Sith Realism

[Lucky~9~Lives]

Xiam

Lucky~9~Lives

Xiam

I'm pretty sure common decency is not a disorder. xp

Neutral Good is extreme decency.

How do you figure?

As opposed to common decency; it's noted for its decency. Neutral Evil is extreme indecency, by extension.
- ninja

[Chieftain Twilight]

Xiam

Chieftain Twilight

Xiam

Chieftain Twilight

Xiam

Neutral Good. Some tests I've done have aligned me as True Neutral, but I tend to prefer to see myself as the type who at least has some moral groundings. Even if I'm not sure what they all are.

I follow the law where it makes sense, at least. I mean, I'm not gonna kill anybody, or rape anybody, or do any drugs. Hell, I don't even like alcohol, and caffeine is ineffective. I'm only addicted to sugar. And love.

But some laws just seem like bullshit to protect the interests of selfish assholes.

my girlfriend is also Neutral Good. xd I consider people of good alignment to be both delusional and suffering from a disorder called "altruism."

I'm pretty sure common decency is not a disorder. xp

no, it isn't. but it's also not "morally right". nothing is. I think it's simply practical.

Well, it's natural, too. We evolved as social beings, and so our genes make it so that we sort of lean towards "not ******** s**t up in the group."

I agree. I believe that because of how important it is to live as social creatures we have developed "moral guidelines" directly into our genetic behavior. their is a need for both selfish and altruistic genes in our species in order for us to both survive AND thrive.

[Fermionic]

Lucky~9~Lives

Xiam

Lucky~9~Lives

Xiam

I'm pretty sure common decency is not a disorder. xp

Neutral Good is extreme decency.

How do you figure?

As opposed to common decency; it's noted for its decency. Neutral Evil is extreme indecency, by extension.
- ninja

Added to which, it is a prime example of wholesome social conduct.

[Chieftain Twilight]

Lucky~9~Lives

Xiam

Lucky~9~Lives

Xiam

I'm pretty sure common decency is not a disorder. xp

Neutral Good is extreme decency.

How do you figure?

As opposed to common decency; it's noted for its decency. Neutral Evil is extreme indecency, by extension.
- ninja

Neutral Evil means doing whatever it takes for just a little more power; even if it means murdering my parents so that I can have an undead squirrel familiar.

[Aporeia]

Chieftain Twilight

Lucky~9~Lives

Xiam

Lucky~9~Lives

Xiam

I'm pretty sure common decency is not a disorder. xp

Neutral Good is extreme decency.

How do you figure?

As opposed to common decency; it's noted for its decency. Neutral Evil is extreme indecency, by extension.
- ninja

Neutral Evil means doing whatever it takes for just a little more power; even if it means murdering my parents so that I can have an undead squirrel familiar.

Not necessarily. There's a difference between direct evil and sadism. Neutral evil is the spot on the board where the individual is evil, and selfish, but pragmatic. The individual is not concerned with adhering to any moral or societal code, but will do so if it helps them achieve what they are after. To the neutral evil, establishments like the police are not enemies, they are the environment which must be respected for their power. Avoid them when able, manipulate them when not.

What you are describing is chaotic evil, which is impulsive destruction with wanton disregard.

[Chieftain Twilight]

False Dichotomy

Chieftain Twilight

Lucky~9~Lives

Xiam

Lucky~9~Lives

Xiam

I'm pretty sure common decency is not a disorder. xp

Neutral Good is extreme decency.

How do you figure?

As opposed to common decency; it's noted for its decency. Neutral Evil is extreme indecency, by extension.
- ninja

Neutral Evil means doing whatever it takes for just a little more power; even if it means murdering my parents so that I can have an undead squirrel familiar.

Not necessarily. There's a difference between direct evil and sadism. Neutral evil is the spot on the board where the individual is evil, and selfish, but pragmatic. The individual is not concerned with adhering to any moral or societal code, but will do so if it helps them achieve what they are after. To the neutral evil, establishments like the police are not enemies, they are the environment which must be respected for their power. Avoid them when able, manipulate them when not.

