The Enemies Of Life

[Asonokirk V 2.0]

I posted a thread recently where I discussed the idea that the concepts of "good" and "evil" are actually simply a part of the physical nature of existence. That they are our way of defining forces that drive events.

I said that "good" was "life" and that "evil" was "anti-life," essentially.

With that in mind I would like to suggest that "evil," "anti-life," or whatever you want to call that which hinders life, is also present in the following ideas:

"Pro-Choice"
This, on the surface appears right and fair, as why shouldn't a woman be able to have control over her own body? However, that isn't what's really going on. What is really going on is that "pro-choice" is an ideology meaning an unwanted pregnancy can and should be aborted without legal, moral, or ethical concerns by the individual. Since a fetus, in any stage of development, is a form of life even if not yet a human being, killing it is an act of "anti-life." "Anti-life" is manifested not as death, but as a deliberate act to destroy life for its own sake. "Anti-life" is not killing an animal for food, or even killing an enemy in combat, it is defined as an act intended only to kill life.

The reason I believe this, is that the purpose of an abortion is to destroy a form of life for no other fundamental reason than the fact it exists. If the supporters of "pro-choice" truly examined the issue, they would realize that the concept of "pro-choice" should really mean that people have got to take personal responsibility for their actions. If a pregnancy is unwanted, do not act to create one. I understand the arguments, but when examined closely it seems to me that they suggest an underlying tolerance for, and acceptance of, allowing people to behave irresponsibly without consequences.

"Death Penalty"
This, too, is something that works as a manifestation of "anti-life," as, again, the purpose of the act is simply to destroy a life. Like my discussion of "pro-choice" above, killing a prisoner is an act of killing life for only that purpose.

"Euthanasia"
Again, an act of killing life for only that purpose.

I've only just begun to think about this, so the examples above are only a beginning, but I want anyone who reads this to be clear on my meaning. These actions, abortions, executions, etc., have "reasons" behind the decision to perform them, but these reasons all involve performing an act whose sole purpose in the end is to kill a life. The driving force is the decision (regardless of the reason) that a life should be ended. That is the ultimate motivation: THAT A LIFE SHOULD BE ENDED.

I am not trying to argue in favor of, or against abortions, the death penalty, or anything else. I am merely trying to bring clarity to awareness. It is important that we examine ourselves and civilization without being afraid of what we may find out. There seems to be a tendency for people to shy away from truths that might be unpleasant, or that might force one to reconsider their own fundamental belief system. However, I'm learning that if you can get past the fear and possible shame and be more honest with yourself, the rewards are greater than you might imagine.

Anything I post in here is only an opinion based on my own experiences, knowledge and perceptions. I hope anyone who reads what I say is willing to consider the words, and if there are flaws in the logic behind them I would want to know that. I'm trying to explore and examine. I don't want to reach any conclusions unless one is necessary.

[DaForce]

:rolleyes:


You really really need to get back to work.




.

[Asonokirk V 2.0]

:rolleyes:


You really really need to get back to work.




.

Well, yeah. I'm just having fun thinking out loud in print. I have a lot of questions.

[Bokchoi Cowboy]

I'm with Daf. Dude, you seriously need to either lower the dosage or up the voltage.

Interesting points of view though.


*

[kah]

What bothers me here, is that you are suggesting that people who have or perform abortions are evil, no matter the reason. That people who have or perform euthanasia are evil, as well as those who support or perform the death penalty. Your idea of evil is pretty vague, and, to me at least, offensive. There is a circle of life on this planet. Life and death are intertwined. You can't have one without the other, making neither good nor evil an absolute. I don't really want to get into this with you, because this is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, and besides, it is really hard to type with my son sleeping on my lap. Anyways, ditto you going back to work. If you start going down the path of believing anything that hinders life is evil, then you are going to become very depressed thinking about the evil that surrounds you like a fog. Try looking for the positive in a negative situation, instead of the other way around. Think about the love a man has for his wife, letting her go peacefully, instead of making her hang on in horrendous pain, because he is not ready to let her die, or because he thinks euthanasia is evil.

