Prasanna Ranatunge 186,338
Duminda Silva 165,328
Thilanga Sumathipala 159,613
Udaya Gammanpila 116,644
Reginald Cooray 72,951
Duminda Silva 165,328
Thilanga Sumathipala 159,613
Udaya Gammanpila 116,644
Reginald Cooray 72,951
Latest ads
-
Colombo RidhMathraa ’26 🎶✨- Tmadhusanka
- Updated:
-
Colombo PXN V10 Pro Direct Drive Racing Wheel (Under Warranty)
- Abdur Rahman
- Updated:
-
USDT ණය සේවාව - USDT Loan Service
- පුරවැසියා
- Updated:
-
🎮 INDIAN PSN GIFT CARDS AVAILABLE NOW! 🎮
- madukaperera
- Updated:
-
🚀 Google AI PRO – 18 Months | Rs. 850 Only- lkkolla
- Updated:
The Chief Minister of Western Province
- Thread starter AtulaSiriwardane
- Start date
Let's see how Elakiri members choose good from evil...
There are active members who use dirty words and dirty tricks to win.
They sound more like thugs... So it is possible that Duminda would win in Elakiri.
Most of the Elakiri members are good and decent. So most of them doesn't want to get into trouble with the forum terrorism.
I am a rare exception and I enjoy evil attacks
for that is the best way to practice being good.
If I lose for a moment,
I too would end up in the same boat.
for that is the best way to practice being good.
If I lose for a moment,
I too would end up in the same boat.
Lets look at the word "EVIL"
Etymology
The modern English word 'evil' (Old English Yfel) and its cognates such as the German 'Übel' and the Dutch 'Euvel' are widely considered to come from a Proto-Germanic reconstructed form *Ubilaz, comparable to the Hittite huwapp- ultimately from the Proto-Indo-European form *wap- and suffixed zero-grade form *up-elo-. Other later Germanic forms include Middle English evel, ifel, ufel Old Frisian evel (adjective & noun), Old Saxon ubil, Old High German ubil, and Gothic ubils. The root meaning is of obscure origin though shown to be akin to modern English 'over' and modern German 'über' (OE ofer) and 'up' (OE up, upp) with the basic idea of "transgressing".[1]
[edit] Philosophical definitions
[edit] Western philosophy
[edit] Spinoza
In Western philosophy, evil is usually limited to doing harm or damage to an object or creature. Plato argued that which we call evil is merely ignorance and that good is that which everyone desires. Benedict de Spinoza said that the difference between good and evil is merely one of personal inclinations: "So everyone, by the highest right of Nature, judges what is good and what is evil, considers his own advantage according to his own temperament... ."[2]
The duality of 'good versus evil' is expressed, in some form or another, by many cultures.[citation needed] Those who believe in the duality theory of evil believe that evil cannot exist without good, nor good without evil, as they are both objective states and opposite ends of the same scale.
[edit] Carl Jung
Carl Jung, in his book Answer to Job and elsewhere, depicted evil as the "dark side of God". People tend to believe evil is something external to them, because they project their shadow onto others. But from a psychological point of view to be evil is to refuse to acknowledge the weaknesses in one's own personality. Jung interpreted the story of Jesus as an account of God facing his own shadow.[3]
[edit] Philosophical quandaries about evil
[edit] Is evil universal?
A fundamental question is whether there is a universal, transcendent definition of evil, or whether evil is determined by one's social or cultural background. C. S. Lewis, in The Abolition of Man, maintained that there are certain acts that are universally considered evil, such as rape and murder. On the other hand, it is hard to find any act that was not acceptable in some society.[citation needed] Less than 150 years ago the United States of America, and many other countries practiced brutal forms of slavery. The Nazis, during World War II, found genocide acceptable, as did the Imperial Japanese Army with the Nanking Massacre and the Hutu Interhamwe in the Rwandan genocide.[4][5] Today, there is strong disagreement as to whether homosexuality and abortion are evils or not.[citation needed] Universalists consider evil independent of culture, and wholly related to acts or intents. Thus, while the ideological leaders of Nazism and the Hutu Interhamwe accepted (and considered it good) to commit genocide, the universally evil act of genocide renders the entire ideology or culture evil.
