Might as well spend some of those points and *promote.

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Saturday, December 11th, 2010 9:22am PST - promote requested by original submitter Gallowflak.

The neighbors knew she deserved it.

No police?

"The neighbors knew she deserved it."

Some things just aren't funny. They say things are funniest when there is an element of truth in them. This truism sometimes backfires and makes something unfunny in the extreme, when there is too MUCH truth.

You have the power to remove your post. I hope you do.


I will delete this post if you delete yours.

So spousal abuse is the one thing on the internet not okay to jab at? Lesson learned. I apologize. I will remove that from my list of things that are funny and replace it with retard sodomy and skull fucking the Christ child.

>> ^bareboards2:
"The neighbors knew she deserved it."
Some things just aren't funny. They say things are funniest when there is an element of truth in them. This truism sometimes backfires and makes something unfunny in the extreme, when there is too MUCH truth.
You have the power to remove your post. I hope you do.
I will delete this post if you delete yours.


censorship is far more heinous than spousal abuse.

I seem to have set off the Libertarian crowd.

Maybe this is just a failure of empathy on the part of rottenseed and blankfist. And of the two people who, so far, have upvoted rottenseed's comment.

Are you aware that people stay in horrifically abusive situations in part because of the internalized message "I deserve this"? The abuser uses the words "You made me do it" to justify the continuation of attacks? [Please note that I have left out pronouns. This is non-gender specific -- it is rooted in the roles of abuser and victim.]

Well, actually, you are aware. Clearly.

Look, just imagine for a second that you are a survivor or a current victim of spousal abuse. Can you just imagine, for a moment, what it would feel like to watch this video, feel like maybe you could get help, that something is wrong with your situation, and then immediately stumble across blankfist's comment?

If spousal abuse -- and sexual abuse -- weren't so common, then blankfist's post would be crude and maybe funny. As it stands, it has the potential of actively hurting someone's recovery or ability to step away from a very bad situation.

And please note that I didn't demand the pulling of the posting. Self "censorship" isn't censorship if it is an act of kindness to a stranger.

Leave it up. It's clearly up to you. Just be aware of the possible consequences. Know that you might be complicit in the continued suffering of someone.

Hopefully the person(s) I am concerned about will keep reading and see this defense of them. This acknowledgment that what you posted is not true. And not funny.

I look forward to the day when it IS funny. When abuse is so uncommon. When victims of abuse leave the first time something abusive happens to them and aren't trapped by their own internal messages.

The internet is serious business.

Also rape. There must be material there somewhere to prime.

Does making a joke about something, make it ok to do? Let's look passed the fact that it was a pedestrian joke. Blankfist could've done a lot better. Does that make blankfist a wife beater? No, only shitty at making jokes. But we knew this about him. He's been trying to be funny for 3 years on this website. He's had a couple of hits but even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once-in-a-while.

You say there are some jokes off limits, I say there are none. Who is right? Well, neither, or both.

For the record, I hope Blankfist's fiancee beats the living shit out of him.
>> ^bareboards2:
I seem to have set off the Libertarian crowd.
Maybe this is just a failure of empathy on the part of rottenseed and blankfist. And of the two people who, so far, have upvoted rottenseed's comment.
Are you aware that people stay in horrifically abusive situations in part because of the internalized message "I deserve this"? The abuser uses the words "You made me do it" to justify the continuation of attacks? [Please note that I have left out pronouns. This is non-gender specific -- it is rooted in the roles of abuser and victim.]
Well, actually, you are aware. Clearly.
Look, just imagine for a second that you are a survivor or a current victim of spousal abuse. Can you just imagine, for a moment, what it would feel like to watch this video, feel like maybe you could get help, that something is wrong with your situation, and then immediately stumble across blankfist's comment?
If spousal abuse -- and sexual abuse -- weren't so common, then blankfist's post would be crude and maybe funny. As it stands, it has the potential of actively hurting someone's recovery or ability to step away from a very bad situation.
And please note that I didn't demand the pulling of the posting. Self "censorship" isn't censorship if it is an act of kindness to a stranger.
Leave it up. It's clearly up to you. Just be aware of the possible consequences. Know that you might be complicit in the continued suffering of someone.
Hopefully the person(s) I am concerned about will keep reading and see this defense of them. This acknowledgment that what you posted is not true. And not funny.
I look forward to the day when it IS funny. When abuse is so uncommon. When victims of abuse leave the first time something abusive happens to them and aren't trapped by their own internal messages.