[ellenora]

Hmmm... I'm pro-choice, I support the death penalty, and I support euthanasia. I'm also a devout Christian. Sorry... I see no contradiction in these stances. Nor do I see a reason to "have" to subscribe to one because of the other. My priest is ant-death penalty. That's her choice. There are different reasons involved for my stand on each of these issues.

~elle

[Asonokirk V 2.0]

What bothers me here, is that you are suggesting that people who have or perform abortions are evil, no matter the reason. That people who have or perform euthanasia are evil, as well as those who support or perform the death penalty. Your idea of evil is pretty vague, and, to me at least, offensive. There is a circle of life on this planet. Life and death are intertwined. You can't have one without the other, making neither good nor evil an absolute. I don't really want to get into this with you, because this is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, and besides, it is really hard to type with my son sleeping on my lap. Anyways, ditto you going back to work. If you start going down the path of believing anything that hinders life is evil, then you are going to become very depressed thinking about the evil that surrounds you like a fog. Try looking for the positive in a negative situation, instead of the other way around. Think about the love a man has for his wife, letting her go peacefully, instead of making her hang on in horrendous pain, because he is not ready to let her die, or because he thinks euthanasia is evil.

Please, you and Ellenora need to read what I said again. I made no reference to any person being evil because they support euthanasia, pro choice, etc. I am saying that the acts themselves are acting as a force for "anti-life," which I discussed in a different thread as being what humans call "evil" without knowing what it is they are actually describing.

Look at it this way: Any force within the universe that results in an event whose only purpose and only outcome is the death of life or a life, for no reason other than ending that life, is what I call "anti-life."

It makes perfect sense, but that doesn't mean the discussion is over. Life is growth and life seeks to expand its numbers. That which seeks to inhibit or destroy life, is obviously then "ANTI-life." It is merely the sequence of events since the beginning of time that led to a result. People can fit my definition of evil, and Hitler is certainly one who does, but there are very very few people who are actually working purposefully in support of anti-life. Most do it without realizing they are fulfilling a destiny that is the result of a series of events dating back to the beginning of eternity.

Existence appears to me to be, then, that which is defined by all that came before it. Your life, my life, everyone's life is as it is because creation arrived at you as a series of specific events leading up to you.

I am NOT CLAIMING there is any intelligence or deliberation driving creation, I am saying that an objective observer, any objective observer, will arrive at the same awareness I have reached because the actual facts support that.

It is not possible to argue that once observations and measurements are made, the facts determined by those observations and measurments are invalid or somehow not real. A fact is a fact and should not be disputable within the context of the observation of the fact. What a fact means is subjective. We interpret facts in different ways, but EVERYONE agrees that the fact under observation is exactly what it is.

For example: We all can look at a series of colors and all of us agree on the labels (green, red, etc.). That is a fact. We all see the color "red" as the color "red." But, what is "red?" Can you describe it? What it is we see that we call red is then the subjective aspect of the fact. I know what I see when I say "red," but I can't actually know what it is you see that you call "red."

[kah]

I posted a thread recently where I discussed the idea that the concepts of "good" and "evil" are actually simply a part of the physical nature of existence. That they are our way of defining forces that drive events.

I said that "good" was "life" and that "evil" was "anti-life," essentially.

With that in mind I would like to suggest that "evil," "anti-life," or whatever you want to call that which hinders life, is also present in the following ideas:



I read your other thread as well. I don't think you get our point. The point is, death is not evil. Something which causes death is not automatically evil, either. There is no objectivity when it comes to evil. Everything is subjective. Just as terrorists are evil in our eyes, so they are martyrs in their own eyes. Putting a label on any act that "inhibits" life, is assuming you have the right to do so. A lion killing an antelope does not make it evil. It makes it a lion. A human using the reasoning ability it has been granted by nature, to enact a death penalty, preventing the murderer from taking more lives, does not make them evil. It makes them a reasoning being, using one death to prevent more deaths.

[Asonokirk V 2.0]

I read your other thread as well. I don't think you get our point. The point is, death is not evil. Something which causes death is not automatically evil, either. There is no objectivity when it comes to evil. Everything is subjective. Just as terrorists are evil in our eyes, so they are martyrs in their own eyes. Putting a label on any act that "inhibits" life, is assuming you have the right to do so. A lion killing an antelope does not make it evil. It makes it a lion. A human using the reasoning ability it has been granted by nature, to enact a death penalty, preventing the murderer from taking more lives, does not make them evil. It makes them a reasoning being, using one death to prevent more deaths.

