Girl Throws Puppies into River

I have to disagree. Let's take a look at (Phoenix W)right and wrong. Using the above post by Hayduke as an easier was to define the words we mean. Right being "Good" and Wrong being "Evil". (I will not be going by any religious ideals, unless I come by them and they become a need. Considering the concept of "Good" and "Evil" must come from a far more original source, religion has nothing to do with this, in nature.) Let's go with these first two. and... Looking through definitions, we could see that virtuous is the same thing as righteousness, which obviously takes it root in the word "right" - thus "good" and "right" can be taken as the same word, making any arguement with "good" parts of the post invalid. Righteous mentions "morality" in its definition, so lets look at "morality". "comformity"? Let's see this word, real fast... *social standards *Nature *compliances? acquiescence? I'm going to check these definitions, though I won't post them for tl;dr purposes. (...) They seem to be submissive obedience. Interesting. Let's see the next word in "good"... pious. So, "good" appears to be "willingly serving god(s)". But how would the concept of "good" and "evil" gods appear, if it was not here since the beginning? Such defines would be impossible. More likely, if we made them up, they would be "success" and "failure" not "good" and "evil". But I digress. I don't want religion involved in this any more than the definitions. Good also seems to mention "success" in short. So, I guess it's possible "virtue" and "success" are one and the same? Evil time. Morally wrong/immoral. Easy enough, that's simply "opposite of virtue" to put it short. But also, wicked. Malicious and Malevolent seem to be fancy words use to define wicked. Malevolent seems to be defined with "harmful" and malicious seems the same, but "spiteful" comes up. Malicious, malevolent, and malice come up. Malice is which seems to be an "emotional" but also a bit of "overly defensive" idea. By "overly defensive", there must be emotion involved, so "malice" is clearly some form of emotion. A cruel and hateful one... "Harmful", "Injurous", and "Evil Laws" come up, next. "Evil laws" implying that they must be obeyed, even if they hard people. Thus, laws the people dislike, or are harmful can be called evil by definition. "Characterized by misfortune or suffering" - in otherwords, "failure". I totally fucking called that. (scroll up, if you don't believe me) So, right and wrong translated into "Good and Evil", retranslates into "Success and Failure", which are parts of progress. We fail, and our failures help us progress... our past evils help our new goods... our wrongs allow us to make rights. Now, let's take a look at "progress"... ...Evolution... Both progress (which might as well be a giant Yin-Yang symbol) and evolution are basically saying "getting better". Animals moving in packs, eating other animals, surviving and evolving. They both harm other animals intentively, along with each other for the sake of being "top dog", which can easily be defined as malevolent or malicious. But they also protect each other (usually) and retreat, when they know others will die, if they do not - and undoubtly get food. This is slight virtue(protection and retreating for such protection) and satisfaction(successfully getting a meal). They also usually follow the pact leader - one could say they even conform and if one doesn't like the way a leader rolls, they either dislike the laws or dislike the leader themself or think they could do better. Dislike for the laws shows that there is something "unwanted" by at least one of them. Or... "Evil Laws". Getting rid of "Evil Laws" would be disposing over "evil" and, the only way to get rid of darkness in a room, is to turn on lights. To put it simply, destroying the wolf who runs things with "Evil Laws" is a "Good" thing to do. At the same time, simply killing him because you dislike him would easily be considered "Malice", and thinking you could do better is "Pride", which is commonly know as one of the "Seven sins". "Evil" things. This kind of thing happens all the time in wolf packs, and likely have been happening since as long as they exist - and yet - here they are. So, "evolution" has made its way. tl;dr version Evolution and nature do not conflict with "Good and Evil" in any way, shape, or form by definition. Pop culture (and people who are trying to make it appear as if they conflict) has only made it seem that way. The girl was being malicious to the puppy, clearly wishing to do harm, and made no progress. Thus, the act was "wrong" by all standards.

I can call bullshit on all of this with one simple sentence.

The human mind=variable.

and variables=unknown

Therefor, it does not matter that by definition, personal opinion, point of view, etc, etc, etc.

Is "wrong"

right and wrong are, and will always be ideas set in by the human mind to define what they enjoy and do not enjoy.

So long story short?

No skurai, that's bullshi

I can call bullshit on all of this with one simple sentence. The human mind=variable. and variables=unknown Therefor, it does not matter that by definition, personal opinion, point of view, etc, etc, etc. Is "wrong" right and wrong are, and will always be ideas set in by the human mind to define what they enjoy and do not enjoy. So long story short? No skurai, that's bullshi

Implying you know how to read.

I love when people random quote someone's text 5 different times in one message. It's like they think by breaking down their paragraph sentence by sentence, they are superior...

that is all

There are times where breaking someones post up and replying to parts individually makes more sense and is easier. It allows you to address specific points.

I don't see how doing that would imply that you think you are superior to anyone else.

Comes across as elitist, and insulting.

What is the exact polar opposite of being an elitist, real fast?

Comes across as elitist, and insulting.

You've already stated as much, you need to elaborate on WHY or else you are just taking it wrong. I don't see what is elitist about replying to multiple parts of a person's post. It promotes clarity in the conversation, and it isn't much harder than quoting the whole post once. Perhaps [skurai]u mad[/skurai]?

Perhaps [skurai]u mad[/skurai]?

I wish I had my own html thingy.