Arguing With Evil

Started by ·, January 16, 2023, 01:16:39 AM

Previous topic - Next topic


The topic is the futility of arguing with the malicious. Should one wish to discuss the examples in depth beyond the theological reasons they are wrong, do it on another thread for the specific topic. Any post on this thread defending an error is an example of the malice. Gravity of any actual sin depends on individual interior states and circumstances.

Evil people (with malice, not ignorance) justify their free choice to do evil in many ways, and one of them is to demand an argument to prove their ways wrong, and then reject every argument no matter how sound it is. That is the problem with evil: it is against God, has no Charity, no Wisdom, and has no Truth. Arguing with such malice is futile, but correcting their errors so others may know that they are wrong is good.

Here are two examples of real such evil propositions proposed on this forum, with links to their context:

The proposed propositions are sinful and to promote them scandalous, yet, the burden is put on the Christian to defend the truth they already rejected.


The Bible is full of admonishments to be modest and avoid modest people, for example: Gaze not upon a maiden, lest her beauty be a stumblingblock to thee. (Ecclesiasticus 9:5) Even if one only took a literal interpretation, one can see two principles here: one that people can see by looking at others, and that there is a moral matter of how one chooses to present oneself regardless of whether others sin or not as a result. In our age of extreme luxury, the idea of voluntary public nudity is an option. In ancient times, it would have been seen as extreme poverty and the lowest social status, and most positive statements are made concerning the types of adornment rather than just the lack of it. Very few immodest people would have willingly sought to appear as destitute as possible, so complete public nudity as a choice of the deliberately immodest is rarely specified.

Individual evil acts cannot be enumerated for men are bad in countless ways, but good in only one.. (Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, Book II, vi)

There are extensive works on the Virtue of Modesty and the Vice of Lust. For Modesty, it is part of the Cardinal Virtue Temperance. (ST II-II Q 160 A 1) And concerning outward apparel, there are vices by excess or defect. (ST II-II Q 169 A 1) And there is no citation or argument, including every part of the Bible that was ignored by the one promoting evil, that would change their minds, for their minds were made by will, not by evidence or argument.

Charity & Justice

Likewise, the idea that one can hate one's neighbour based on the ethnicity is against Charity, the noblest virtue and all other virtues are vain with Charity. (ST II-II Q 23 A 6, Ibid., A 7) Charity is a supernatural virtue, infused into our soul by God, by which we love God above all for His own sake, and our neighbour as ourselves for the love of God. (Catechism of Pius X, On Charity, Q 42)

As with most issues of Charity, many other moral issues can be identified, and disrespecting people because of ethnicity, as proposed, would be the sin of Respect of Persons as well, and that is against Justice. Honour and respect are due to people according to their virtue, not vanities or person. People can be honoured for the sake of other people's virtues as well. (ST II-II Q 63 A 1, Ibid., A 3)

So the only lawful opinion one can have about ethnicity are either statements of fact (genetic markers, physical traits, history, etc), or vain opinions, often linked to Lust and which one should avoid entertaining. Charity and Justice would forbid any collective judgement of any kind on the persons because of their ethnicity.

Furthermore, disordered love for the world and self is associated with the motivation for that idea and the holders of it demonstrate this clearly arbitrary distinctions and preferences for who they love (themselves). Individual ethnic groups were disparaged harshly in the course of listing them, and their faith if expected was dismissed as insufficient for valuing them as oneself. Even though, even those without any Faith are to be loved through Charity.

The issues of Charity and Justice are sufficient to condemn the error. The arbitrary distinctions and clearly inconsistent and self-serving application of the so-called principles could also be addressed, but this would be a lesser argument against it.

But as before, no matter the excellence of the presentation of Sacred Doctrine and the use of reason, it will not change those who have chosen to be against them. And the futility of argument is easy to accept when one realizes that it would be endless: there are endless ways to be against truth and one could only present what is true. Again, failure is possible in many ways...but success in only one. The is why the one is easy and the other is difficult; it is easy to miss the target and difficult to hit it. Here, then, is another reason why excess and deficiency fall under evil, and the mean state under good; "For men are bad in countless ways, but good in only one.". (Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, Book II, vi)

The Gravity

Remembering the worst sins, one would do well to consider the sins that cry out to God for vengeance include oppression of the poor, which is frequently linked to particular ethnic groups seen as immigrants, and the gravest sins against the Holy Ghost, which are incurable, of obstinately remaining in sin and opposing the known truth. It could very well be an Unforgivable Sin to hate people because of their ethnicity. They may even believe that God is on their side, the side of evil, which is Blasphemous and yet another moral fault.

Evil Arguments

And of course, the rebuttal to this, if there is one, is to quibble over words and ignore the careful use of words defined in theology. The lack of explicit reference to public nudity would probably be stressed in the rejection. The other may dwell on the fact that the word hate was not used in the text advocating sin, therefore, all that is written is not applicable, forgetting what the word means and what the question asked really was. Such are those who are contrary to what God has revealed.

If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to that doctrine which is according to godliness, He is proud, knowing nothing, but sick about questions and strifes of words; from which arise envies, contentions, blasphemies, evil suspicions, conflicts of men corrupted in mind, and who are destitute of the truth, supposing gain to be godliness. But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world: and certainly we can carry nothing out. (1 Timothy 6:3-7)


So not only is the second proposition a sin, it is a far graver sin than the first. People may engage in lustful and immodest acts due to weakness, inordinate desire for pleasures, etc, and even nudists cover up on occasion. But those who sin against Charity with malice are in a far worse condition. To further show the futility of argument and the disconnect with reason, the comment about ethnic groups was a response to a post which ended with:

But before all things have a constant mutual charity among yourselves... (1 Peter 4:8)

A new commandment I give unto you: That you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another. (John 13:34-35)


"Racism is the unforgivable sin" - I swear, you can't make this stuff up
Seems no matter how I try
I realize there's no reply


How do you even know I was arguing out of malice? You'll probably be back sooner or later, so might as well ask
Seems no matter how I try
I realize there's no reply


Quote from: TheSaintsAreComing on March 11, 2023, 03:12:25 PMHow do you even know I was arguing out of malice?

When you disagree with him. That is the irrefutable proof of malice.


He should really follow his own advice on charity and justice
Seems no matter how I try
I realize there's no reply


If your views on any controversial topic perfectly alligns with progressive leftism, you should probably reflect closely on why you hold your views
Seems no matter how I try
I realize there's no reply