Dtruthspeaker:


Yippee!
I do intend this to be the basis of future relationship



What you said up here is True but my own respectful contribution is that I still find that people are Truly in boxes, no matter the diverse signals and messages they send.

And generally I see that a thing or person is first identified which includes his box eg. A man is in the box of a man therefore, it is reasonable for us to raise up all the information we know and remember about the box man First, then we check to see if those information match the man exactly as we do to a phone. What do you think about this?

As you most likely know, light has a spectrum and when its broken into its component wavelengths like during a rainbow, you can discern the various colours it is composed of. Also, you'll notice that the boundaries between each successive clour shades to the next so that there is no hard boundary between them. This is how I view human beings, we are a spectrum and need to be treated individually with that at the back of the mind.

I would like to know your opinion here.



The obvious answer is that a person is always condemned for the Wrong, Not Good, Bad, Wicked or Evil Thing He DID!

Not for what or how incredible he thinks!

Good. So how do you define evil?

For me evil are those things which egregiously delivers harm to life, either to us as humans or to the biome we live in.

LordReed:

As you most likely know, light has a spectrum and when its broken into its component wavelengths like during a rainbow, you can discern the various colours it is composed of. Also, you'll notice that the boundaries between each successive clour shades to the next so that there is no hard boundary between them. This is how I view human beings, we are a spectrum and need to be treated individually with that at the back of the mind.

Interesting view! Does it mean that you would always interview each person you meet never presuming or having any explanations of them, so that you can understand each individual as a separate colour?

Also don't you think that your colour view is still the same as boxes based on colour?

LordReed:

For me evil are those things which egregiously delivers harm to life, either to us as humans or to the biome we live in.

I promise to return to offer my opinion on what is evil and I will like to avoid defining it, if you would permit me.

I have many nterpretations of the word "harm" so I would like to understand your view on the word harm by placing this live scenarios

1) would you consider it harmful if you return from work and you find out that the pawpaw you were waiting to pluck has been plucked?

2) would you consider insults and ridicule harmful?

3) a situation where a person smashes your mirror because you failed to give him money, would all or some of these be considered harmful to you?

Dtruthspeaker:


Interesting view! Does it mean that you would always interview each person you meet never presuming or having any explanations of them, so that you can understand each individual as a separate colour?

Also don't you think that your colour view is still the same as boxes based on colour?

Well, I'd say it depends on how much interaction we are going to be doing. For instance when I go to pay for my shopping at the supermarket, I may not be able to interview the person at the till to determine their uniqueness so I just understand that even though I am treating them as belonging to the category cashier, I have it at the back of my mind that this person is unique and need to deal with them as such if the need arises, otherwise our interaction won't be more than me handing over my money and they issuing me a receipt. So even though I have categorised them into the box cashier, I retain the awareness that this is a unique individual.

I promise to return to offer my opinion on what is evil and I will like to avoid defining it, if you would permit me.

Granted.

I have many nterpretations of the word "harm" so I would like to understand your view on the word harm by placing this live scenarios

1) would you consider it harmful if you return from work and you find out that the pawpaw you were waiting to pluck has been plucked?

Yes this is harm but not evil.

2) would you consider insults and ridicule harmful?

Yes, harm but still not evil

3) a situation where a person smashes your mirror because you failed to give him money, would all or some of these be considered harmful to you?

Now this is verging on evil because his actions are a disproportionate response to the situation, it's still not what I would actually call evil though.

Dtruthspeaker:

I understand, all your labours entered your mouth, yet your hunger is not full.
Now you can say your Motto!

Keep on deceiving yourself.

Morning, hope you had a goodful day?

LordReed:

Well, I'd say it depends on how much interaction we are going to be doing. For instance when I go to pay for my shopping at the supermarket, I may not be able to interview the person at the till to determine their uniqueness so I just understand that even though I am treating them as belonging to the category cashier, I have it at the back of my mind that this person is unique and need to deal with them as such if the need arises, otherwise our interaction won't be more than me handing over my money and they issuing me a receipt. So even though I have categorised them into the box cashier, I retain the awareness that this is a unique individual.

On your whole, I concur, we do the same for we need some prior knowledge before we begin to relate with a person eg when I first got my son to by fuel for the generator, he first stood at the pump and did not say anything, then after the fueling, he had begun to move away with the fuel before I reminded him that he has not given the attendant the money.

And this is the place of modifiable presumptions in that it supplies to us the prior information we require to establish interaction with unknown persons. And this prior information is either confirmed or modified as the interaction increases with the increase of necessary information.

"I have it at the back of my mind that this person is unique

Isn't this burdensome? Isn't it preferable and restful to simply go with the flow of the interaction while waiting for the uniqueness to be presented? Eg it was until I played table tennis with a Senior Lecturer in Ibadan that was when I saw that he was powerful on the tennis board, men, hot serves and bullet strokes, whooped me, men

LordReed:

Yes this is harm but not evil.

