for evil to triumph, good men should do nothing Options

[Mulder]

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.)

are u talking about 4400? with edward mayuya? well, hes making up for it by healing all those utero.

[zepfel]

errrm, i meant that...

it would be fair to make the statement that hitler proably never killed a jew personally, and then i used the analogy that the king wouldn't kill those he ordered to die himself, as hitler wouldn't. they would both have people to kill on their behalf.

[Comptine]

yes, insomniac it was the 4400. however, in real life, someone can not simply do a good deed for the rest of his life to make up for his past misdeeds. it's too black and white which is why some of your arguments do not apply to real life. life is not always black and white or so easily separated into good and evil. if it was, we really wouldn't be having this debate.

i meant to write more but when i read it over. it turned into a rant so i cut it out. i mentioned Hitler and the Jews.

zepfel Hitler wanted war. That was why he militarized Germany/the Third Reich again even though it was against the Versailles Treaty. You would not militarize your country unless you planned to use them. Hitler already had a deep seeded resentment towards Jews since his childhood and adolescence. His beloved niece fell in love with a Jew and either ran off with him or committed suicide. He was delaying the war as long as possible to gain the most land without loss of men. sadolakced acid is mostly right about Hitler's world domination plan.

and no it's not silly to say inaction cannot be punished. Guilt by Assocation is the newest trend along with giving minors adult sentences. If two friends were robbing someone and one friend somehow kills the victim, the other friend would be punished for just being there even if he didn't plan to hurt the victim. in this case, he is being punished for his inaction because he COULD of done something like reason with his friend or stopped the robbery to begin with if the other person brought along a deadly weapon. you were there, you had a chance to change it, and you didn't.

[zepfel]

and no it's not silly to say inaction cannot be punished. Guilt by Assocation is the newest trend along with giving minors adult sentences. If two friends were robbing someone and one friend somehow kills the victim, the other friend would be punished for just being there even if he didn't plan to hurt the victim. in this case, he is being punished for his inaction because he COULD of done something like reason with his friend or stopped the robbery to begin with if the other person brought along a deadly weapon. you were there, you had a chance to change it, and you didn't.

what i meant by silly was that i didnt see it as something worth arguing about.

it is not something that could ever have a solid answer. it all depends on the situation.





in addition, it kind of sounded wrong when i said "hitler didn't want war"
what i really meant was that he didn't want it at that particular time but i failed to express my point correctly. i apologise.

[Comptine]

sorry zepfel the last paragraph thing wasn't about you. comradered said that it was silly that the idea could be viewed in the way i presented it. i just think it does because with the amount of evils this world has now, people are always looking for more revenge/reparations/compensation.

[Spirited Away]

it would be fair to make the statement that hitler proably never killed a jew personally, and then i used the analogy that the king wouldn't kill those he ordered to die himself, as hitler wouldn't. they would both have people to kill on their behalf.

If the King of England order the execution and the one he condemned is guilty, then good had done something to stop the bad, proving that had he not ordered the execution, the guilty--evil--roam free.  If the English King order the execution of an innocent, then he is spreading evil. Evil multiplies.

In context (in my discussion with Mr. Acid), I asked the question because it seems Mr. Acid didn't believe that Hitler would be capable of spreading Evil had no one followed his leadership. Of course, that is not the case, but since we are talking about a hypothetical situation (notice the many "would have's"), I thought it would be appropriate to point out that even without underlings, Hitler would still be able to spread evil by killing innocents.

Maybe the question "Are you saying that Hitler never killed a Jew on his own" should have another 'would have' added to it. "Are you saying that Hitler would have never killed a Jew on his own?" I figured, within context, 'would have' wasn't neccessary.

[*nightmare4taki*]

Well of course Evil and Good must coexist with one another just like Jason’s thread about Imagination and Knowledge. I believe the statement is very accurate because humans are consumed by evil so easily. A lot of humans are driven by power and ambition just like in the movie Lord of the Rings or many other fictional novels which you may come across. In my opinion you wouldn't read a novel in which there was no conflict or no protagonist and antagonist. With out two coexisting forces there would be no such thing as good and evil. Evil is however more easier to influence a young person. It can start with one evil person who can easily influence a person who has not had a positive role model in his/ her life. Then like wildfire Evil can easily be proliferated from person to person.

I personally believe that its more easier to do something that is as society views morally wrong than something that is morally right. Morally it would be correct to take a stand for something you believe is wrong, but very residual individuals are hard to come by. Not often do you have someone that’s revolutionary in their specific interest. The Martin Luther Kings, Ghandis, or from a musical perspective Elvis, 2pacs, and the Michael Jacksons only come around very scarcely. So when I took the approach or perception that “The only good leader is a dead black leader”, it was of course selfish but the truth about most human beings. Not too many are willing to sacrifice their well being for the good of others, but If someone doesn’t or didn’t do it, could you imagine the state of mankind today. Sure you can say that violence is on the rise here in the US, but on the other hand It could be a lot worse given history’s circumstances.

[Spirited Away]

this comes back to the story of the jew who did nothing against the nazis who took his neighbors. there is no surprise in this, evil acted and good allowed evil to act freely. back to the saying, it's so negative that it's almost an evil in itself.

actually, i want to question the 'truth' of the saying now that i really thought about it. what about thurgood marshall? marcus garvey? frederick douglass? carol moseley braun? mae c. jemison? robert C. maynard? benjamin carson? these are the names of those who are either still living or died, but not by the evil that the saying implies. they may not be as well-known as Dr King, but their struggles was for something very similar and impacted American society. they were/are great black leaders.

you see, the saying actually demeans the importance of other great black leaders. it makes people not believe that change is possible when it IS possible if people would at least try.