What's do Jews and stiff nipples have in common?

What's 12 inches long, blue, stiff and will keep your wife screaming all night long?

What do you get if you stab a baby 37 times?

A black guy and a Mexican jump off a cliff. Who wins?

So, I'm walking home from work, and I see a black man carrying a television. I think to myself, "Is that mine?"

I like my women how I like my coffee.

A guy is walking to the bar to get a drink with his buddies when he notices a girl by train tracks tied up. He runs to her, unties her and they have sex. When he gets to the bar his friends ask why he's late and he brags about all the sex he got when finally they asked him "did you get any head?"

What's the hardest part about having sex with your sister?

What's the difference between a dead baby and a rock?

Have you seen Stevie Wonder's house?

What's black and screams?

Why do you put the baby in the blender feet first?

How do you get the baby out of the blender?

GOD DAMN THIS IS JUST SO FUCKING IMPORTANT

That's all well and good, and perfectly rational, but you seem to be missing the heart of my question here.

Let's discard the semantics here and replace "evil" with the term "antisocial" or "psychopathic". I'm not talking about the people you have fundamental philosophical differences with, I'm talking about the people who murder, rape and commit genocide without a hint of guilt (although, those two aren't mutually exclusive).

I'm not so much interested as to whether you would call these people evil - for whatever reasons you may have - but whether we can define these people as essentially immoral in their character, given our knowledge of neurological aberrations that account for them. Can you call a psychopathic murderer evil, immoral, worthy of punishment, fundamentally wrong, knowing he has this emotional deficit, and be right in principle?

Quote from: Meta Cognition on December 17, 2014, 01:43:00 PM

So, for you, the word "evil" doesn't contain any sort of agency in its definition?

Basically. I use it in the same vein as the word "villain", or "enemy".

So then the key would be to rethink how you view your enemies. You may be diametrically opposed to them, in some way, but to call them villainous or your enemy is to demean them - at least morally - in some way.

When, in fact, their position as being your enemy isn't actually their own choice. I'm not saying you shouldn't consider people your enemies, of course, I'm just curious as to how that diminishes the idea of evil being irrelevant.

Making the definition relative to everybody is one of the best ways to make it irrelevant, actually.