You're projecting your understanding onto my meaning. They are not the same. I am not judging anything, merely observing and noting facts.

Yes, death is a part of life. As growth requires that the old make way for the new. Anti-life, however, is not working within that context. All anti-life does is oppose life, in all of life's and anti-life's manifestations and contexts.

The whole point I was trying to make in the earlier thread is that what we call "evil" isn't just some human concept, it is an actual, physical, observable and measureable presence within existence in the form of what I call "anti-life." It is part of the make up of the universe. Again, I am not making any judgments here, merely observing the facts.

You mention how the killing a murderer keeps him from killing other people. Yes, it does, but what is it we are doing when we kill a murderer? We are acting to remove a life from existence. The reasons for doing that are not important. The observable and measureable fact is that a person was killed, and the purpose of the action was ONLY to kill that person. When the executioner throws the switch, that action has one purpose only, to kill a life.

Humans have to act on the side of anti-life (or evil if you prefer) periodically, because events lead us to that action. However, there is a difference between making a choice because it is necessary, and making a choice out of malice or malevolence (choosing something that acts as anti-life on purpose without acting because events dictate necessity). For example: Shooting to death a convenience store clerk during a robbery because you don't like the clerk's nationality, or because you "feel" like it is anti-life, or evil. Shooting to death someone in self defense is not an act of anti-life.

[neglet]

All anti-life does is oppose life, in all of life's and anti-life's manifestations and contexts....

The observable and measureable fact is that a person was killed, and the purpose of the action was ONLY to kill that person. When the executioner throws the switch, that action has one purpose only, to kill a life.

Humans have to act on the side of anti-life (or evil if you prefer) periodically, because events lead us to that action. However, there is a difference between making a choice because it is necessary, and making a choice out of malice or malevolence (choosing something that acts as anti-life on purpose without acting because events dictate necessity). For example: Shooting to death a convenience store clerk during a robbery because you don't like the clerk's nationality, or because you "feel" like it is anti-life, or evil. Shooting to death someone in self defense is not an act of anti-life.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. You seem to be saying that any action intended solely to end a life is "anti-life" or "evil." Those actions intended to enact something else, in which death is an unintended byproduct, is not. Therefore if you shoot someone in self-defense but kill them, because your sole intent was stop them from hurting you (not to kill them), is not "anti-life."

This seems to me an overly simplistic way of viewing the world. Can the intentions of every caused death be so narrowly or easily defined?

If my 12-year-old cat has cancer, has stopped eating, and is in pain, is wanting to relieve his suffering "anti-life" if the only way to do that is through euthanasia?

If I want to feed my child meat because he needs protein to grow, is eating a cow or chicken "anti-life" because the only way to do that is by butchering the animal first?

If I'm two months pregnant and discover I have breast cancer, is having treatment "anti-life" because I can't have chemo unless I have an abortion?

In each of these scenarios, my primary intention is not to end life, but to relieve suffering; to feed myself and my children; and to prevent my own death. It happens that in order to achieve those intentions I have to cause a death--but shouldn't context count for something?

[Asonokirk V 2.0]

I'm not quite sure what you mean. You seem to be saying that any action intended solely to end a life is "anti-life" or "evil." Those actions intended to enact something else, in which death is an unintended byproduct, is not. Therefore if you shoot someone in self-defense but kill them, because your sole intent was stop them from hurting you (not to kill them), is not "anti-life."

This seems to me an overly simplistic way of viewing the world. Can the intentions of every caused death be so narrowly or easily defined?

If my 12-year-old cat has cancer, has stopped eating, and is in pain, is wanting to relieve his suffering "anti-life" if the only way to do that is through euthanasia?

If I want to feed my child meat because he needs protein to grow, is eating a cow or chicken "anti-life" because the only way to do that is by butchering the animal first?

If I'm two months pregnant and discover I have breast cancer, is having treatment "anti-life" because I can't have chemo unless I have an abortion?

