From: "Alice K. Turner"
Subject: Re: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 20:08:49 -0400 > Alga wrote: > > > > At the least, I'd say the inhumi are evil in the sense that a thing > > > might be called evil (atom bombs, torture devices, pornographic movies, > > > crack coccaine, a computer virus)... > > and Matthew Malthouse replied: > > > I don't agree with you. This suggest that evil can be inherant > > in an object. I don't believe that it can: evil may in the > > intent of those who created such things or those wo employ them > > but not in the inanimate and unaware. > > Matthew: while I may (and in fact do) disagree with one or more of > the items in Alga's list, she's using a perfectly reasonable sense > of the word "evil" -- If you will consult your Funk&Wagnall ... > well, all right, make it your online Merriam-Webster (conveniently > located at http://www.m-w.com/netdict.htm), you will find the > following (slightly edited by me to save space and improve > format): [snip, sorry, but you can look it up] That wasn't my list and the current format of the Urth list makes it too difficult to go back to find who it was. I insisted on the paradigm of the scorpion and the frog, that the inhumu cannot help his nature and thus is arguably *not* "evil," as a lion who kills an antelope is not evil. I said that I would enjoy, in a debate, taking the position that they are not evil. We get to know four of them very well: Quetzal, Krait, Fava and Jahlee, All of them struggle against their nature. (I can't help thinking of Quetzal wrt the current brouhaha re Catholic priests, has this struck anyone else? But I remind you that he tried very hard to stick to beef tea.) These are vivid characters; Wolfe was interested in them. -alga --