El directorio enciclopédico desde la Wikipedia.
[edit] TattletaleI just reverted some major vandalism, but maybe someone who's an admin should look into scolding 67.191.105.243 sternly. The user also vandalised disco! For shame. 72.196.104.129 20:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
As I see it Evil it's not a fictional or supernatural condition, yet it's not "fictional" as in terms of ferry-tale or film entertaiment goals but a very commonly used term for propaganda reasons, used either by state, religion or individuals, that has more or less specific definitions depending to the goals or the criteria of the user, and is reffering to acts, individuals, oppossing groups of people or as a supernatural power that push people or situations to "depravity" or opposses the divine laws (this form of "Evil" is fictional and has religius basis). Based on the perspective killing might be "Evil", stealing might be "Evil", liing might be "Evil", suicide might be "Evil", Yang might be "Evil", Satan might be "Evil", pre-marital sex might be "Evil", homosexuals might be "Evil", Cthulu might be "Evil", Cheese might be "Evil"; Fascists, Communists, Capitalists, Anarchists or Liberitarians might be "Evil"; Jews, Americans, Arabs, Canadians, Australians, Greeks, Polish or "those rotten rude French snobs" might be "Evil", Shaolin monks might be "Evil", the Pope might be "Evil", Barney the pink dinosaur might be "Evil", Smurfette might be "Evil" etc... I believe the main article is accurate enough to describe the use of "Evil" as a term of social ethics and to point out its subjectivity.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Eodraco (talk • contribs) 15:09, August 8, 2007 Whoa, what do you mean, "The" sociopath? you know that the term "sociopathy" denotes a very diverse group of socially based disorders, right? Its also accepted wisdom that negative behaviour stems from mental/social maladjustment. And the Devil. But seriously, anything that we cannot hold in our hands, or see with our eyes, is a construct created by Us, as in "us" the species. No one can yet prove otherwise, but I only have to throw a book at my friend when he isn't looking to let him know that reality is not a figment of his imagination, that he seriously did NOT want me to do that. Only the action and the reaction exists. But what about the bible you say? or the other, more modern examples of miracles and what not? I see a book, or a TV screen. Also, on a more personal note, both communism and capitalism should at least be placed on the negative part of the "whats good for humanity" spectrum, what with their obsession with consuming resources. Does quality of life really make a political system good? (and I'm aware that I am calling capitalism a political system, it is a form of politics, and is the dominant form in certain parts of the world.) communism creeps me right out, with marx's talk about his ideal society entering into a state of "simple communism" which is described quite similarly to the lives of the cavemen proto-humans... and capitalism, well...its kind of obvious now, isn't it? they have nothing left to burn in their furnace to rotate that donut tray, so they're stealing more. Wow, that got really off topic... Evil..right...No such thing, just positive and negative impulse, the circumstances of their creation, and the quantifiable results. Also, an article on Evil should contain the major definitions, scientific and otherwise, and thats about it, right? examples are kind of superfluous. Lonegrigori (talk) 02:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC) [edit] Archive createdI've gone ahead and archived all the old posts here. If you wish to continue any of the discussions found in the archive, please create a new topic here instead. Do not edit the archive. The dates are a bit off, but I didn't want to leave this page with only one or two topics showing. Later, when it comes time to archive again, we can move the last few posts dated October into Archive 1, and create Archive 2 for the next segment. -- Kesh 22:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 21st cen.Evil is subjective by the standards of the current corrupt societies of the modern era as this article expresses. I am sure the article only reflects most people today anyway. Poor article, not fit for an encyclopedia. --Margrave1206 20:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] ToneOn the first line of the article : In religion and ethics, Evil refers to the "bad" aspects of the behaviour and reasoning of human beings - "bad" seems a bit informal. Is there any objection to me changing this to negative? SparrowsWing (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Irish EvilI've been annoyed with this particular vandalism for quite some time. Finally found out that this comic is the source of that particular gem. It's getting tiresome and it's not even as funny as what Stephen Colbert has been doing. -- Kesh 04:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
So is there any chance we could get semi-protection on this article for a few months? This Irish Evil thing has been going on for over a year now. Rpresser 16:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC) I updated an internal comment that Rpresser added to be a little less aggressive. Here is what is displayed when you view the comments.