In each of these scenarios, my primary intention is not to end life, but to relieve suffering; to feed myself and my children; and to prevent my own death. It happens that in order to achieve those intentions I have to cause a death--but shouldn't context count for something?

Death is a part of life, and is NOT anti-life. Anti-life is that action whose purpose is ONLY to terminate or otherwise interfere in some negative way with a life.

The ACTION of an executioner when he pulls the switch is solely for the purpose of ending a life. It has NO OTHER FUNCTION.

All of the events leading up to the executioner pulling the switch were directed by preceeding events. Those are the REASONS there IS an execution. Those reasons are not evil or anti-life. The actual pulling of the switch itself is the part of the process that is ANTI-LIFE, which I defined as the physical manifestation of our concept of evil within the physical universe. Again, THE POINT I continue to try and make clear is that things like Good and Evil ARE NOT JUST MAN MADE CONCEPTS. There is evidence, as I discussed, indicating that there are measureable and observable forces at work which result in measureable and observable events.

I am not making ANY judgements or forming ANY opinions, I am merely observing and extrapolating facts from observing. There is nothing emotional involved with my comments. I am simply theorizing based on the observable data. It does not end with my comments, as I am only able to theorize based upon the facts that I have observed up to now. Time marches on, and more facts become available with continued observations. It is quite likely that everything I've said I will be able to DISPROVE when more facts become available.

My intent was to discuss the idea that we as a species have certain ideas, concepts, philosophies and moralities we believe are something originating from ourselves. I am suggesting that creation itself is what gives us those ideas. We are merely relating to and assigning subjective values to forces that are actually a physical part of existence, just like a star, planet or you or I.

[Asonokirk V 2.0]

I'm not quite sure what you mean. You seem to be saying that any action intended solely to end a life is "anti-life" or "evil." Those actions intended to enact something else, in which death is an unintended byproduct, is not. Therefore if you shoot someone in self-defense but kill them, because your sole intent was stop them from hurting you (not to kill them), is not "anti-life."

This seems to me an overly simplistic way of viewing the world. Can the intentions of every caused death be so narrowly or easily defined?

If my 12-year-old cat has cancer, has stopped eating, and is in pain, is wanting to relieve his suffering "anti-life" if the only way to do that is through euthanasia?

If I want to feed my child meat because he needs protein to grow, is eating a cow or chicken "anti-life" because the only way to do that is by butchering the animal first?

If I'm two months pregnant and discover I have breast cancer, is having treatment "anti-life" because I can't have chemo unless I have an abortion?

In each of these scenarios, my primary intention is not to end life, but to relieve suffering; to feed myself and my children; and to prevent my own death. It happens that in order to achieve those intentions I have to cause a death--but shouldn't context count for something?

"This seems to me an overly simplistic way of viewing the world. Can the intentions of every caused death be so narrowly or easily defined?"

There are no intentions involved. I'm not defining anything, I am observing facts. I am not drawing any conclusions about those facts, all I am doing is labeling them. You could call what I refer to as anti-Life as "cream cheese" if you want, I use that term because the force I am describing as evil or anti-life acts in opposititon to the force I am describing as Life, or good. I am not defining, I am labeling.

I believe I have become aware that we humans are part of a process that is universal and ongoing. Time itself is our frontier, and what lies ahead will be there because of every action and subsequent event occuring between now and then.

Perhaps you might understand the full implication of my theory. It means that we humans have absolute and utter control over the entire universe. We can actually CREATE our own reality as time moves forward. If one wants a pizza, one gathers the ingredients and makes one. WE ARE NOT AT THE MERCY OF ANY FATE OUT OF OUR CONTROL.

Anti-life, evil, or whatever you want to call it is just an action. The action of the robber pulling the trigger, the executioner throwing the switch, the doctor removing the fetus from the mother. Everything leading up to that action is NOT evil, NOT anti-life. They are EVENTS, not actions. Only the actual throwing of the switch, the cutting of the tissue, the pulling of the trigger are what I call "anti-life/evil." The person acting is not evil in the situations you ask about (your cat, a potential abortion, etc.). They could be acting as "anti-life" if their motivation for their action is contrary to life. Like a doctor performing abortions not to help someone, but because he derives some emotional and physical satisfaction out of killing fetuses. But none of that is important to me. Just discovering that what we call good and evil are observable and measureable forces that act throughout the universe, (just like gravity and other forces that exist) is simply a more fundamental understanding of existence. I must apologize, as what I am discussing is at the cutting edge of human understanding, and it would probably be more obvious to you if you had undergone the process I have undertaken. I really shouldn't expect anyone to understand my meanings and intentions since I am talking about something based purely on my own experiences and observations. You aren't me. You don't have my experiences, and you haven't made my observations.