Views on the nature of evil tend to fall into one of four opposed camps:
Moral absolutism holds that good and evil are fixed concepts established by a deity or deities, nature, morality, common sense, or some other source.[citation needed]
Amoralism claims that good and evil are meaningless, as there are no deities, no moral ingredient in nature. Amoralists tend[who?] to apply a homo economicus style of making decisions in their lives.[citation needed]
Moral relativism holds that standards of good and evil are only products of local culture, custom, or prejudice.[citation needed]
Moral universalism is the attempt to find a compromise between the absolutist sense of morality, and the relativist view; universalism claims that morality is only flexible to a degree, and that what is truly good or evil can be determined by examining what is commonly considered to be evil amongst all humans.[citation needed]
As Plato observed, there are relatively few ways to do good, but there are countless ways to do evil, which can therefore have a much greater impact on our lives, and the lives of other beings capable of suffering. For this reason, some philosophers (e.g. Bernard Gert) maintain that preventing evil is more important than promoting good in formulating moral rules and in conduct.[citation needed]
Regardless of the source of their definitions, most[who?] human cultures have a set of beliefs about what things, actions, and ideas are undesirable. Undesirable circumstances are often categorised as evil within some[who?] cultures. Natural evils generally include accidental death, disease, and other misfortunes, although some[who?] cultures see these occurrences instead as a healthy part of the natural order.[citation needed] Moral evils generally include violence, deceit or other destructive and antisocial behavior toward others, although the same behavior toward "outsiders" of the group may be considered "good."[citation needed] War provides many examples, and "God is always on the winning side."[citation needed]
Most[who?] cultures recognize many levels of immoral behaviour, from minor vices to major crimes. These beliefs are often encoded into the laws of a society, with methods of judgement and punishment for offenses.[citation needed]
ATHULA SIRIWARDENA
Etymology
The modern English word 'evil' (Old English Yfel) and its cognates such as the German 'Übel' and the Dutch 'Euvel' are widely considered to come from a Proto-Germanic reconstructed form *Ubilaz, comparable to the Hittite huwapp- ultimately from the Proto-Indo-European form *wap- and suffixed zero-grade form *up-elo-. Other later Germanic forms include Middle English evel, ifel, ufel Old Frisian evel (adjective & noun), Old Saxon ubil, Old High German ubil, and Gothic ubils. The root meaning is of obscure origin though shown to be akin to modern English 'over' and modern German 'über' (OE ofer) and 'up' (OE up, upp) with the basic idea of "transgressing".[1]
[edit] Philosophical definitions
[edit] Western philosophy
[edit] Spinoza
In Western philosophy, evil is usually limited to doing harm or damage to an object or creature. Plato argued that which we call evil is merely ignorance and that good is that which everyone desires. Benedict de Spinoza said that the difference between good and evil is merely one of personal inclinations: "So everyone, by the highest right of Nature, judges what is good and what is evil, considers his own advantage according to his own temperament... ."[2]
The duality of 'good versus evil' is expressed, in some form or another, by many cultures.[citation needed] Those who believe in the duality theory of evil believe that evil cannot exist without good, nor good without evil, as they are both objective states and opposite ends of the same scale.
[edit] Carl Jung
Carl Jung, in his book Answer to Job and elsewhere, depicted evil as the "dark side of God". People tend to believe evil is something external to them, because they project their shadow onto others. But from a psychological point of view to be evil is to refuse to acknowledge the weaknesses in one's own personality. Jung interpreted the story of Jesus as an account of God facing his own shadow.[3]
[edit] Philosophical quandaries about evil
[edit] Is evil universal?
A fundamental question is whether there is a universal, transcendent definition of evil, or whether evil is determined by one's social or cultural background. C. S. Lewis, in The Abolition of Man, maintained that there are certain acts that are universally considered evil, such as rape and murder. On the other hand, it is hard to find any act that was not acceptable in some society.[citation needed] Less than 150 years ago the United States of America, and many other countries practiced brutal forms of slavery. The Nazis, during World War II, found genocide acceptable, as did the Imperial Japanese Army with the Nanking Massacre and the Hutu Interhamwe in the Rwandan genocide.[4][5] Today, there is strong disagreement as to whether homosexuality and abortion are evils or not.[citation needed] Universalists consider evil independent of culture, and wholly related to acts or intents. Thus, while the ideological leaders of Nazism and the Hutu Interhamwe accepted (and considered it good) to commit genocide, the universally evil act of genocide renders the entire ideology or culture evil.