I didn't say the joke was off limits. I asked him to consider the feeling of others.

And hey, you believe in no censorship, right?

So stop trying to censor me, please.

(Your joke about his fiancee, by the way, is mildly humorous. So it isn't the subject matter that bothers me.)

Whatever my jokes are fucking hilarious. To me. Sniff.

I'm a little bit surprised that this has so many views and so few votes. Then again, I get surprised by that every day.

Video = *quality
Conversation regarding humor and censorship = zzzzzzzz.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by RhesusMonk.

skull fucking is comedy gold.

>> ^blankfist:

So spousal abuse is the one thing on the internet not okay to jab at? Lesson learned. I apologize. I will remove that from my list of things that are funny and replace it with retard sodomy and skull fucking the Christ child.

Man, I got all these down votes just for being empathetic and asking someone else to be. Was told repeatedly that I was wrong to "censor."

Gosh, I feel like someone is trying to censor me. No up votes for that thought, though.

This is like stupid Assange. Bleating about No Secrets -- until he wants to protect the secrecy of his own sources.

Walk the walk, guys. Even when it is uncomfortable.

I will not be shamed out of doing what I think is right. Down vote me forever. I don't care.

*promote

Invocations (promote) cannot be called by DerHasisttot because DerHasisttot is not privileged - sorry.

While I support the message, I think this video is horse shit. His neighbours probably thought "this loud-ass fuckwit is playing tape of domestic squabbles now".

Hate speech is outside the laws that protect free speech. Ignorance can be censored.

>> ^bareboards2:

I didn't say the joke was off limits. I asked him to consider the feeling of others.
And hey, you believe in no censorship, right?
So stop trying to censor me, please.
(Your joke about his fiancee, by the way, is mildly humorous. So it isn't the subject matter that bothers me.)


i find it really funny that you think you're being censored. you're the only one here who SPECIFICALLY asked another person to delete their comment. nobody wants you to delete yours, they just want you to stop being a dick. apparently you're some hero who's fighting the good fight against spousal abuse, like some light in the darkness. really, you're just a dick. kindly stop being a dick.

I am being a dick for asking a question?

I can't help thinking that the folks who are so quick to jump on me for ASKING A QUESTION are the super sensitive, delicate ones here.

But you are right. No told me to take down my question. I have just been pommeled for asking it.

That's not censorship.

Nor was my question censorship.

So we can lay this to rest now, right?

Besides, I am quite happy. I have achieved my goal. To let the hypothetical person(s) I am worried about know that blankfist's comment wasn't funny and that someone out in cyberspace recognizes that it might be extraordinarily painful and scary to read it. That someone has their back. It would have been nicer for them if they didn't have to wade through blankfist in the first place, but hey. At least there is a counterpoint.

No censorship required. And certainly no need to beat me up for asking a question.





>> ^Dignant_Pink:

i find it really funny that you think you're being censored. you're the only one here who SPECIFICALLY asked another person to delete their comment. nobody wants you to delete yours, they just want you to stop being a dick. apparently you're some hero who's fighting the good fight against spousal abuse, like some light in the darkness. really, you're just a dick. kindly stop being a dick.
<div><div style="margin: 10px; overflow: auto; width: 80%; float: left; position: relative;" class="convoPiece"> bareboards2 said:<img style="margin: 4px 10px 10px; float: left; width: 40px;" src="http://static1.videosift.com/avatars/b/bareboards2-s.jpg" onerror="ph(this)"><div style="position: absolute; margin-left: 52px; padding-top: 1px; font-size: 10px;" class="commentarrow">◄</div><div style="padding: 8px; margin-left: 60px; margin-top: 2px; min-height: 30px;" class="nestedComment box">I didn't say the joke was off limits. I asked him to consider the feeling of others.
And hey, you believe in no censorship, right?
So stop trying to censor me, please.
(Your joke about his fiancee, by the way, is mildly humorous. So it isn't the subject matter that bothers me.)
</div></div></div>

What? I can barely hear you from atop that tower of a soapbox you're standing on.

Back to the video...

To be fair, a guy playing the drums is unlikely to come to the door with a shotgun...

@bareboards2:
I don't buy all that garbage like "internet srs bsns roflz", it's as serious as anything else, real life, anything, he should take responsibility for his comment and not hide behind a veneer of "this is the internet". However, you're being far too 'serious' - it was a joke, clearly a joke. If you didn't like it, downvote it, say "bad taste", then move on!

I would have just called the cops, immediately.

