The Problem Of Evil An Argument Against - amazonia.fiocruz.br

The Problem Of Evil An Argument Against Video

File: Posting mode: Reply [Return]. Any thoughts on this?

I am not sure Let me watch on. I'll be generous and call that a misheard question. Apologies if I literally cannot listen to the drooling over hierarchy and equating social status with productivity. However I did go back to listen to see if you were cherry picking something out of context to make him sound stupid.

Discussion

Perhaps this is a bad introduction to the fellow, as I understand it his degree is in some other topic and Oz is good at making people confidently say idiotic things. I also must admit a personal bias against evolutionary psychology. I went back and listened more and I'm glad I brought up Dawkins. It's the same tactic of bombarding a lot of smart sounding things without actually completing any particular thought.

Cutting out the wankery, in the same thought we go from conflict drives good is make good is an offshoot of this as the thought peters out progress to hierarchies are old but are prone to Agalnst and corruption to marxism bad back to hierarchies are old and that is https://amazonia.fiocruz.br/scdp/blog/work-experience-programme/labelling-theory.php censoring bad words is bad.

Againstt have no idea what the topic being discussed is so I'm going to assume it's the most broad interest one? I mean. The topic of ossification and corruption in indispensable hierarchies is an interesting topic. Didn't go anywhere though which is sad. Snakes making apes evolve eyes seemed kinda stupid and poorly thought out but also not his idea.

Fighting dragons makes your peepee hard seems more in line with what I'd expect from everything else and I elect to make that the primary point of this dissertation. I want to stress.

OUR ADVANTAGES

This is from 4 minutes of conversation. Peterson's comments seem to suggest a possible resolution of this question: that some amount of evil is necessary to maximize goodness. And going beyond religious questions, this also has secular implications: Any attempt to build a utopia by eliminating all evil and suffering would be doomed. I pretty sure he doesn't equate them.

In fact, he recognizes that some people with high social status got there by corruption rather than by productivity. Asking then whether it's possible to have higher and lower good implies a spectrum of good, and it's easy enough to designate the lower part of the goodness spectrum evil. Are you asking whether adding the classification 'evil' to what could be a spectrum of good-ness changes things objectively? Here's some thought experiments: 1. Consider the immune system.

It's a good thing to have as it fights disease, and a stronger and more robust asterisks, caveats, etc. What drove it to get stronger over an evolutionary time were the pathogens Problen had to deal with. Now, imagine you meet somebody who has a button. This button, upon being pressed, would cure all disease, forever, from now into all the future.]