Quote from ClansAreForGays
And how does a negative and a positive making a negative show that the positives always overcome the negative?
Well, I think what he means is this:
- If you start with 50% negative (n) and 50% positive (p) and start mixing everything up randomly, then
- p*p=
p, n*n=
p and n*p=
n, hence
- 66% of the time the outcome is postive, which means that life actually is like a movie and the good guys will indeed win in the end!
However, this is mathematical crap, because:
- p*p=
p, n*n=
p, n*p=
n and p*n=n, ergo
- stastically seen you will still have the 50-50 distribution, so
- life is like a half full bottle! Or half empty... that's up to you I guess
Anyhow, again I have to say that using something like maths to come up with meaningful statements about life is just... lame. Look at life to say stuff about life and look at maths to say something about maths, they do not mix well.
Darkness isn't the opposite of light, just the absence of it. The people who are afraid of the dark simply have neglected to acknowledge the fact that they have senses other than sight. Similarly, there is no absolute good or evil, just actions and consequences, tinted shaded by intent and competence.
Hehe, I was about to start about the nonexistence of darkness/shadows.
With "no absolute good or evil" I assume you mean that there is no universal
standard for good and evil? Because I also assume you think bad about those who harm you and think good of those who do the contrary?
While I find it quite hard to defend it, I do believe that there is an universal standard for good and evil. I do not think it is a coincidence that the majority of history's largest and most influencal religions share a lot of moral codes. Where there
is sometimes a huge difference is in the way people
act by those moral codes. A muslim could, for example, show he cares for his wife by protecting her from strangers. To an 20 year old atheist from Europe that may look like keeping her locked up. But then again to the muslim the atheist would look like a stupid fool to let his girlfriend/wife hang out with men who just want to have sex with her. (note that I do not want to insult or judge any of the two
examples)
Both act out of love but the first shows it by protecting the subject of his love while the latter gives freedom to almost no end.
I think that pretty much everyone will agree with the part of taking care for your partner, right?
On the other hand, five different people will have five different opinions about
how to take care of your partner.
None.