In fact that seems like such an obvious thing to do (in my mind) that I'm casting suspicion on this video. SUSPICION! (POOSH!)

Sadly, in South Africa, according to one survey 1 in 3 men admits to raping a woman and 1 in 4 women says she has been sexually assaulted. Watching this vid just makes it depressingly obvious the problems they are having over there with violence against women.

I think that depends on whether or not you are the person getting abused.
>> ^rottenseed:
censorship is far more heinous than spousal abuse.

Why does this experiment make some white, male videosifters so uncomfortable? Why the eagerness to doubt the results? Misogyny, violence towards women and indifference towards human suffering are common recurring themes within our species; and there have been plenty of news stories over the years about people getting beaten or raped in front of indifferent or frightened crowds.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/july99/woodstock29.htm

And why is this probie (bareboards) getting beaten up (in front of a crowd) by VS veterans? It's fair for him to find blankfist's purposely misogynist comment creepy. Isn't that the point of this kind of provocative humor in the first place? Also, he isn't censoring anything. Dag and Lucky are the only people who have the ability censor on this site. Free speech doesn't shield you from criticism, and criticism isn't censorship.

If I heard an argument from the neighbor's home, I'd just assume it was an argument and not police attention worthy. I didn't think the audio from the speaker made it clear that violence was taking place, and that's from within the room of the same speaker. From outside of the house, it would've even been less clear.

Plus there's the possibility that the neighbors didn't believe it was an actual event going on, as the voice of the male speaker was different than the known resident's.

oh good, you're the hero and the martyr.

the lady who used to get beat up by her exhusband finds your self aggrandizing comments cringe-worthy and obnoxious.

blankfists comment was not funny, but obviously satirical.
is he often an insensitive prick when he thinks he's being funny? of course.
do i suspect him of latent misogyny? yep
do i think he actually finds violence against women funny and means anyone harm? nope.

i'm the first one to verbally rip the sift a new asshole when i think it's being stupid or wrong or is looking at a topic like a bunch of immature pricks or is lacking perspective. but noone here disagrees with your world view, only your self-righteousness.

>> ^bareboards2:

I am being a dick for asking a question?
I can't help thinking that the folks who are so quick to jump on me for ASKING A QUESTION are the super sensitive, delicate ones here.
But you are right. No told me to take down my question. I have just been pommeled for asking it.
That's not censorship.
Nor was my question censorship.
So we can lay this to rest now, right?
Besides, I am quite happy. I have achieved my goal. To let the hypothetical person(s) I am worried about know that blankfist's comment wasn't funny and that someone out in cyberspace recognizes that it might be extraordinarily painful and scary to read it. That someone has their back. It would have been nicer for them if they didn't have to wade through blankfist in the first place, but hey. At least there is a counterpoint.
No censorship required. And certainly no need to beat me up for asking a question.

This behavior is quite common in at least urban society and large suburban areas. Kitty Genovese is a prime example of this effect in society. Sadly, it seems to have changed little no matter where you live.

Nice ad. I like how it avoids pointing out that the bitch didn't know when to shut the fuck up. Way to only get one side of the story, assholes.

>> ^ForgedReality:

Nice ad. I like how it avoids pointing out that the bitch didn't know when to shut the fuck up. Way to only get one side of the story, assholes.


Know we know Mel Gibson's alt!

/I know sarcasm, yada yada...

Actually..

The Kitty Genovese story is a bit over blown as an example of the 'bystander effect'.

First, it was 3 am. Most people were asleep.

Secondly, there were only 6 witnesses. Not a group of thirty watching idly

Third, at least one of the neighbors called out "leave that girl alone" which frightened Kitty's attacker away for a short time.

Lastly, at least two [if not more] of the six witnesses called police/911. Once after the first attack and another after the second.

Not to mention, Kitty's murder, Winston Moseley, was captured thanks to neighbors whom disabled moseley's car and called police after they noticed him causally stealing a television from one of the nearby apartments.

Tho i get what you're saying.
It seems like people in cities are way less caring and considerate.

Lucky.. that's not really the case! =]

>> ^kceaton1:

This behavior is quite common in at least urban society and large suburban areas. Kitty Genovese is a prime example of this effect in society. Sadly, it seems to have changed little no matter where you live.

Interesting video...and this is why we were taught as children if you're getting mugged or beat up you never scream "help! Help!" because you'll most likely be ignored. If you scream "Fire! Fire!" people will come running from all directions.

no one seems to care how drummers are discriminated against.

