From: theirony2013@gmail.com   
      
   On 2026-01-16 12:03, JTEM wrote:   
   >   
   >  >    
   >  > Calling evil something that can simply be   
   >  > "defeated" assumes it is a single, concrete   
   >  > thing.   
   >   
   > I have to agree that this doesn't make sense at   
   > all.   
   >   
   > What if any criteria does something have to meet   
   > to qualify as evil?   
   >   
   > I think that...   
   >   
   > #1.  Intent.   
   >   
   > You had to intend to do whatever it is that we want   
   > to call evil. Obviously hitting a patch of black   
   > ice and skidding into a young family on the sidewalk   
   > is bad but, did you even know they were there? Did   
   > you even know there was black ice present?   
      
       I disagree:   
      
       I think evil is less about intent and more about   
       the experience it creates. Hitting a patch of black   
       ice and skidding into a family is clearly horrific   
       for those involved. Even if the driver did not   
       intend harm, the event still causes fear, pain, and   
       suffering.   
      
       Evil, in this sense, is measured by the depth of   
       impact on the victim. Intent can amplify evil, but   
       the core of it lies in the experience of harm and   
       distress itself. Accidents can feel evil, even if no   
       one “meant” them.   
      
   >   
   > #2.  Knowledge.   
   >   
   > You had to know the harmful nature of the act and   
   > wanted that harm to result, or at least never cared   
   > either way.   
      
   Evil involves a combination of intent, knowledge, and   
   impact. An act intended to harm can be morally wrong   
   even if it accidentally benefits the victim, because   
   the actor aimed for harm. Knowledge matters too: if   
   someone knew, or reasonably should have known, that   
   their action could cause suffering, they bear moral   
   responsibility. Ultimately, the experience of the   
   victim shapes the perception of evil, but intent and   
   awareness influence how blame is assigned.   
      
   >   
   > NOTE:  Back when we had journalism, the standard was   
   > "Known or should have known." Saying "I didn't know"   
   > was never a defense if it was deemed reasonable to   
   > assume that the information was readily obtainable, or   
   > needed to be obtained FIRST regardless of how difficult   
   > it would be to secure it.   
      
   >   
   > #3.  Results/Potential   
   >   
   > If I sit in the grass, take careful aim then shoot   
   > someone in the head just as a Thrill Kill that would   
   > likely meet anyone's definition of evil. But what if   
   > I miss? What if you never even knew that I shot at   
   > you?  Nobody was harmed, right?  So was it evil?   
   >   
   > I would believe "Yes."   
      
   Attempted harm without actual impact shows intent, not   
   experience of evil. Shooting and missing may reveal a   
   malicious mindset, but if no one suffers or even knows,   
   the event causes no real harm. Evil, understood as   
   experienced suffering, does not exist in this case. At   
   most, it reflects moral guilt or dangerous character,   
   not evil as it is lived or felt by a victim.   
      
   >   
   > NOTE:  The law does treat ATTEMPTED murder differently   
   > than murder, even though they set out to kill someone   
   > and usually went through the motions of securing their   
   > death. The defense argument is that the failure is the   
   > result of a change of heart, conscience (guilt), doubts...   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   > What am I missing here?   
   >   
   > What "Element" is necessary to qualify something as "Evil."   
      
      
   It would be interesting to see how you analyze the concept   
   of 'blame' which is closely related to evil.   
      
      
      
      
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)