never really been experienced and certainly can't truly be visited, how could anyone possibly describe its content or even imagine to? It would remain forever an abstract with no more than a title for conceptualisation.

But we acknowledge common law as right and wrong in the simplest sense, murder, rape, theft are wrong. How did we ever think of this?

How did we ever come up with the term "victim" instead of only having the term "loser hahaha" as a society, individually? Why is it your face turns red when mum walks in on you sticking needles in your baby sister's belly to make her cry? Why doesn't mum just pat you on the back and say, "Good job, it's her problem for being so small and weak."

??

[Qui-Gon Glenn]

Just remember that most people are inherently good and while it seems like all we hear about is evil-doing on the news...almost none of the good things that go on in the world get reported on....the world is more good than bad no matter what anyone can say...

 

Are you serious?!?!

 

That is an extremely optimistic view, and one that has me scratching my head.

 

I would say that most people are inherently apathetic, and as we all know, apathy is death! Yet people choose it all the time.... most of them, I would argue. Perhaps most people intend well, but that is a little lazy IMO, and ignores the fact that intention is far from outcome.

 

In earlier posts I was disturbed by the idea that the ends could justify the means. Thank you TA and Vanir for handling that part of the equation.

 

Justification is a philosophical concept, one that works for the sane ones, but not the ill... thus I find a flaw in that philosophy. A place where philosophy and science have yet to satisfactorily merge.

 

Great thread! And bullies get squashed around me.... I was always the youngest kid in my group, but also one of the biggest. I was also very sensitive, and far from a bully, so I became a target - I was big enough to pick on, even though I was too young for it. As a result, I learned that despite my youth, I was stronger than the bullies - all it took was standing up to them.

 

Of course, that was in suburban Colorado, and kids had fists for weapons and little else.... the good ol' days.

[Trench]

I agree. People who let other people do evil things, or just don't care about it are just as evil. No matter what anyone says.

Even if you can't do anything about it you should get someone who could. Or support the people who can and who are doing something about it.

[vanir]

Indeed one of the classic quotes is that good men doing nothing is evil enough.

 

One of the most disturbing depictions of an evil society I have ever read was a teen-rated fantasy trilogy (Drizzt Do'Urden the darkelf). In some of the books the society of Underdark and the Dark Elves was described in detail, its sociology and typical behavioural protocols.

The thing which disturbed me is that it reflected beautifully my own experience and that of others, as minoritised homeless youth living in Church Hostels or on the streets. I mean you'd think this guy was there, every attitude, even some home life before this, it was spot on.

Yet the author was a college age student at the time he wrote it (and received several awards for his work).

I started thinking seriously about the Jungian collective subconscious around this time, since his descriptions were so uncanny, so specific, so accurate.

 

But here's the disturbing thing. He was talking about Hell on Earth.

 

 

I'll edit to tell another story.

Around that time I got in trouble with a Church, they owned the house and a few of the flock were living there. Actually I've got a few stories about that as I was in several.

Anyway you get your extremists just like Muslims but your Christian kind are running around with their mythology, Satan and the angels, blah blah blah. They're running around putting social victims like streetkids through more crap with judgement and silliness. I'm standing there saying c'mon, you guys don't even know what the words you're saying even mean. You don't know what it represents, you don't know what you're talking about and you're presuming an absolute authority over people's lives.

So I'm trying to appeal to the pastor and he gets it a little better than the house staff. Especially considering some of them are doing naughty things with the kids. And I'm telling him, why don't they listen? Clearly I can explain what they're talking about better than they can and they just run off into this extremist mythological crap instead of even trying to understand what the words mean.

And he says it's faith.

I said I've got way more of that than these guys, they don't even believe the things they say, not truly because they don't understand what they're talking about, they can't put it into their own words and they can't put it into action. They just say one thing and do whatever they want regardless.

So he says but with you it's not faith. You've seen, so you know and that isn't faith.

 

Anyways like a decade later this conversation appears in the film Constantine where Keanu Reeves' character is having a chat with Gabriel and it gets me wondering about that whole Jungian collective subconscious thing again.

[Master Shake]

I mean you'd think this guy was there, every attitude, even some home life before this, it was spot on.

Yet the author was a college age student at the time he wrote it (and received several awards for his work).

It's called research, and I reckon he did a pretty good job.

[vanir]

In junior high we had a substitute teacher take over around curriculum time, she gave us a short story project as a count towards the year's grading as much of our earlier work was still in the hands of the regular teacher, who was in hospital.

 

She gave us all a photo of a dog jumping around in a field, an elderly farmer who obviously owned the animal standing in the background.

 

I wrote this story about an old homeless man who lived in a cave, the dog was his only friend. The dog would find carrion meals for them, and the old man would share them with his friend.

Turned out a little prophetic but anyways.

 

I think it was pretty well written, I've always spent a lot of time in libraries and have pretty good grammar and language use.

But I actually got a downgraded mark, barely a pass. I approached the teacher and asked her why, since I was always interested in writing and if I could improve I'd like to know how.

She said she believed I had plagiarised the story.

 

I didn't, I just made it up. I didn't research it either, I just felt like writing about a lonely old man the world ignores.

 

 

I think sometimes the research is just empathy.

[Master Shake]

I think sometimes the research is just empathy.

That teacher was either full of it,

 

or he passed the Lilarcor quest in BG2.

[Q]

^Awesome reference, there.