I think that should help. Slavlin 20:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Could we maybe get a page where the edit has already been done, for those of us who would like to see what it looks like?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.58.162.41 (talk) 20:17, June 14, 2007 Now absolutely no one has any right to complain: This link will automatically download and vandalize the page for you, without ever having to mess with Wikipedia (cheap PHP regex script ;-) Any questions? Martin Ultima (talk•contribs) 22:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC) I want you fuckers to know I was going to put "Irish Evil" into this article, but I checked the talk and now you've made me feel uninventive. So, from the bottom of my heart, fuck you for ruining a good thing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.21.132 (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC) [edit] Bush evilThere is a school of thought that holds that no person is evil, that only acts may be properly considered evil. The school that wrote this obviously did not yet know of the the Bush Administration. Looks like a joke to me, but I may have missed something. Garrick92 12:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hacker jargonI removed the following information from the article as there is no citation for it and it does not directly relate to the philosophy concept of evil. If documentation can be shown that this is a valid usage, then I would support adding it back, possibly as Evil (jargon) or something like that.Slavlin 19:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm the one who kept taking this paragraph out originally. Neat to see people discussing it-- new to wikipedia editing and it's neat to see it in action Will try to be more constructive in future edits SedatedGodzilla 05:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Economic EvilsA monopoly is "evil"? Give me a break. The fact that people claim Microsoft or other businesses are evil, has to do with the activities of those firms, and their unfair business practices. It is not just because they are monopolies. Many monopolies have reasonable business practices. Many monopolies even serve the greater good. Northern Bear 15:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Nazis and evilOkay, don't everyone jump down my throat, but not sure about 'The Nazis, during World War II, considered genocide acceptable...' I'm not arguing that they didn't practice genocide, I'm just not sure whether they actually considered it acceptable, in that not only did they wring their hands a lot about how hard it was on them having to kill all those people, they also did their damnedest to make sure that the rest of the world didn't get to hear about it (cf Mark Roseman's 'The Villa, The Lake, The Meeting' on the Wannsee conference, not to mention Hilberg's 'Destruction of the European Jews, etc etc). You notice also that neo-Nazis tend not to argue 'yes, the Nazis killed six million people and good thing too', but try to persuade people that it never happened at all. The Nazis argued not that genocide was acceptable, but that it was a bad thing that was nevertheless necessary and which should remain as their little secret (cf Himmler's speech at Poznan in Oct 1943 in which he called it 'a page of glory never mentioned and never to be mentioned.'). Still it's a moot point and I'm not sure whether it warrants changing the wording. Lexo 13:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Nazis are a good example of the objectivity of morality; they thought that what they were doing was "good" or at least the only way to bring themselves out of poverty. However, everyone else considered it "evil" and thus tried to stop them; so who is right? Is something "good" just because a bunch of people think it is, and is something "evil" just because a bunch of people think it is?24.118.227.213 02:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC) There is a bit more too it. showing that the Nazi's did not find genocide acceptable was the fact that they did try to off load the jews on the US of A and even sent a boat load to Palestine. Both were turned back by the British and Americans. 1000 years of jew hating in europe and the fact that no one else wanted them, plus the fact that no one made a stink over 9 million armenians being butchered in WWI, lead the Nazi's to conclude that no one would raise an out cry over the extermination of the jews either. Much of non-nazi europe, including France and Italy were all too happy to get rid of their jews as well. Jiohdi (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC) [edit] Objectivism and evilno view of evil would be complete without a view that turns the concept on its head Jiohdi (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hardly any citations in the articlePlease see subject!69.254.93.246 (talk) 05:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC) I concur. The article looks more like a term paper then an encylopedia entry