Yes, harm but still not evil

Now this is verging on evil because his actions are a disproportionate response to the situation, it's still not what I would actually call evil though.

Okay would I be right to say that for you evil is "worser" than harm?

To you Is evil the highest harm? Is there anything "worser" than evil?

On the end do you have the lowest grade of harm?

Dtruthspeaker:
Morning, hope you had a goodful day?

Yes I did, you?

On your whole, I concur, we do the same for we need some prior knowledge before we begin to relate with a person eg when I first got my son to by fuel for the generator, he first stood at the pump and did not say anything, then after the fueling, he had begun to move away with the fuel before I reminded him that he has not given the attendant the money.

And this is the place of modifiable presumptions in that it supplies to us the prior information we require to establish interaction with unknown persons. And this prior information is either confirmed or modified as the interaction increases with the increase of necessary information.

"I have it at the back of my mind that this person is unique

Isn't this burdensome? Isn't it preferable and restful to simply go with the flow of the interaction while waiting for the uniqueness to be presented? Eg it was until I played table tennis with a Senior Lecturer in Ibadan that was when I saw that he was powerful on the tennis board, men, hot serves and bullet strokes, whooped me, men

Well it is, thats why those simplifications exist but the problem is acting on those simplifications all the time creates more problems than it solves.

Okay would I be right to say that for you evil is "worser" than harm?

Yes I would say that.

To you Is evil the highest harm? Is there anything "worser" than evil?

No, there are only grades of evil.

On the end do you have the lowest grade of harm?

Yes there are also grades of harm.

Kalatium:
I noticed that in the western world where many atheist reside they still celebrate Christmas.

Is Christmas not a christian thing?

Sol Invictus

You do realize there's a difference between celebrating and observing. Look it up.

Personally, I'll take all the holidays you got

LordReed:

Yes I did, you?

Ah, Always!

LordReed:

Well it is, thats why those simplifications exist but the problem is acting on those simplifications all the time creates more problems than it solves.

I think what you mean is in those instances where the presumptions were not correct, then the conduct of the parties would play a role in accelerating the conflict that may arise out of the presumption, did I speak your mind here?

LordReed:

No, there are only grades of evil/Yes there are also grades of harm.

When you say "No", do you mean that there is nothing more worse than evil?

Then would I be right to understand that when you say grades of evil you refer to some evil things could be more evil than others, in comparison?

Same also for grades of harm being less harmful in comparison to other types or grades of harm?

I had wanted to be certain when you said "For me evil are those things which egregiously delivers harm to life" this in reference that to you "evil are only those things which bring death to a person, is that correct?

Also, do you strictly confine it to death alone

Dtruthspeaker:


Ah, Always!

Nice

I think what you mean is in those instances where the presumptions were not correct, then the conduct of the parties would play a role in accelerating the conflict that may arise out of the presumption, did I speak your mind here?

Yes, this is more or less it.

When you say "No", do you mean that there is nothing more worse than evil?

Yep, there's nothing worse than evil

Then would I be right to understand that when you say grades of evil you refer to some evil things could be more evil than others, in comparison?

Same also for grades of harm being less harmful in comparison to other types or grades of harm?

Correct

I had wanted to be certain when you said "For me evil are those things which egregiously delivers harm to life" this in reference that to you "evil are only those things which bring death to a person, is that correct?

Also, do you strictly confine it to death alone

No, as they say there are fates worse than death. Some conditions humans afflict on themselves are worse than death.

LordReed:


Nice

Yes, this is more or less it.

Yep, there's nothing worse than evil

Correct

No, as they say there are fates worse than death. Some conditions humans afflict on themselves are worse than death.

Ok I think I can say now say I understand your position on evil/ harm and it is not really different from my view on save for the advantage of my training as a Lawyer, I am much more acutely aware of the differences between evils which in my own humble opinion is that I would describe the box of "evil" as All those Things Which Range from (the least wicked to the infinite unseen heights/depths of Extreme Wickedness or Evil) "Not Good, bad, wicked, very Wicked, Pure Raw Wickedness/Evil!

What do you think of my opinion on this box?

Dtruthspeaker:


Ok I think I can say now say I understand your position on evil/ harm and it is not really different from my view on save for the advantage of my training as a Lawyer, I am much more acutely aware of the differences between evils which in my own humble opinion is that I would describe the box of "evil" as All those Things Which Range from (the least wicked to the infinite unseen heights/depths of Extreme Wickedness or Evil) "Not Good, bad, wicked, very Wicked, Pure Raw Wickedness/Evil!

What do you think of my opinion on this box?

Yeah we agree on that.

LordReed:


Yeah we agree on that.

Thus, do you noticed that this box of evil contains all those matters which reasonably annoy, offend, deliver pain, suffering and inconvenience and makes a person cry out for soothings, reliefs, restoration and compensation?

Dtruthspeaker:


Thus, do you noticed that this box of evil contains all those matters which reasonably annoy, offend, deliver pain, suffering and inconvenience and makes a person cry out for soothings, reliefs, restoration and compensation?

