Войти в систему

Home
    - Создать дневник
    - Написать в дневник
       - Подробный режим

LJ.Rossia.org
    - Новости сайта
    - Общие настройки
    - Sitemap
    - Оплата
    - ljr-fif

Редактировать...
    - Настройки
    - Список друзей
    - Дневник
    - Картинки
    - Пароль
    - Вид дневника

Сообщества

Настроить S2

Помощь
    - Забыли пароль?
    - FAQ
    - Тех. поддержка



Пишет nancygold ([info]nancygold)
@ 2024-08-19 21:00:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Настроение: amused
Музыка:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqREZRh7nso
Entry tags:transitioning

Why I am not "evil"

People keep calling me "evil."

But what does it mean to be "evil?" What makes one "evil?"

There were many definitions of evil across time and cultures.

Generally it boils down to "evil is something bad for our group."

Both Russians and Ukrainians call each other evil.

And civilized people call both of these aboriginal tribes evil.

In the overpopulated world the death of a billion could be good.

In fact, Bible promotes drowning all sinners.

In Bible it is definitely not an evil to do a genocide.

So we may conclude, that the notion of "evil" is not universal.

Evil is always relative to some agent or a group of agents.

Are mosquitoes evil? If you're a mammal, then yes.

But for a dragonfly it is a food source.

So speaking about some evil in abstract vacuum makes no sense.

Yet authors like Joanne Rofling have insect brain.

The relativism is too complex for them.

They generalize their notions of good and evil.

But such hasty generalizations fail.

So the stupid beings get confused.

I'm not evil, because there is no evil.

I'm not good, because there is no good.

I'm just what I am.

Everything else is a social construct.

I watch the movies to enjoy seeing the characters facing complex problems.

I don't care if the characters are "good" or "evil" in any of the notions.

I only care that the problems are complex and interesting enough.

Hope that explains it.


(Читать комментарии) - (Добавить комментарий)


(Анонимно)
2024-08-20 13:52 (ссылка)
I said "after the World War II", not "as the result of it". I was talking about this war.

>the German achievement.

Didn't know Peter the Great was German. And British Empire, and most European empires were also German achievements, because all the monarchs were basically of the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha dynasty or highly related to them.

>It included the work of German, Jewish and American engineers.

The building of the American empire included the work of German, Jewish, Russian engineers, and the work of many individuals or many other national and ethnic origins. So what?

>Russians are inborn serfs.

Ah yes, you feel very comfortable in this genre. It's your safe space.

(Ответить) (Уровень выше) (Ветвь дискуссии)


[info]nancygold
2024-08-20 15:04 (ссылка)
After the war, everything of value in USSR was created by the soviet Jews.
One of the reasons for the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refusenik
Without the Jews, Russia is just the barren frozen wasteland.

(Ответить) (Уровень выше) (Ветвь дискуссии)


(Анонимно)
2024-08-20 15:18 (ссылка)
Let's suppose that's true (It isn't, and the same statement could be made about the west too, to a large extent). So? Changes nothing.

And "Everything of value" in out of your mouth can't be taken seriously -- you literally defined it that way, i.e. it's independent of any evidence, nothing of value outside of jewish make can be found, per definition.

Also most jews have left now, but no total collapse could be observed, and those that remained are literally Russians, like these Soviet Jews who were literally also Russians, in the English language (where you need to add the "ethnic" for the expression to denote ethnicity and not nationality, which you didn't do), where Russian meant Soviet.

(Ответить) (Уровень выше)


(Читать комментарии) -