[edit] July 18, 2006 editOn July 18, 2006, when I edited the page and put under "See also" "Conservatism", it was because I had a poor concept of what evil actually was, and I instead thought that anything that had a second-rate effect was evil (e.g., how a Hulver poll of the most evil people listed Richard Simmons as one of the options). Now I realize that only what is deliberately harmful or wrong is evil. So, in response to what a user said above, I'd have to say Cheney, not Bush, is the evil one. User:Gmeric13@aol.com —Preceding comment was added at 22:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC) [edit] definitionThe definition of evil that begins this article seems far, far too broad. Minaker (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC) It is all wrong. "Evil" is a religious concept. "Bad" is the secular concept. To use myself as example: The Christian morality labels me as evil, as well as a sinner. I have no compunctions about that. The words "evil" and "sinner" have no meaning to me. As a free spirit I can do no evil, nor can I sin. I carry those labels as badges of honor since I do know what they mean to Christians. I can do bad, though, but chose not to. But doing so I exercise what the Christian morality labels as "evil"--free will. See how silly this "evil" thing is?
I know I am in a tiny minority on this. But that is no fault of mine. It is the fault of conformist "freethinkers" who have never had an independent thought in their lives and coward atheists who are Christians in all but faith. How I loathe those sheep in wolf clothing. One of Nietzsche's objections was that the death of God had given the 19th century Europeans new freedoms, people still pretended nothing had changed. They still pretended the Christian morality applied. Nietzsche called them mad. What do you call the people who more than a century later still delude themselves? I know I cannot win this. I know the cowards and conformists outnumber me a billion to one. Instead this is a call to any freethinker out there worthy the name, preferably on the Wiki crew. Everything I wrote here goes for the religious question of Good and evil, which, again, is good and bad in the secular world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC) O.K., I don't want my point to be associated with the above rant. The argument that the concept of evil is a purely religious one and that the highly vague term "bad" is the secular equivalent could be described as a simple oversimplification, but I think it's just plain wrong. In either case, the above comments are clearly more about the user's personal passions and have very little to do with objective encyclopedic definitions. Minaker (talk) 12:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I changed the opening definition; it still needs some work, but it's much more accurate than the previous definition. Minaker (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Is Evil Good?I am sorry for vandalizing this section and also the Amphetimine article. I will not vandalize wikipedia anymore. However I want to talk about the "Is Evil Good?" section on the talk page. I do not think that evil is good. I actually think that evil is terrible. It is terrible. What I think of evil is commiting sins to the extreme. I think of "evil" as things like terrorism, murdering of innocent people ect. I will not vandalize wikipedia anymore but I want you to respect my comments because I am at least putting it on the talk page. 99.232.29.227 (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)21:36 Febuary 6, 2008
You should not delete something because you disagree with it. You should only delete something because it is inaccurate. In other words, you should not delete a reference to Anton LaVey because you disagree with what he said. You should only delete it if you can demonstrate that he did not in fact say it. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The section would fail the neutrality test if Anton LaVey's views were presented in a biased manner. LaVey himself is not supposed to be neutral, only the presentation of his views. In short, the purpose of the section is not to provide information about evil, but information about one particular view of evil. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure. If I said, "Anton LaVey is a great guy and was right in everything he said," that would be biased. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] R-41's political blogI decided to move this communist apologetic blog to the talk, because its entirely unsourced, non neutral and pretty is just an opinion of one student. If there is anything at all to salavage with sources, then please feel free to re-add some. Gennarous (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC) [edit] Evil in Politics