Yes indeed.

LordReed:


Yes indeed.

Thus, do you agree that the complainant sufferer should and must be given relief from and for all of his suffering?

Dtruthspeaker:


Thus, do you agree that the complainant sufferer should and must be given relief from and for all of his suffering?

Where possible, yes.

LordReed:


Where possible, yes.

You have not really answered the question, because I think the possibility of relief is different from a right to relief.

So do you think that the sufferer should be given relief, which is the first part of the settlement before the other parts of the sufficiency and possibility of the relief enters in?

That is, Right to Relief first then Sufficiency of Relief next, hence 2.distinct issues!

Dtruthspeaker:


You have not really answered the question, because I think the possibility of relief is different from a right to relief.

So do you think that the sufferer should be given relief, which is the first part of the settlement before the other parts of the sufficiency and possibility of the relief enters in?

That is, Right to Relief first then Sufficiency of Relief next, hence 2.distinct issues!

Actually its a complex issue that has no simple answers. Take for instance the wholesale slaughter of millions of animals for our food or living space. Do you not recognise that that represents a lot of suffering? Do you not think animals have a right to life as well? Do you think we can immediately cease all forms of animal killing?

LordReed:


Actually its a complex issue that has no simple answers. Take for instance the wholesale slaughter of millions of animals for our food or living space. Do you not recognise that that represents a lot of suffering? Do you not think animals have a right to life as well? Do you think we can immediately cease all forms of animal killing?

Aha, this is serious evasion and change of issue, for we were talking about humans and their Rights to Relief from hurts and harms caused by other humans and not animal rights and suffering which we can go into after settling this first issue of man and his Rights to Relief from Hurts and Harms.

If you find this uncomfortable, I would immediately stop.

I just wish to be accurately certain about the ground or grounds on which we stand.

So would you be supplying an answer to the question I asked

"So do you think that the sufferer should and must be given relief from and for all of his suffering?"

or do you wish me to stop?

Kalatium:
I noticed that in the western world where many atheist reside they still celebrate Christmas.

Is Christmas not a christian thing?

Christmas is not a Christian thing
make some research on it and find yourself the truth
Some of your so called Christians knows that that's why you will never see them celebrating it

LordReed:


Actually its a complex issue that has no simple answers. Take for instance the wholesale slaughter of millions of animals for our food or living space. Do you not recognise that that represents a lot of suffering? Do you not think animals have a right to life as well? Do you think we can immediately cease all forms of animal killing?

Anything that can or/and wants to hurt me has no right to life.

HellVictorinho:

Anything that can or/and wants to hurt me has no right to life.

He is going to counter that the cow and chicken did not attempt to hurt you, yet you killed them, so how are you going to rebut?

HellVictorinho:

Anything that can or/and wants to hurt me has no right to life.

Cows and chickens want to hurt you?

Dtruthspeaker:


He is going to counter that the cow and chicken did not attempt to hurt you, yet you killed them, so are you going to rebut?

LoL! Right on the money.

LordReed:


Cows and chickens want to hurt you?

Anything that I have to consume in order to survive doesn't have a right to life,too.

LordReed:


LoL! Right on the money.

I know that you are a very intelligent person.

Dtruthspeaker:


He is going to counter that the cow and chicken did not attempt to hurt you, yet you killed them, so how are you going to rebut?

Anything that I have to consume in order to survive doesn't have a right to life,too.

HellVictorinho:

Anything that I have to consume in order to survive doesn't have a right to life,too.

oya, Reed, it's your turn

Dtruthspeaker:


Aha, this is serious evasion and change of issue, for we were talking about humans and their Rights to Relief from hurts and harms caused by other humans and not animal rights and suffering which we can go into after settling this first issue of man and his Rights to Relief from Hurts and Harms.

If you find this uncomfortable, I would immediately stop.

I just wish to be accurately certain about the ground or grounds on which we stand.

So would you be supplying an answer to the question I asked

"So do you think that the sufferer should and must be given relief from and for all of his suffering?"

or do you wish me to stop?

Nope. Look at my definition of evil again, it encapsulates all of life and our environment. Evil is not only that which is done against humans.

I am not denying that humans deserve relief from evil, I just wanted you to understand that the question is broad and complex. I can further illustrate it this way, soliders in Sambisa right now are suffering hardship and death to attempt to root out the scourge of Boko Haram. Would you rather their suffering and death stop thereby giving Boko Haram a free hand?

These are not yes or no questions, once again underlining my point that life is too complex to put everything into neat little boxes. We are going to have to strive to find solutions and answers out of the box.

HellVictorinho:

Anything that I have to consume in order to survive doesn't have a right to life,too.

Then you don't have a right to life in the sight of a hungry predator.

Dtruthspeaker:


I know that you are a very intelligent person.

Thanks for that compliment. I think you are too.

Dtruthspeaker:


oya, Reed, it's your turn

LoL!