for evil to triumph, good men should do nothing Options

[Comptine]

the topic title is a version of a famous quote by Edmund Burke.

in a show i watched, one character was about to be sent back to rwanda to be executed. he was a doctor in rwanda who was asked by military men to set up a shelter for tutsis. when his clinic was packed full of tutsis, the military men came back with even more men and proceeded to slaughter everyone there except the doctor. the doctor had let it happen and didn't do anything (tried to reason with the military men, get help, etc.)

do you think just because one individual did nothing against evil, he should have to face the consequences as if he did an act of evil himself?

[sadolakced acid]

people want to save thier necks. and thier necks aren't attached to anyone else's head.

so sticking out your neck to help someone else doesn't make sense.

there's that quote, right?

"first they came for the communists, but i did not speak because i was not a communist"

and then at the end it's

"then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me."


if, however, the speaker decided to act, the quote would read something like this:

"first they came for the communists, and although i was not a communist, i spoke for them and they killed me along with the communists."

2+2=5
i love big brother

[Spirited Away]

people want to save thier necks.  and thier necks aren't attached to anyone else's head.

so sticking out your neck to help someone else doesn't make sense.

there's that quote, right?

"first they came for the communists, but i did not speak because i was not a communist"

and then at the end it's

"then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me."
if, however, the speaker decided to act, the quote would read something like this:

"first they came for the communists, and although i was not a communist, i spoke for them and they killed me along with the communists."

big brother is watching

I think that's too extreme. People like MLK Jr and Ghandi spoke out for others and they achieved something those who didn't spoke out couldn't achieve: a small triumph over evil.

It's true, if the bad guys didn't act first, there's no need for the good guys to act, however, this situation is not realistic. There will always be bad guys doing something, so it does take good guys to act to create a semblance of balance.

In my opinion, good and evil are dependent in the sense that if one didn't exist, there is no need for the other.

This post has been edited by uninspiredfae: Aug 2 2005, 06:39 PM