Nice to see our usual gang of retards derailing topics, and trying to turn things so somehow they're the victim because people aren't embracing their crass disregard for human decency vociferously enough.

That's part of the original problem though -- not only do good people do nothing when they should, there are plenty of people who want to make sure that it stays that way by ridiculing those who call attention to it, and demand it be taken seriously.

People who want the world to be even more heartless and unforgiving than it already is are always going to attack appeals to increased human empathy, even if they can't really face up to why they're doing what they're doing.

I think people are being a bit hard on @bareboards2. I disagree with him; I believe anything can be funny if you look at it from the right angle; but (s)he made a very reasonable response to blankfist's joke.

You can't really make a joke about physical abuse and not expect to offend people.

>> ^ForgedReality:

Nice ad. I like how it avoids pointing out that the bitch didn't know when to shut the fuck up. Way to only get one side of the story, assholes.


Wow, you're a little late to be trying to cash in on that one, don't ya think?

>> ^blankfist:
So spousal abuse is the one thing on the internet not okay to jab at? Lesson learned. I apologize. I will remove that from my list of things that are funny and replace it with retard sodomy and skull fucking the Christ child.


But there is one question out of this that I am curious? What IS inappropriate to most people? Facebook comments laughing at someone's dead daughter? Live videos of stoning in places like Iraq and Iran? Child pornography? Where does the laughter cease?

I guess, to strict religous libers, none of these offend, but then I am a moderate liber...

>> ^NetRunner:
Nice to see our usual gang of retards derailing topics, and trying to turn things so somehow they're the victim because people aren't embracing their crass disregard for human decency vociferously enough.
That's part of the original problem though -- not only do good people do nothing when they should, there are plenty of people who want to make sure that it stays that way by ridiculing those who call attention to it, and demand it be taken seriously.
People who want the world to be even more heartless and unforgiving than it already is are always going to attack appeals to increased human empathy, even if they can't really face up to why they're doing what they're doing.


Mostly, the more around the less that gets done. It is a physchological effect of human nature, not a evil of process... But unlike most base people, I would do something, only because life has crafted me in such a manner.

But the point is moot. Take 9/11--in a way. Passangers, together, could have easily overwhelemed the attackers. But no one tried, from my knowlege... Only when the PA flight knew they were doomed--but that is besides the point. It is a me-first mentality when others are around. Kitty Grovese would still be alive if I had been around--why? Not because I am a hero. No, because I would have shot the bastard. Or, died trying. Either way, my wife would have demanded I ignore it--as though I could.

Sadly, I say a me-first mentality, because you can observe this behavior anywhere. School? No one raises a hand, until someone else does. If humans are good at one thing, its that we are great sheep...

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
Actually..
The Kitty Genovese story is a bit over blown as an example of the 'bystander effect'.
First, it was 3 am. Most people were asleep.
Secondly, there were only 6 witnesses. Not a group of thirty watching idly
Third, at least one of the neighbors called out "leave that girl alone" which frightened Kitty's attacker away for a short time.
Lastly, at least two [if not more] of the six witnesses called police/911. Once after the first attack and another after the second.
Not to mention, Kitty's murder, Winston Moseley, was captured thanks to neighbors whom disabled moseley's car and called police after they noticed him causally stealing a television from one of the nearby apartments.
Tho i get what you're saying.
It seems like people in cities are way less caring and considerate.
Lucky.. that's not really the case! =]
>> ^kceaton1:
This behavior is quite common in at least urban society and large suburban areas. Kitty Genovese is a prime example of this effect in society. Sadly, it seems to have changed little no matter where you live.

>> ^Xax:

>> ^ForgedReality:
Nice ad. I like how it avoids pointing out that the bitch didn't know when to shut the fuck up. Way to only get one side of the story, assholes.

Wow, you're a little late to be trying to cash in on that one, don't ya think?


Cash in? I was being serious?

Then why did no one come by to his house again to stop the noise? Or call the police at least for the noise when not for a potential fight? Think stuff through before you post.

>> ^budzos:

While I support the message, I think this video is horse shit. His neighbours probably thought "this loud-ass fuckwit is playing tape of domestic squabbles now".

>> ^DerHasisttot:

Then why did no one come by to his house again to stop the noise? Or call the police at least for the noise when not for a potential fight? Think stuff through before you post.
>> ^budzos:
While I support the message, I think this video is horse shit. His neighbours probably thought "this loud-ass fuckwit is playing tape of domestic squabbles now".



Maybe because the video is horseshite?

is this conversation still happening?