In modern-day liberal democratic societies, many associate evil in politics with authoritarian, imperialist, racist, and totalitarian regimes and with leaders who are demagogues. Adolf Hitler in Germany, is a primary and common example throughout the world of an evil politician, as he permitted the persecution and mass genocide of Jews, opposition figures and other minorities in the Holocaust, allowed the deliberate destruction of civilian areas of cities and had blatant disregard for the life of his own citizens in the final months of World War II. Hitler is so universally infamous in both western and eastern societies that comparisons of individuals to Hitler or to Nazis is a common epithet that equates to declaring that someone is evil. Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union is often considered evil in the west and by reform-minded communists for his purges and his persecution of the Kulaks, and his demand of absolute loyalty from his citizens. In the West, Mao Tse Tung in China is considered evil, for the devastation brought on by the Cultural Revolution. Ferdinand II of Aragon, who led Spain and began the Spanish Inquisition has been considered evil for the inquisition's harsh repression of Muslims, Jews, and other dissenting populations. In general imperialism has been seen as evil since the collapse of colonialism. British, Portugese, and Spanish imperialist repression of aboriginals in the Americas led to the deaths of millions of aboriginals, and the displacement of their population to make way for colonial expansion. British actions in South Africa during the Second Boer War have been considered evil, such as his armed forces' establishment of concentration camps for Boers and his repression of the Boer people.[1] Italy's imperialist agenda in Africa during the 1930s under Fascism led to the repression and segregation of Ethiopians, such as the deliberate destruction of Ethiopian settlements in Addis Ababa in 1937.[1] Some of the final examples of the negative aspects of imperialism which have been deemed evil were demonstrated during Algeria's struggle for independence from France, where the French brutally repressed the Algerian independence movement. The political writings of Niccolò Machiavelli, in The Prince, explore the relationship between politics and the moral norms of good and evil. Notoriously, Machiavelli makes the case that morality can sometimes be a hindrance in the pursuit of power, because in the political realm "the ends justifies the means". Machiavelli argues that a ruler may have to act immorally to protect both his personal power and the interests of the state. In common parlance, the term Machiavellian is used to describe politicians or political policy that is amoral. Machiavelli did not make a case for evil, but rather argued pragmatically that a prince could not practically follow the moral codes of the common people. He is explicit in stating that politicians who choose or are forced to commit evil acts must be prepared to face the moral consequences of their actions. Gilbert and Sullivan satirize this view in The Pirates of Penzance, where the Pirate King sings
In contrast to the views expressed above, authoritarian, totalitarian, and theocratic states often consider western democracies to be evil. Totalitarian states under communism or fascism believe that liberal democracy allows for the exploitation of the people, that democracy is actually a regressive force for society, that individualism is bad because it favours materialism over values common to the people. Theocracies criticize liberal democracy because it allows women to exercise strong influence and express themselves provocatively, allows the consumption of intoxicating substances (such as alcohol and tobacco), and allow materialist individualism to to supplant the enforcement of holy writ. In the light of controversial conflicts in places Vietnam and Iraq, even supporters of liberal democracy, especially from the left and also the libertarian side of the political spectrum, have claimed that democratically elected leaders of the United States, especially Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and George W. Bush have been evil or have followed evil principles in their support of such wars. These three US Presidents have been accused of lying to their people on important issues, using murder and torture to support US business interests, allowing war crimes such as Mei Li and Abu Ghraib, and continuing unpopular wars against the will of the people. One wide-spread form of political evil that is universally denounced is corruption, where politicians enrich themselves at the expense of their country and its people.
65.213.77.129 (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC) [edit] Moral obligationIsn't there a well-defined philosophical essay that discussed evil and the philosophical idea of moral obligation? If so, it should be included. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Design and Evil"Evil" is also a term used about design. For example, when talking about the programming language C, the POV that "Pointers are Evil" is often promoted. In these cases, "Evil" is synonymous with "Bad Practice" or "Not Really Beneficial While Potentially Harmful". Something for the article? - Soulkeeper (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Directorio de Enlaces Directorio dmoz Directorio espejo dmoz Pedro Bernardo | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