Views on the nature of evil tend to fall into one of four opposed camps:
Moral absolutism holds that good and evil are fixed concepts established by a deity or deities, nature, morality, common sense, or some other source.[citation needed]
Amoralism claims that good and evil are meaningless, as there are no deities, no moral ingredient in nature. Amoralists tend[who?] to apply a homo economicus style of making decisions in their lives.[citation needed]
Moral relativism holds that standards of good and evil are only products of local culture, custom, or prejudice.[citation needed]
Moral universalism is the attempt to find a compromise between the absolutist sense of morality, and the relativist view; universalism claims that morality is only flexible to a degree, and that what is truly good or evil can be determined by examining what is commonly considered to be evil amongst all humans.[citation needed]
As Plato observed, there are relatively few ways to do good, but there are countless ways to do evil, which can therefore have a much greater impact on our lives, and the lives of other beings capable of suffering. For this reason, some philosophers (e.g. Bernard Gert) maintain that preventing evil is more important than promoting good in formulating moral rules and in conduct.[citation needed]
Regardless of the source of their definitions, most[who?] human cultures have a set of beliefs about what things, actions, and ideas are undesirable. Undesirable circumstances are often categorised as evil within some[who?] cultures. Natural evils generally include accidental death, disease, and other misfortunes, although some[who?] cultures see these occurrences instead as a healthy part of the natural order.[citation needed] Moral evils generally include violence, deceit or other destructive and antisocial behavior toward others, although the same behavior toward "outsiders" of the group may be considered "good."[citation needed] War provides many examples, and "God is always on the winning side."[citation needed]
Most[who?] cultures recognize many levels of immoral behaviour, from minor vices to major crimes. These beliefs are often encoded into the laws of a society, with methods of judgement and punishment for offenses.[citation needed]
ATHULA SIRIWARDENA
prasannata dei ne abng....
me manapa okkoma dapankooo
nattanam balaganna thanak kiyahan net eken.................
me manapa okkoma dapankooo
nattanam balaganna thanak kiyahan net eken.................
AtulaSiriwardane said:Let's see how Elakiri members choose good from evil...There are active members who use dirty words and dirty tricks to win.
They sound more like thugs... So it is possible that Duminda would win in Elakiri.
Most of the Elakiri members are good and decent. So most of them doesn't want to get into trouble with the forum terrorism.
I am a rare exception and I enjoy evil attacks
for that is the best way to practice being good.
If I lose for a moment,
I too would end up in the same boat.
Terrorism
Terrorism is, most simply, policy intended to intimidate or cause terror.[1] It is more commonly understood as an act which (1) is intended to create fear (terror), (2) is perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a materialistic goal or a lone attack), and (3) deliberately targets (or disregards the safety of) non-combatants. Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence or unconventional warfare, but at present, there is no internationally agreed upon definition of terrorism.[2][3]
A person who practices terrorism is a terrorist. Acts of terrorism are criminal acts according to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 and the domestic jurisprudence of almost all nations.
The word “terrorism” is politically and emotionally charged,[4] and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. A 1988 study by the United States Army found that over 100 definitions of the word “terrorism” have been used.[5] The concept of terrorism is itself controversial because it is often used by states to delegitimize political or foreign opponents, and potentially legitimize the state's own use of terror against them.
The history of terrorist organizations suggests that they do not practice terrorism only for its political effectiveness; individual terrorists are also motivated by a desire for social solidarity with other members.[6]
Terrorism has been practiced by a broad array of political organizations for furthering their objectives. It has been practiced by both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, and ruling governments.[7]
HRA said:
udaya gammanpila....mama danna tharamin pirisidu mathi waranayak kale...eka awiwadithai....namuth gammanpilage deshapalana bhawithawa beluwama maha amathiwaraya sandaha sudusu wenne naha...wisheshayenama basnahira palatha.....mokada wenath palath diha baladdi...basnahira kiyanne...jaathin rashiyakage haa wiwida aagam rashiyakge mishranayak sahitha pradeshayak.....hela urumaya haraha gammanpila sidiu karana deshapalanaya...nisa ohu e sandaha sudusu nowana bawai mage hangeema
Lanka issue: Karunanidhi begins indefinite fast
27 Apr 2009, 0800 hrs IST, TIMESOFINDIA.COM
Print Email Discuss Share Save CommentText:
<DIV class=KonaBody>CHENNAI: Tamil Nadu chief minister and DMK chief M Karunanidhi launched an indefinite fast on Monday morning demanding immediate ceasefire in Sri Lanka. ( Watch )
He went to the memorial of C N Annadurai, his mentor, and paid floral tribute to the late leader before going on fast.