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

It is a physchological effect of human nature, not a evil of process... But unlike most base people, I would do something, only because life has crafted me in such a manner.


I'd point out that "human nature" and "evil process" are by no means mutually exclusive.

It's human nature to behave this way. That doesn't resolve the ethical problems with behaving this way.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
It is a physchological effect of human nature, not a evil of process... But unlike most base people, I would do something, only because life has crafted me in such a manner.

I'd point out that "human nature" and "evil process" are by no means mutually exclusive.
It's human nature to behave this way. That doesn't resolve the ethical problems with behaving this way.


Just like killing animals to eat meat in an era that we do not have to eat flesh to sustain ourselves? Chopping up, after housing beasts of burden in brutal conditions, is probably sick... And evil...

Or college girls who are hurtful, psychologically damaging so, to guys. Those that burn men off to decency.

Or people with genetic disabilities breeding for that matter---how dare they pass on their genes not only to their children, but to future generations. That takes a sick person.

we could go on and on---but without wrongs, there would be no rights. Without villians, no heroes. Without death, no life.

@Lawdeedaw, unless I'm missing something, it sounds like you're in agreement then, at least partially.

In particular, you describe necessary evil (eating other living beings to continue to live ourselves), and tensions between the rights of individuals to be free to act as they choose, vs. the rights of other individuals to not be harmed by others.

Which is to say, moral philosophy ain't easy, and it's certainly not as simple as "it's human nature, so it's okay".

It's also definitely not okay to consistently try to blame victims for their hardships, even when masked with humor...those people come pretty close to being villains, even though I'm sure such people occasionally help old ladies across the street rather than axe murder them for laughs.

lol keep fucking that chicken @blankfist.>> ^blankfist:

Whatever my jokes are fucking hilarious. To me. Sniff.

The neighbors still knew she deserved it.

You're just like your mother... can't take a punch!

Rape is only funny if they live to cry about it years later.
>> ^blankfist:

Also rape. There must be material there somewhere to prime.

I'm starting to reassess my thought that you guys might not axe murder old ladies for laughs.

It's not easy to be funny, and when you're not, topics like rape can sound a bit offensive. Just sayin'.

I was raping this woman, and she cried, "Please! Think of my children!"

Kinky bitch.

@EDD... you're all class.

@eric3579 When you're not funny, just about anything sounds offensive. Just ask Michael Richards.

@NetRunner she was coming right for me! The axe was just handy at the time. And afterwards, I remembered this joke that, uhm, Kyle told me earlier. Completely unrelated.

>> ^NetRunner:

I'm starting to reassess my thought that you guys might not axe murder old ladies for laughs.


That's disgusting. I'd shoot them in the tit and rape the wound instead.

Too far?

That's horse shit. A thing is not good because something else is bad, it's good in itself. There are heroes without villains and villains without heroes.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
but without wrongs, there would be no rights. Without villians, no heroes. Without death, no life.

Well said, Gwiz.>> ^gwiz665:
That's horse shit. A thing is not good because something else is bad, it's good in itself. There are heroes without villains and villains without heroes.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
but without wrongs, there would be no rights. Without villians, no heroes. Without death, no life.

There can't be hero's without villan's. When A is created, !A is necessarily created. However, !A derives its creation from A. !A cannot exist without A. There is no such thing as evil, there is only good, and that which is not good (which we call evil). Good = !(evil) Evil = !(good)...in all cases good must exist first, it is semantically and logically necessary.

</end unnecessary and most likely uninteresting conversation topic>

(edit: and more specifically, I think what most people refer to as evil is actually good^-1, or the multiplicative inverse of good)

>> ^gwiz665:
Rape is only funny if they live to cry about it years later.
>> ^blankfist:
Also rape. There must be material there somewhere to prime.



That's horse shit Gwiz! Rape is never funny! In any circumstance... And here you are saying rape is funny!

Can I get a well said Law? Lol...

Alright alright, it's not funny... it's hilarious.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^gwiz665:
Rape is only funny if they live to cry about it years later.
>> ^blankfist:
Also rape. There must be material there somewhere to prime.


That's horse shit Gwiz! Rape is never funny! In any circumstance... And here you are saying rape is funny!
Can I get a well said Law? Lol...

If you really want to get technical about it, there are no absolutely good or evil actions, there are only evaluations depending on any given point of view. We can to a certain degree say that some viewpoints are less valid than others, based on for instance "the good of mankind", which is what Sam Harris seems to be working towards in the Moral Landscape.

