←back to thread

46 points petethomas | 5 comments | | HN request time: 1.048s | source
Show context
HPsquared ◴[] No.44397360[source]
How can anything be good without the awareness of evil? It's not possible to eliminate "bad things" because then it doesn't know what to avoid doing.

EDIT: "Waluigi effect"

replies(6): >>44397568 #>>44397709 #>>44397777 #>>44397941 #>>44398976 #>>44401411 #
1. marviel ◴[] No.44397709[source]
I've found that people who "good due to naivety", are less reliably good than those who "know evil, and choose good anyway".
replies(1): >>44397938 #
2. sorokod ◴[] No.44397938[source]
Having an experience and being capable of making a choice is fundamental. A relevant martial arts quote:

"A pacifist is not really a pacifist if he is unable to make a choice between violence and non-violence. A true pacifist is able to kill or maim in the blink of an eye, but at the moment of impending destruction of the enemy he chooses non-violence. He chooses peace. He must be able to make a choice. He must have the genuine ability to destroy his enemy and then choose not to. I have heard this excuse made. “I choose to be a pacifist before learning techniques so I do not need to learn the power of destruction.” This shows no comprehension of the mind of the true warrior. This is just a rationalization to cover the fear of injury or hard training. The true warrior who chooses to be a pacifist is willing to stand and die for his principles. People claiming to be pacifists who rationalize to avoid hard training or injury will flee instead of standing and dying for principle. They are just cowards. Only a warrior who has tempered his spirit in conflict and who has confronted himself and his greatest fears can in my opinion make the choice to be a true pacifist."

replies(1): >>44398126 #
3. tempodox ◴[] No.44398126[source]
People who were not able to “destroy their enemy” (whether in the blink of an eye or not) have stood and died for their principles. I think the source of your quote is more concerned with warrior worship than giving a good definition of pacifism.
replies(1): >>44398253 #
4. ghugccrghbvr ◴[] No.44398253{3}[source]
THIS

And yes, I know, not HN approved content

replies(1): >>44398444 #
5. feoren ◴[] No.44398444{4}[source]
> And yes, I know, not HN approved content

Because you're holding back: "THIS" communicates that you strongly agree, but we the readers don't know why. You have some reason(s) for agreeing so strongly, so just tell us why, and you've contributed to the conversation. Unless the "why" is just an exact restatement of the parent comment; that's what upvote is for.