What you are describing is chaotic evil, which is impulsive destruction with wanton disregard.

it was actually a joke; I quoted a demotivational poster I liked for the humour. I have actually had "villains" who were Neutral Evil but not necessarily wanton killers. they simple were selfish and willing to trample on others to advance themselves.

now, to a degree I agree with you that the described alignment for the post I made above is Chaotic Evil, I don't think that's entirely true or definite. after all, a Neutral Evil very well could make that decision if he felt that it was worthe it. a Chaotic Evil is someone who blatantly doesn't give a ******** about anyone else and wants to do whatever they want whenever they want however they want. they are prone to acts of savage and brutal anarchy for the sake of tearing down an established status quo, without regards to the strife they cause for others.

[Aporeia]

Chieftain Twilight

False Dichotomy

Chieftain Twilight

Lucky~9~Lives

Xiam

How do you figure?

As opposed to common decency; it's noted for its decency. Neutral Evil is extreme indecency, by extension.
- ninja

Neutral Evil means doing whatever it takes for just a little more power; even if it means murdering my parents so that I can have an undead squirrel familiar.

Not necessarily. There's a difference between direct evil and sadism. Neutral evil is the spot on the board where the individual is evil, and selfish, but pragmatic. The individual is not concerned with adhering to any moral or societal code, but will do so if it helps them achieve what they are after. To the neutral evil, establishments like the police are not enemies, they are the environment which must be respected for their power. Avoid them when able, manipulate them when not.

What you are describing is chaotic evil, which is impulsive destruction with wanton disregard.

it was actually a joke; I quoted a demotivational poster I liked for the humour. I have actually had "villains" who were Neutral Evil but not necessarily wanton killers. they simple were selfish and willing to trample on others to advance themselves.

now, to a degree I agree with you that the described alignment for the post I made above is Chaotic Evil, I don't think that's entirely true or definite. after all, a Neutral Evil very well could make that decision if he felt that it was worthe it. a Chaotic Evil is someone who blatantly doesn't give a ******** about anyone else and wants to do whatever they want whenever they want however they want. they are prone to acts of savage and brutal anarchy for the sake of tearing down an established status quo, without regards to the strife they cause for others.

Not necessarily. Chaotic is mostly a nature to disobey establishment, and favor inner guidance.

Anikan was a good example of chaotic evil. His evil tendencies arose because he had such strong emotional ties to people, his mother and padome, namely. It wasn't at all that he didn't care what others thought of him, it was that he took the reigns himself, and led his own path. At least, in his eyes that's what he was doing.

Malevolence isn't necessary in any of the evil descriptors. It's certainly an instant qualification, but the primary traits are self-centered, uncontrollable ill will toward others. The decent into evil is much softer than "I don't care about anyone but me."

[Chieftain Twilight]

False Dichotomy

Chieftain Twilight

False Dichotomy

Chieftain Twilight

Lucky~9~Lives

Xiam

How do you figure?

As opposed to common decency; it's noted for its decency. Neutral Evil is extreme indecency, by extension.
- ninja

Neutral Evil means doing whatever it takes for just a little more power; even if it means murdering my parents so that I can have an undead squirrel familiar.

Not necessarily. There's a difference between direct evil and sadism. Neutral evil is the spot on the board where the individual is evil, and selfish, but pragmatic. The individual is not concerned with adhering to any moral or societal code, but will do so if it helps them achieve what they are after. To the neutral evil, establishments like the police are not enemies, they are the environment which must be respected for their power. Avoid them when able, manipulate them when not.

What you are describing is chaotic evil, which is impulsive destruction with wanton disregard.

it was actually a joke; I quoted a demotivational poster I liked for the humour. I have actually had "villains" who were Neutral Evil but not necessarily wanton killers. they simple were selfish and willing to trample on others to advance themselves.

now, to a degree I agree with you that the described alignment for the post I made above is Chaotic Evil, I don't think that's entirely true or definite. after all, a Neutral Evil very well could make that decision if he felt that it was worthe it. a Chaotic Evil is someone who blatantly doesn't give a ******** about anyone else and wants to do whatever they want whenever they want however they want. they are prone to acts of savage and brutal anarchy for the sake of tearing down an established status quo, without regards to the strife they cause for others.

Not necessarily. Chaotic is mostly a nature to disobey establishment, and favor inner guidance.

Anikan was a good example of chaotic evil. His evil tendencies arose because he had such strong emotional ties to people, his mother and padome, namely. It wasn't at all that he didn't care what others thought of him, it was that he took the reigns himself, and led his own path. At least, in his eyes that's what he was doing.

Malevolence isn't necessary in any of the evil descriptors. It's certainly an instant qualification, but the primary traits are self-centered, uncontrollable ill will toward others. The decent into evil is much softer than "I don't care about anyone but me."

I have to disagree. I think Darth Vader is an example of Lawful Evil; he clearly believed in the nessecity of established order and rules, and that he was doing the entire galaxy a favor by helping palpatine to dominate it. he believed that his place was right beneath the ultimate ruler, with everyone else below him. he believed that if everyone had a place and knew what that place was, that everything worked like clockwork, than the galaxy was a better place.

that is Lawful Evil by definition.

Chaotic Evil means self-freedom above all else. it means self-gratification before anything else. it means violence and anarchy for the sake of it, or for teh fun of it, or just cause.

[Aporeia]

Chieftain Twilight

False Dichotomy

Chieftain Twilight

False Dichotomy

Chieftain Twilight

Neutral Evil means doing whatever it takes for just a little more power; even if it means murdering my parents so that I can have an undead squirrel familiar.

Not necessarily. There's a difference between direct evil and sadism. Neutral evil is the spot on the board where the individual is evil, and selfish, but pragmatic. The individual is not concerned with adhering to any moral or societal code, but will do so if it helps them achieve what they are after. To the neutral evil, establishments like the police are not enemies, they are the environment which must be respected for their power. Avoid them when able, manipulate them when not.

What you are describing is chaotic evil, which is impulsive destruction with wanton disregard.

it was actually a joke; I quoted a demotivational poster I liked for the humour. I have actually had "villains" who were Neutral Evil but not necessarily wanton killers. they simple were selfish and willing to trample on others to advance themselves.

now, to a degree I agree with you that the described alignment for the post I made above is Chaotic Evil, I don't think that's entirely true or definite. after all, a Neutral Evil very well could make that decision if he felt that it was worthe it. a Chaotic Evil is someone who blatantly doesn't give a ******** about anyone else and wants to do whatever they want whenever they want however they want. they are prone to acts of savage and brutal anarchy for the sake of tearing down an established status quo, without regards to the strife they cause for others.

Not necessarily. Chaotic is mostly a nature to disobey establishment, and favor inner guidance.

Anikan was a good example of chaotic evil. His evil tendencies arose because he had such strong emotional ties to people, his mother and padome, namely. It wasn't at all that he didn't care what others thought of him, it was that he took the reigns himself, and led his own path. At least, in his eyes that's what he was doing.

Malevolence isn't necessary in any of the evil descriptors. It's certainly an instant qualification, but the primary traits are self-centered, uncontrollable ill will toward others. The decent into evil is much softer than "I don't care about anyone but me."

I have to disagree. I think Darth Vader is an example of Lawful Evil; he clearly believed in the nessecity of established order and rules, and that he was doing the entire galaxy a favor by helping palpatine to dominate it. he believed that his place was right beneath the ultimate ruler, with everyone else below him. he believed that if everyone had a place and knew what that place was, that everything worked like clockwork, than the galaxy was a better place.

that is Lawful Evil by definition.

Chaotic Evil means self-freedom above all else. it means self-gratification before anything else. it means violence and anarchy for the sake of it, or for teh fun of it, or just cause.

Evil is a description of actions, not really motives. And yes, Vader eventually became lawful evil, but that was after he became a sith, not right when he went all dark-jedi.

[Chieftain Twilight]

False Dichotomy

Chieftain Twilight

False Dichotomy

Chieftain Twilight

False Dichotomy

Chieftain Twilight

Neutral Evil means doing whatever it takes for just a little more power; even if it means murdering my parents so that I can have an undead squirrel familiar.

Not necessarily. There's a difference between direct evil and sadism. Neutral evil is the spot on the board where the individual is evil, and selfish, but pragmatic. The individual is not concerned with adhering to any moral or societal code, but will do so if it helps them achieve what they are after. To the neutral evil, establishments like the police are not enemies, they are the environment which must be respected for their power. Avoid them when able, manipulate them when not.

What you are describing is chaotic evil, which is impulsive destruction with wanton disregard.

it was actually a joke; I quoted a demotivational poster I liked for the humour. I have actually had "villains" who were Neutral Evil but not necessarily wanton killers. they simple were selfish and willing to trample on others to advance themselves.

now, to a degree I agree with you that the described alignment for the post I made above is Chaotic Evil, I don't think that's entirely true or definite. after all, a Neutral Evil very well could make that decision if he felt that it was worthe it. a Chaotic Evil is someone who blatantly doesn't give a ******** about anyone else and wants to do whatever they want whenever they want however they want. they are prone to acts of savage and brutal anarchy for the sake of tearing down an established status quo, without regards to the strife they cause for others.

Not necessarily. Chaotic is mostly a nature to disobey establishment, and favor inner guidance.

Anikan was a good example of chaotic evil. His evil tendencies arose because he had such strong emotional ties to people, his mother and padome, namely. It wasn't at all that he didn't care what others thought of him, it was that he took the reigns himself, and led his own path. At least, in his eyes that's what he was doing.

Malevolence isn't necessary in any of the evil descriptors. It's certainly an instant qualification, but the primary traits are self-centered, uncontrollable ill will toward others. The decent into evil is much softer than "I don't care about anyone but me."

I have to disagree. I think Darth Vader is an example of Lawful Evil; he clearly believed in the nessecity of established order and rules, and that he was doing the entire galaxy a favor by helping palpatine to dominate it. he believed that his place was right beneath the ultimate ruler, with everyone else below him. he believed that if everyone had a place and knew what that place was, that everything worked like clockwork, than the galaxy was a better place.

that is Lawful Evil by definition.

Chaotic Evil means self-freedom above all else. it means self-gratification before anything else. it means violence and anarchy for the sake of it, or for teh fun of it, or just cause.

Evil is a description of actions, not really motives. And yes, Vader eventually became lawful evil, but that was after he became a sith, not right when he went all dark-jedi.

I don't think so. morality isn't all action-based. it is a mixture of actions and intent. it has to be, if we are using an alignment system. actions don't trump intentions.

[Aporeia]

Chieftain Twilight

False Dichotomy

Chieftain Twilight

False Dichotomy

Chieftain Twilight

it was actually a joke; I quoted a demotivational poster I liked for the humour. I have actually had "villains" who were Neutral Evil but not necessarily wanton killers. they simple were selfish and willing to trample on others to advance themselves.

now, to a degree I agree with you that the described alignment for the post I made above is Chaotic Evil, I don't think that's entirely true or definite. after all, a Neutral Evil very well could make that decision if he felt that it was worthe it. a Chaotic Evil is someone who blatantly doesn't give a ******** about anyone else and wants to do whatever they want whenever they want however they want. they are prone to acts of savage and brutal anarchy for the sake of tearing down an established status quo, without regards to the strife they cause for others.

Not necessarily. Chaotic is mostly a nature to disobey establishment, and favor inner guidance.

Anikan was a good example of chaotic evil. His evil tendencies arose because he had such strong emotional ties to people, his mother and padome, namely. It wasn't at all that he didn't care what others thought of him, it was that he took the reigns himself, and led his own path. At least, in his eyes that's what he was doing.

Malevolence isn't necessary in any of the evil descriptors. It's certainly an instant qualification, but the primary traits are self-centered, uncontrollable ill will toward others. The decent into evil is much softer than "I don't care about anyone but me."

I have to disagree. I think Darth Vader is an example of Lawful Evil; he clearly believed in the nessecity of established order and rules, and that he was doing the entire galaxy a favor by helping palpatine to dominate it. he believed that his place was right beneath the ultimate ruler, with everyone else below him. he believed that if everyone had a place and knew what that place was, that everything worked like clockwork, than the galaxy was a better place.

that is Lawful Evil by definition.

Chaotic Evil means self-freedom above all else. it means self-gratification before anything else. it means violence and anarchy for the sake of it, or for teh fun of it, or just cause.

Evil is a description of actions, not really motives. And yes, Vader eventually became lawful evil, but that was after he became a sith, not right when he went all dark-jedi.

I don't think so. morality isn't all action-based. it is a mixture of actions and intent. it has to be, if we are using an alignment system. actions don't trump intentions.

Actions always trump intent. Let's say you find a way to resurrect the dead, but it requires you to sacrifice 100 people. Resurrecting your lost lover would be considered good, but the price is evil. No matter what, the ends do not justify the means. Evil is through evil actions, just as good is through good actions. All intent, and no actions would make you very neutral.

[Chieftain Twilight]

False Dichotomy

Chieftain Twilight

False Dichotomy

Chieftain Twilight

False Dichotomy

Chieftain Twilight

it was actually a joke; I quoted a demotivational poster I liked for the humour. I have actually had "villains" who were Neutral Evil but not necessarily wanton killers. they simple were selfish and willing to trample on others to advance themselves.

now, to a degree I agree with you that the described alignment for the post I made above is Chaotic Evil, I don't think that's entirely true or definite. after all, a Neutral Evil very well could make that decision if he felt that it was worthe it. a Chaotic Evil is someone who blatantly doesn't give a ******** about anyone else and wants to do whatever they want whenever they want however they want. they are prone to acts of savage and brutal anarchy for the sake of tearing down an established status quo, without regards to the strife they cause for others.

Not necessarily. Chaotic is mostly a nature to disobey establishment, and favor inner guidance.

Anikan was a good example of chaotic evil. His evil tendencies arose because he had such strong emotional ties to people, his mother and padome, namely. It wasn't at all that he didn't care what others thought of him, it was that he took the reigns himself, and led his own path. At least, in his eyes that's what he was doing.

Malevolence isn't necessary in any of the evil descriptors. It's certainly an instant qualification, but the primary traits are self-centered, uncontrollable ill will toward others. The decent into evil is much softer than "I don't care about anyone but me."

I have to disagree. I think Darth Vader is an example of Lawful Evil; he clearly believed in the nessecity of established order and rules, and that he was doing the entire galaxy a favor by helping palpatine to dominate it. he believed that his place was right beneath the ultimate ruler, with everyone else below him. he believed that if everyone had a place and knew what that place was, that everything worked like clockwork, than the galaxy was a better place.

that is Lawful Evil by definition.

Chaotic Evil means self-freedom above all else. it means self-gratification before anything else. it means violence and anarchy for the sake of it, or for teh fun of it, or just cause.

Evil is a description of actions, not really motives. And yes, Vader eventually became lawful evil, but that was after he became a sith, not right when he went all dark-jedi.

I don't think so. morality isn't all action-based. it is a mixture of actions and intent. it has to be, if we are using an alignment system. actions don't trump intentions.

Actions always trump intent. Let's say you find a way to resurrect the dead, but it requires you to sacrifice 100 people. Resurrecting your lost lover would be considered good, but the price is evil. No matter what, the ends do not justify the means. Evil is through evil actions, just as good is through good actions. All intent, and no actions would make you very neutral.

actually, there ARE behaviors which would be blatantly and specifically neutral. furthermore, I still say that any alignment-shift that an action or behavior causes is the end result of totally the action and intent.

this may be a philosophical debate we will never agree on, but from the logical standpoint that I have reasoned it, actions alone do not dictate moral values.

[Lord Alucard Ere Casanova]

Chieftain Twilight

False Dichotomy

Chieftain Twilight

False Dichotomy

Chieftain Twilight

I have to disagree. I think Darth Vader is an example of Lawful Evil; he clearly believed in the nessecity of established order and rules, and that he was doing the entire galaxy a favor by helping palpatine to dominate it. he believed that his place was right beneath the ultimate ruler, with everyone else below him. he believed that if everyone had a place and knew what that place was, that everything worked like clockwork, than the galaxy was a better place.

that is Lawful Evil by definition.

Chaotic Evil means self-freedom above all else. it means self-gratification before anything else. it means violence and anarchy for the sake of it, or for teh fun of it, or just cause.

Evil is a description of actions, not really motives. And yes, Vader eventually became lawful evil, but that was after he became a sith, not right when he went all dark-jedi.

I don't think so. morality isn't all action-based. it is a mixture of actions and intent. it has to be, if we are using an alignment system. actions don't trump intentions.

Actions always trump intent. Let's say you find a way to resurrect the dead, but it requires you to sacrifice 100 people. Resurrecting your lost lover would be considered good, but the price is evil. No matter what, the ends do not justify the means. Evil is through evil actions, just as good is through good actions. All intent, and no actions would make you very neutral.

actually, there ARE behaviors which would be blatantly and specifically neutral. furthermore, I still say that any alignment-shift that an action or behavior causes is the end result of totally the action and intent.

this may be a philosophical debate we will never agree on, but from the logical standpoint that I have reasoned it, actions alone do not dictate moral values.

