Thursday, December 31, 2009

Good (and Evil) Riddance

Blog post # 30:

Sorry for that post yesterday that must have seemed bigoted to many of you.

PS: I can think of another reason or two why ethnic-profiling is INEFFICIENT, stupid, and possibly deadly.
3) The stats-related justification for a LITTLE ethnic profiling doesn't take into account that terrorists are conscious deliberating beings.
For, with an official policy of even a little ethnic profiling, let alone a lot, the Arab-looking terrorists will start recruiting white Christian-looking terrorists to pass through security to carry out their missions.
4) Speaking of white Christian-looking terrorists: Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Eric Rudolph... (or however you spell their names), that guy who shot up the Holocaust museum and the guy who shot up the Unitarian Church recently.
Maybe WHITE CHRISTIANS should be profiled too, at least a "little"!

Sorry, Sarah Palin and you Fox News talkers, but ethic profiling makes NO sense!


Topic: Good vs Evil.

The prevailing view by the masses on the topic is that "Good" (with a capital G) will "win" eventually over "Evil".

I say, that is likely to be only wishful thinking.

Good wins some, evil wins some. (I will say that Evil wins more often than Good.)

But, keep in mind, Evil cheats, and it has the best weaponry, and it plays dirty -- all giving it a serious advantage over Good.

And, sorry people, but "God", if it exists, isn't necessarily going to help Good win in the end, even if God, if it exists, is on the side of Good in the first place.

Keep in mind: Evil has all the advantages. Maybe "God" has helped Evil get those advantages? Perhaps.

And what is "Good", and what is "Evil" anyway?

I would say that torturing people, say, is DEFINITELY an evil thing to do, objectively and without controversy an evil thing.
But about half of Americans say that they favor torture of terrorism suspects, even though lots of these suspects have not been proven to actually be guilty of any crimes.
Does that make torture "good"?

Killing is evil, objectively. But what if it was your choice to shoot a person who is in-turn going around mass-killing people? What if the only way to stop the mass-killing was for you to kill this person?
Would then you be evil if you did NOT shoot this person?

I don't know.

I, for one, believe in being good for Goodness' own sake, not just because I fear Hell.
(I'll probably go to Hell no matter what I do in my life, anyway. Some people believe this about me and others like me.)

Maybe being good increases my self-worth. Maybe that is why I want to be good.
God knows, I surely don't have much self-worth in most ways.

And, oh by the way, I am NOT good.
I don't do volunteer work or give to charity, for instance.
Yes, I don't commit crimes. But at best I would consider myself to be a moral moderate, as most people seem to be.

Is that good enough, though?
Do I care?


No comments: