On top of everything else, you lie.

Anyway, you insisted that the proper use of the word evil has no moral implications. I voiced (typed, whatever) disagreement — I think the most common use of the word has moral implications, but there is an archaic use of the word that doesn’t; both are legitimate and you can almost always tell how it is being used in context, if you are attentive. Then you insulted me. What else is there to know?

Why don’t you try *reading* what I actually wrote. And then *read* your attempted objections in light of what I actually wrote.

I’d be much obliged if shown an example of my disinclination to think. Unlike some people I find it helpful to have my errors pointed out, as I can then correct them.

In any context where ‘evil’ is used, unless the speaker/writer explicitly says something like “moral evil” or “natural evil,” one has to bring one’s own assumptions into play to decide what is the probable intention of use of the word.

Not if we’re serious about our thoughts/positions and seriously thoughtful about how we arrive at and defend those positions.

“It can be very difficult indeed to argue with consequentialists; indeed you might also draw parallels to the waterboarding debate here.”
But, at the same time, if we are indeed serious about our thoughts/positions and seriously thoughtful about how we arrive at and defend those positions, we *also* understand that it is the motives and consequences (both actual and rationally foreseeable) which differentiate between two “identical” acts: one immoral, one moral-even-if-evil.

Note: I assume that *you* understand that the word ‘evil,’ used correctly, does not really have a moral implication.

But many these days do not understand that: people use ‘evil‘ when they mean ‘wicked.’