If I were to judge an alignment I believe I would treat it as a mathematical equation and take many things into consideration.

Action, intention, result, reaction, emotional response to the previously listed parts, and desire. Sometimes people do make mistakes so although the intention may be good, such as bringing back a loved one from the dead, a person may be misguided or even manipulated into making mistakes. Killing 100 people for the sake of one loved one is a pretty big mistake, but the intention was to bring back the loved one.

So in that example I'll try making the mathematical equation...

Action (killed 100 people) + intention (bring back loved one) = result (100 people dead, loved one revived.)

Reaction (let's say the person realizes his mistake and begins searching for a way to bring back those 100 sacrifices) + emotional response (likely depression if the person realizes what he's done) = desire (correct mistake).

The math may be considerably more complicated with real life examples. Since this is all hypothetical I just made it up as I went along and, being tired, we can expect flaws in the equation. The point of my post is that the story continues beyond action and intention. Sometimes people, blinded by emotion, won't realize what they have done until later. See dramatic theatrical realization reaction as prime example; *falls on knees while looking upward in dismay* "WHAT HAVE I DONE!?"

[Chieftain Twilight]

Lord Kilo Von Mortenson

Chieftain Twilight

False Dichotomy

Chieftain Twilight

False Dichotomy

Chieftain Twilight

I have to disagree. I think Darth Vader is an example of Lawful Evil; he clearly believed in the nessecity of established order and rules, and that he was doing the entire galaxy a favor by helping palpatine to dominate it. he believed that his place was right beneath the ultimate ruler, with everyone else below him. he believed that if everyone had a place and knew what that place was, that everything worked like clockwork, than the galaxy was a better place.

that is Lawful Evil by definition.

Chaotic Evil means self-freedom above all else. it means self-gratification before anything else. it means violence and anarchy for the sake of it, or for teh fun of it, or just cause.

Evil is a description of actions, not really motives. And yes, Vader eventually became lawful evil, but that was after he became a sith, not right when he went all dark-jedi.

I don't think so. morality isn't all action-based. it is a mixture of actions and intent. it has to be, if we are using an alignment system. actions don't trump intentions.

Actions always trump intent. Let's say you find a way to resurrect the dead, but it requires you to sacrifice 100 people. Resurrecting your lost lover would be considered good, but the price is evil. No matter what, the ends do not justify the means. Evil is through evil actions, just as good is through good actions. All intent, and no actions would make you very neutral.

actually, there ARE behaviors which would be blatantly and specifically neutral. furthermore, I still say that any alignment-shift that an action or behavior causes is the end result of totally the action and intent.

this may be a philosophical debate we will never agree on, but from the logical standpoint that I have reasoned it, actions alone do not dictate moral values.

If I were to judge an alignment I believe I would treat it as a mathematical equation and take many things into consideration.

Action, intention, result, reaction, emotional response to the previously listed parts, and desire. Sometimes people do make mistakes so although the intention may be good, such as bringing back a loved one from the dead, a person may be misguided or even manipulated into making mistakes. Killing 100 people for the sake of one loved one is a pretty big mistake, but the intention was to bring back the loved one.

So in that example I'll try making the mathematical equation...

Action (killed 100 people) + intention (bring back loved one) = result (100 people dead, loved one revived.)

Reaction (let's say the person realizes his mistake and begins searching for a way to bring back those 100 sacrifices) + emotional response (likely depression if the person realizes what he's done) = desire (correct mistake).

The math may be considerably more complicated with real life examples. Since this is all hypothetical I just made it up as I went along and, being tired, we can expect flaws in the equation. The point of my post is that the story continues beyond action and intention. Sometimes people, blinded by emotion, won't realize what they have done until later. See dramatic theatrical realization reaction as prime example; *falls on knees while looking upward in dismay* "WHAT HAVE I DONE!?"

that is excellent, and I approve. mrgreen

however, I still think that this runs too close to making the same mistake that utilitarianism does.

[Cynoscion]

How is it that you can be set free through victory if there is no peace to be had, what victory will be gained if peace is a lie, it sounds like an unending cycle of vengeance and strife with malice being the driving force to me. That said, it seems like a cycle that doesn't lead to freedom, but rather perpetuates division and evil from a philosophical stand point. If peace is a lie and passion is how we gain strength, then there is no support for the weak and it just goes straight to dictatorship and spreads darkness.