“This is my sacrifice for the Tamil cause,” the chief minister said. “Let me be another victim of Rajapaksa’s (Lanka president) genocide.”
Sitting on a wheel chair, Karunanidhi said he did not want DMK men to go on a fast. "It is my decision and I do not want others to join," he said even as a host of DMK leaders, including his daughter Kanimozhi and his grand nephew Kalanidhi Maran rushed to spot to see him, PTI reported.
"I have decided to offer my life to the increasing numbers of lives lost due to the Sinhalese regime's continuing cruel acts against the Tamil ethnic minority in the war in Sri Lanka," Karunanidhi told reporters.
"After the Tamil Tigers offered unilateral truce (Sunday), I stayed awake the whole night surfing television channels and radio stations to hear good news. Since that did not happen, I have decided to embark upon this endeavour on behalf of all the Tamils of the world," he added, according to IANS.
LTTE offered a unilateral truce on Sunday which was summarily rejected by the Sri Lanka government. LTTE's truce offer came on a day when the Lankan forces captured the strategic Vlayarmadam area and encircled the remaining 6 sq km strip of land where Prabhakaran and his top aides are believed to be holed up in. The LTTE said the "suffering inflicted on our people by the Sri Lankan armed forces in violation of all international humanitarian laws has now reached its peak".
AIADMK general secretary Jayalalitha said on Saturday that the establishment of a separate 'Eelam' homeland was the only solution for the Tamil minority in the island.
On Friday, Karunanidhi had asked the Centre to snap all diplomatic relations with the island nation if it did not honour India's latest appeal for a ceasefire in the embattled northern parts. The DMK president sent a telegram to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi and external affairs minister Pranab Mukherjee who on Friday made the appeal to the Mahinda Rajapaksa government to respond to the Tamil civilian problem.
Karunanidhi has been demanding a permanent ceasefire and an amicable solution to the ethnic strife within the framework of a unified Sri Lanka with minority Tamils treated on par with the Sinhalese.
Last week, the Tamil Nadu chief minister inflicted serious embarrassment on Congress by calling LTTE chief Prabhakaran a proclaimed offender in Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, a "good friend".
Karunanidhi, who was speaking to a TV channel, also refused to describe the LTTE chief as a terrorist, though he faulted him for using "wrong methods". "Their goals are right, but method is wrong," he said of the LTTE, declared a terrorist organisation in India.
The Sri Lankan Tamils problem is snowballing into a major campaign issue in the run up to the May 13 Lok Sabha polls with all major opposition parties turning the spotlight on it.
var zz=0;var sldsh=0; var bellyaddiv = ' ';var stindex=100;var stp=150;var taglen=0;var tmp;var tagcheck = new Array("div","span","br","font","a");var storycontent = document.getElementById("storydiv").innerHTML;var firstpara = storycontent.substring(0,storycontent.toLowerCase().indexOf("
")).toLowerCase();function findptt(cnt){zz++;if(zz == 10)return; var xxx=-1,yyy=-1; var ccnt = cnt; for(ii=0; ii < tagcheck.length; ii++){ xxx = ccnt.indexOf("
27 Apr 2009, 0800 hrs IST, TIMESOFINDIA.COM
Print Email Discuss Share Save CommentText:
<DIV class=KonaBody>CHENNAI: Tamil Nadu chief minister and DMK chief M Karunanidhi launched an indefinite fast on Monday morning demanding immediate ceasefire in Sri Lanka. ( Watch )
He went to the memorial of C N Annadurai, his mentor, and paid floral tribute to the late leader before going on fast.
“This is my sacrifice for the Tamil cause,” the chief minister said. “Let me be another victim of Rajapaksa’s (Lanka president) genocide.”