The only thing I would be concerned about if I were you is thinking about the possibility that you might be much more important than you think you are. All of us might be. How important, after all, is something that can choose to mold creation itself to its will?

Believing what I'm saying is true is only one small step in a much longer journey. After all, man wasn't able to grow a plant until he learned how to plant a seed. My analogy of good and evil as actual forces active within the entire universe is merely learning how to plant a seed.

[scrrr]

FACT:
If I'd get an accident wherein I'd be completely paralized, please someone pull my life-support plug.

FACT:
If someone is without food, he's slowly dying. By not giving him food you are -by default- killing him. Thousands of people are starving as we speak, therefor you are a mass murderer.

FACT:
By using contraception, you are causing potential life not to happen. You are murdering a future being.

FACT:
Heck, by masturbating you are murdering future beings.

FACT: I believe you are full of shit. And because you cannot chastize someone for what he believes, there's not a thing you can do about it! hah!

[Asonokirk V 2.0]

FACT:
If I'd get an accident wherein I'd be completely paralized, please someone pull my life-support plug.

FACT:
If someone is without food, he's slowly dying. By not giving him food you are -by default- killing him. Thousands of people are starving as we speak, therefor you are a mass murderer.

FACT:
By using contraception, you are causing potential life not to happen. You are murdering a future being.

FACT:
Heck, by masturbating you are murdering future beings.

FACT: I believe you are full of shit. And because you cannot chastize someone for what he believes, there's not a thing you can do about it! hah!

It is really simple. When you take a dump, you are performing an ACTION. That ACTION is the crap coming out of your butt. Thus, when I interact with my environment, you know, LIKE BREATHING, an ACTION occurs. That ACTION is the movement of air in and out of my lungs. An EVENT is what is defined by the actual action or actions involved. So, the action of your crap leaving your butt is a part of what defines the event that is labeled "taking a dump." The event and process of "taking a dump" is comprised of the individual actions of your bowels moving, the waste material flowing out of your butt and falling into the toilet, wiping, flushing and whatever else you may do in the bathroom to conclude the dump taking process.

I'm not really sure what you are trying to say with the "FACTS" you list, so I'll address the remark below as I believe it should be addressed in this context.

"FACT:
By using contraception, you are causing potential life not to happen. You are murdering a future being."

You cannot murder that which does not exist. "Potential" life is not relevant. Actual life is. The only time I would consider using contraception as an act of anti-life/evil, is if by so doing you are deliberately attempting to harm your sexual partner in some way, for no reason other than seeking to harm them becase you derive some form of gratification from their suffering.

It would be nice to know why you think I'm full of shit, as if you can prove that, or at least create some reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of my comments, I would be grateful. I don't want to be full of shit, I want to add some meaningful ideas into our collective wisdom database if I believe no one else has already considered and discarded what I am considering.

[kah]

It is really simple. When you take a dump, you are performing an ACTION. That ACTION is the crap coming out of your butt. Thus, when I interact with my environment, you know, LIKE BREATHING, an ACTION occurs. That ACTION is the movement of air in and out of my lungs. An EVENT is what is defined by the actual action or actions involved. So, the action of your crap leaving your butt is a part of what defines the event that is labeled "taking a dump." The event and process of "taking a dump" is comprised of the individual actions of your bowels moving, the waste material flowing out of your butt and falling into the toilet, wiping, flushing and whatever else you may do in the bathroom to conclude the dump taking process.



That was disturbing on so many levels. ~shudder~

[Asonokirk V 2.0]

That was disturbing on so many levels. ~shudder~

I was attempting sarcasm based on responding to someone who stated "I was full of shit." I had to drag the shit in there somehow! :)