About 5yr. log retention

[James A. Donald]

     --
Tom Vogt:
 > > > *IF* killing people (this way) is the definition of evil, and
 > > > there is no other way to be evil but by being a murderer, *THEN*
 > > > you areperfectly right.

James A. Donald:
 > > I am merely using murder as the most extreme and unambiguous example 
of harm.

Tom Vogt:
 > no, you are not.

Yes I am.  I know what I meant, and I am fairly sure that I know what I wrote.

 > you are using a very specific form of murder as your "objective
 > fact" which determines evil. how many more are there, for other
 > forms of murder, for other forms of harm? for evil without suffering?

There cannot be evil without harm, or at least the threat and potential for 
harm.  "Evil" in the morally neutral sense means suffering and/or harm.  To 
do evil in the moral sense is one must cause suffering or harm, and to be 
evil one must cause the threat or potential for suffering and or harm.

Of course not every harm that one causes is evil though most are (the 
classic counter example being self defence) but every evil requires a 
corresponding harm.  They do not mean quite the same thing, but harm 
usually implies evil, and evil always implies harm.  If no harm, then no foul.

 > > The word "evil" has two senses.  Harm suffered (morally neutral
 > > sense of the word "evil") and harm unjustifiably and willfully
 > > done, or the danger of such harm.  (Moral sense of the word
 > > "evil")

 > moral, by definition, is a function of culture

Bullshit.

     --digsig
          James A. Donald
      6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
      mJMcc+5SQQU3OQSanbPHsba6Mgc6Mt/9vlZKmkzT
      4cnCEPiaZRM+Nu2mymijPst+rxNfVCZ3+1i5ZAT4v