I had to intervene in a seriously heated debate between my (ExMo) big Sister and my (NeverMo) parrner, after my Sis called my partner an extremist because she said the richest man in the world was evil since he wasnt a philanthropist. Sis insisted he was. Partner asked, which charities or causes does he give his money to? That's when sis got pretty pissed and insisted she wanted the argument to end, NOW!
I said to Sis, hey, you and I get each other. I dont think he's evil. I mean Hitler was evil. At least the richest man on Earth isn't murdering people, right? I mean, sure he could help poor people more, but couldnt we all? Im perfectly willing to admit that I could do a lot more. If that makes the richest guy in the world evil, then I guess I am evil too. Hell, we all are.
But its all relative. Who is the most evil human you can think of? Hitler, right? Now who is the least evil person, best person you can think of?
We agreed, Ghandi.
Partner spoke up to say he was a sexual predator. I said, "nobody is perfect, are they?"
So who is the best person you can think of?
She said, Malala. I agreed. So did my Sister.
I said, and the rest of us are some where in between. There's North, South and in between. We are in between. We've got far more common ground than differences.
Sis agreed.
So did Partner.
So what do you say, is the richest man alive evil because he doesnt share his wealth?
If thats evil, then we are all evil.

Is evil just a human judgement?

Is there an independent scale for which we assign values of evil?

Are you arguing that evil exists independent of the human mind and conditions ?

Because the question to me sounds like covetousness. If coveting is evil, then those who argue that not sharing is evil are also evil. And wherein is the greater evil?

you are right OPie ~


Hitler was certainly at one point among the richest dudes in the world ~


in b 4 ~ define "rich" ~


because ~ controlling the wealth, resources and populations of Europe, Africa, Asia and Key West Florida even if so brief a time could be considered "rich" ~


in b 4 ~ an ~ ¿ why does Hitler get such a bad rep around these internet RfM boards ? ~


in b 4 ~ Hitler was a vegetarian and a dog lover ~


in b 4 ~ an there is no record that Hitler ever #metoo'd Eva Braun or anybody else for that matter ~

in b 4 ~ an Hitler prolly never personally killed anybody anyway except the enemy soldiers he killed in WW1 for which he was awarded a medal ~




















in b 4 ~ ¿ what is this tread about ? ~

Anyone here never been "evil" at some point in time?

Joseph Stalin, #2.
Hitler, #3.

http://www.popten.net/2010/05/top-ten-most-evil-dictators-of-all-time-in-order-of-kill-count/

A person does not have to be murdering, raping, and pillaging to be evil. Jeff Bezos is currently the world's richest man, and he exploits his workers horribly.

caffiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> A person does not have to be murdering, raping,
> and pillaging to be evil. Jeff Bezos is currently
> the world's richest man, and he exploits his
> workers horribly.


I agree here...these people mentioned are obviously evil to most people, but where is the line between evil and not evil, that is what I always wonder?? There are many gray areas in life that can be interpreted either way, depending on whose looking at it.

“is the richest man alive evil because he doesnt share his wealth?”

If he gave 10% of his money to a stupid cult, he would not be evil and not be burned at the second coming.

Me, I would build a sauna specifically designed to harness the heat of the second coming.

The world of the rich is so far beyond normal experience that you can’t really assess it. You don’t own your stuff, your stuff owns you. Protecting that empire becomes a full time job. That doesn’t make someone evil.

Riches can evaporate overnight. Be grateful that you don’t have the problems of the rich.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/15/2018 01:49PM by babyloncansuckit.

No, that's silly.

And considering what the top 1% are taxed in this country, they could never give a dime in so-called charity and still do more "good" than most other people combined.

Not sharing wealth seems more selfish than evil. Those words have two different definitions though their paths could cross. I would say that the richest man not sharing his wealth is selfish and not evil unless he is going out of his way to deliberately hurt someone in order to hang onto his wealth.

Evil is a very broad term and everyone has their own idea of what it is. My definition is playing loud music at three in the morning or being a Mormon Apostle or making a right turn from the left lane.

Evil is a point of view. There could be unknown and uncontrollable motivation for bad or evil acts. Good people do evil acts all the time like being complacent towards the poor and hungry in their own town. I am guilty of this complacency. The poverty and homeless problem is something that can not be ignored forever.

I thought that was Bill Gates and he set up the Gates Foundation which does a lot of good.

Of course, none of those family foundations mean that people give away all their money to charity.
They control the foundations but still, they do help others around the world.

The richest man in the world is now Jeff Bezos, of Amazon, not Bill Gates. Jeff just announced a launch of his "Day One" fund/program to help open preschools and help the homeless. I'd say he's doing some great good with his funds.

I didn't want to make this about any particular person, just the concept of evil.
Both of these people are atheists.
On very liberal, Feminist, very progressive socialist. She thinks Bezos is evil because of how many people he pays minimal wages so they live on welfare and food stamps. You and I are making the richesy man even richer. (But she still orfers half her stuff from Amazon and most of the intetnet goes through AWS.
The other person (Sis) is a devout (and well off) capitalist, before, almost, EVERYTHING and everybody else.