Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AaronOfBarbaria" data-source="post: 6912126" data-attributes="member: 6701872">No, it isn't.&nbsp; Words often have many meanings, especially in the English language.&nbsp; We can all know what evil means and feel that differing things fit that meaning and that different things don't fit that meaning - So no, it doesn't follow that you, Max, or I, don't know what evil means.Which is the precise reason I bothered to try and mention to Max that there isn't one single universally accepted definition of what is or is not evil.There is not enough information present in the provided &quot;kill someone that was punching you&quot; example to be certain that those punches are not being met by equal or lesser force by way of a less physically opposing victim of assault using a weapon as an equalizer. So I chose to assume the other information not present as being not present, making the case one that isn't clearly certain to be evil, while Max and you seem to be choosing to assume the other information not present as being only possibly the correct information to make this event an example of evil intent.No, if I am looking at a broken nose, rib, or arm, and the other guy ends up dead, I was attacked with potentially lethal force, retaliated with potentially lethal force, and am lucky to have survived. Because a blow that can break a bone is a blow that could have killed.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AaronOfBarbaria, post: 6912126, member: 6701872"] No, it isn't. Words often have many meanings, especially in the English language. We can all know what evil means and feel that differing things fit that meaning and that different things don't fit that meaning - So no, it doesn't follow that you, Max, or I, don't know what evil means. Which is the precise reason I bothered to try and mention to Max that there isn't one single universally accepted definition of what is or is not evil. There is not enough information present in the provided "kill someone that was punching you" example to be certain that those punches are not being met by equal or lesser force by way of a less physically opposing victim of assault using a weapon as an equalizer. So I chose to assume the other information not present as being not present, making the case one that isn't clearly certain to be evil, while Max and you seem to be choosing to assume the other information not present as being only possibly the correct information to make this event an example of evil intent. No, if I am looking at a broken nose, rib, or arm, and the other guy ends up dead, I was attacked with potentially lethal force, retaliated with potentially lethal force, and am lucky to have survived. Because a blow that can break a bone [I]is[/I] a blow that could have killed. [/QUOTE]

Verification