When you make your moral landscape, you map out actions on a scale of more than just good/evil, you essentially make a cost-benefit analysis of an action, and evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of that action. "How will this benefit [me,my children ...]" or using the golden rule to evaluate others' actions.

To see it as black and white, hero vs. villain, is wrong in my opinion. Hero != !Villain. There are more positions than the extremes.

Things can be partially good and evil too. "Sacrifice 10 people to save 1000" for instance, that's hard to evaluate. Strictly looking at it as a "greater good" then it's obviously good, but when you add a value of the individual's choice then it is evil to force 10 people to die, no matter what the result is.

"There is only good" is a very Christian way of thinking - "darkness is the absence of light" kinda thinking, I don't agree with that. It can certainly work the other way too - lack of evil makes your deeds good (or maybe rather neutral, really).

I postulate that there are only actions and evaluations of them based on given values. These values are not absolute, but we as a society hones in on a direction with some outliers, and make our laws, ethics etc. on this.

It's essentially how we can have difference of opinion.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

There can't be hero's without villan's. When A is created, !A is necessarily created. However, !A derives its creation from A. !A cannot exist without A. There is no such thing as evil, there is only good, and that which is not good (which we call evil). Good = !(evil) Evil = !(good)...in all cases good must exist first, it is semantically and logically necessary.
</end unnecessary and most likely uninteresting conversation topic>
(edit: and more specifically, I think what most people refer to as evil is actually good^-1, or the multiplicative inverse of good)

Well put, that is why I say no good without evil.
A world without varying colors would leave us all blind. That is technical. If we say good somethings exist in and of themselves, then we say goodness is absolute by itself.

>> ^gwiz665:
If you really want to get technical about it, there are no absolutely good or evil actions, there are only evaluations depending on any given point of view. We can to a certain degree say that some viewpoints are less valid than others, based on for instance "the good of mankind", which is what Sam Harris seems to be working towards in the Moral Landscape.
When you make your moral landscape, you map out actions on a scale of more than just good/evil, you essentially make a cost-benefit analysis of an action, and evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of that action. "How will this benefit [me,my children ...]" or using the golden rule to evaluate others' actions.
To see it as black and white, hero vs. villain, is wrong in my opinion. Hero != !Villain. There are more positions than the extremes.
Things can be partially good and evil too. "Sacrifice 10 people to save 1000" for instance, that's hard to evaluate. Strictly looking at it as a "greater good" then it's obviously good, but when you add a value of the individual's choice then it is evil to force 10 people to die, no matter what the result is.
"There is only good" is a very Christian way of thinking - "darkness is the absence of light" kinda thinking, I don't agree with that. It can certainly work the other way too - lack of evil makes your deeds good (or maybe rather neutral, really).
I postulate that there are only actions and evaluations of them based on given values. These values are not absolute, but we as a society hones in on a direction with some outliers, and make our laws, ethics etc. on this.
It's essentially how we can have difference of opinion.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
There can't be hero's without villan's. When A is created, !A is necessarily created. However, !A derives its creation from A. !A cannot exist without A. There is no such thing as evil, there is only good, and that which is not good (which we call evil). Good = !(evil) Evil = !(good)...in all cases good must exist first, it is semantically and logically necessary.
</end unnecessary and most likely uninteresting conversation topic>
(edit: and more specifically, I think what most people refer to as evil is actually good^-1, or the multiplicative inverse of good)

"Good" does not exist outside of the evaluating system. In itself, an action is neither good nor evil. When people say they take an "objective point of view", it's really not, it's based on some values, otherwise you cannot evaluate anything.

The "scale" is really a multi-dimensional placement on a coordinate system, which we conflate into a simple statement "it is good", "it is bad", "it is neutral" etc.

Good actions and people can exist without evil ones, and the other way around. Of course we cannot have the concept of good without some concept of evil, since it is a derived value based on many other values. Boiling it down, so to speak.

@GeeSussFreeK is wrong when he said that heroes cannot exist without villains, because there is a difference between an actual villain and the concept of a villain. A hero can just be a hero, but he is only a hero based on an evaluation of his character/actions/etc. A nazi warhero would probably not be seen as a hero by the allies, for instance.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Well put, that is why I say no good without evil.
A world without varying colors would leave us all blind. That is technical. If we say good somethings exist in and of themselves, then we say goodness is absolute by itself.

@gwiz665 thanks for taking on that rant about "without wrongs, there would be no rights...". I just didn't feel up to starting in on that one at the time.