Sensing the presence of evil

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I am only responsible for what I say. I am not responsible for what you think I said.

That is not going to stop people from distorting what is said. Years ago I worked at a daily newspaper. I wrote a piece about a neighborhood that was experiencing a bit more crime than usual.

An LOL (little old lady) from the neighborhood called the police investigator I interviewed and accused him of calling everyone in that neighborhood illiterate.

Where she got that, I have no idea.

Doesn't matter. I can write (and I'm doing so) "a black dog crossed the street." Someone is gonna accuse me of being a racist.

I don't get that either.

Some folks is just looking for a reason to take offense I guess.

Offending FB image

Consider this pix from FB (at left) which has generated some commentary. In the thread I saw, most of the commentary is negative and accuses the boy of being racist.

 It reminds of a cartoon from a few years back. The cartoonist used the idea of the chimp which ripped a woman's face off and was later shot by police as a political metaphor for the presidential race.

He was accused of being racist, which he said caught him by surprise. He intended no racial slur from it, but thought  the juxtaposition created an interesting concept.

I see the same thing at work in the above image, relying on the old Monkey See Monkey Do adage.

In the FB thread, I said I supported the expressed opinion (and I still do) and added a comment about racism to short circuit those who'd attack me. I shan't here. If you feel the need to attack me as being a racist, g'head.

What about be no evil?

I am responsible for what I say. I am not responsible for what you think I said.



Regardless of the opinion expressed by the young feller above, I support his right to have that opinion.

As much as I don't understand people who support the current president, his policies and how much he's just like the president he replaced, I support their right to their opinion.

Doesn't mean I agree. But I don't have to agree.

 

Glad you asked

The traditional three monkeys of See No Evil, Hear No Evil and Speak No Evil pretty much cut off all but two senses - smell and touch. You can argue, from the traditional pose they are, the sense of touch is also restricted.

So should it be Sense No Evil?

Which begs the question - what is evil?

Can you define it in such a way that someone who vehemently disagrees with your weltanschauung would agree?

Or is it subjective? Does it depend entirely on your point of view?

Hitler in his pogrom did not believe what he was doing was evil. Rather, he sought to exterminate what he saw as an evil.

Say you do cut yourself off from perceiving evil as mentioned above. Then how do you know what is evil?

I rather thing evil is a subjective matter, and one that requires a definite contrast to define. Without that contrast, I don't think you can adequately define evil.

Pity things can't be as simple as they are in Dungeons and Dragons.