Sitting on a wheel chair, Karunanidhi said he did not want DMK men to go on a fast. "It is my decision and I do not want others to join," he said even as a host of DMK leaders, including his daughter Kanimozhi and his grand nephew Kalanidhi Maran rushed to spot to see him, PTI reported.
"I have decided to offer my life to the increasing numbers of lives lost due to the Sinhalese regime's continuing cruel acts against the Tamil ethnic minority in the war in Sri Lanka," Karunanidhi told reporters.
"After the Tamil Tigers offered unilateral truce (Sunday), I stayed awake the whole night surfing television channels and radio stations to hear good news. Since that did not happen, I have decided to embark upon this endeavour on behalf of all the Tamils of the world," he added, according to IANS.
LTTE offered a unilateral truce on Sunday which was summarily rejected by the Sri Lanka government. LTTE's truce offer came on a day when the Lankan forces captured the strategic Vlayarmadam area and encircled the remaining 6 sq km strip of land where Prabhakaran and his top aides are believed to be holed up in. The LTTE said the "suffering inflicted on our people by the Sri Lankan armed forces in violation of all international humanitarian laws has now reached its peak".
AIADMK general secretary Jayalalitha said on Saturday that the establishment of a separate 'Eelam' homeland was the only solution for the Tamil minority in the island.
On Friday, Karunanidhi had asked the Centre to snap all diplomatic relations with the island nation if it did not honour India's latest appeal for a ceasefire in the embattled northern parts. The DMK president sent a telegram to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi and external affairs minister Pranab Mukherjee who on Friday made the appeal to the Mahinda Rajapaksa government to respond to the Tamil civilian problem.
Karunanidhi has been demanding a permanent ceasefire and an amicable solution to the ethnic strife within the framework of a unified Sri Lanka with minority Tamils treated on par with the Sinhalese.
Last week, the Tamil Nadu chief minister inflicted serious embarrassment on Congress by calling LTTE chief Prabhakaran a proclaimed offender in Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, a "good friend".
Karunanidhi, who was speaking to a TV channel, also refused to describe the LTTE chief as a terrorist, though he faulted him for using "wrong methods". "Their goals are right, but method is wrong," he said of the LTTE, declared a terrorist organisation in India.
The Sri Lankan Tamils problem is snowballing into a major campaign issue in the run up to the May 13 Lok Sabha polls with all major opposition parties turning the spotlight on it.
var zz=0;var sldsh=0; var bellyaddiv = ' ';var stindex=100;var stp=150;var taglen=0;var tmp;var tagcheck = new Array("div","span","br","font","a");var storycontent = document.getElementById("storydiv").innerHTML;var firstpara = storycontent.substring(0,storycontent.toLowerCase().indexOf("
")).toLowerCase();function findptt(cnt){zz++;if(zz == 10)return; var xxx=-1,yyy=-1; var ccnt = cnt; for(ii=0; ii < tagcheck.length; ii++){ xxx = ccnt.indexOf("
kingenchanter said:
He is too upasaka type
and it is not Buddha's way.
He does what he wants
and
rationalize it.
Buddha did not approve
getting along with bad people for any reason.
Buddha said
"Asevanaacha Balanang"
and it is not Buddha's way.
He does what he wants
and
rationalize it.
Buddha did not approve
getting along with bad people for any reason.
Buddha said
"Asevanaacha Balanang"
UR1 said:hoyagaththu eka kiyanne nene banz...
Denagaththoth PM ekak wath dapan...
ok ok ..... mama ahawwa bang godak denekgen kauruth
danne nalune....
AtulaSiriwardane said:He is too upasaka type
and it is not Buddha's way.
He does what he wants
and
rationalize it.
Buddha did not approve
getting along with bad people for any reason.
Buddha said
"Asevanaacha Balanang"
mata hela urumaye deshapanaya gena wiwechanayak thiyenawa.... samahra jaathi wadee prakasha haraha....mama gammanpilata kemathi eka hethuwakuth thiyenawa...e chandeta kalin wathkam prakashayak idiripath karapu dennagen ek ayek nisa ha...mathiwarana wiyaparaya pirisiduwa kala nisa.....
namuth ohuge deshapana bhawithawa anuwa ohu...madyastha mathadhariyek widihata kriya karai kiyala hithanna be.... e nisa mage adahasa ohu eeta sudusu nowana bawai...
Similar threads
