I don't know if you are joking or not. Left handedness has a Latin name "sinister" which in our present day language means dubiously evil. And then you proceed to commit a fallacy of equivocation between two expressions that not even remotely have the same form, by laterally switching bases of words and meanings.

The entire concept you present sounds like a humourless joke to me. I could see the point in your post if it were funny.

Try to work on it some more. This is a good concept to work on. Just don't leave it in its present form.

What is interesting is that evil is still prevalent in the modern world. Could I go even further and say crime rates are higher in the 21st century than in medieval times? Criminal activity is also diversifying into any new human activity e.g. we developed computers and now there's cybercrime.

Does this mean that evil requires more cooperation than being good? I mean how do we explain evil given that there are more right-handed people and science has shown that the right-handed are cooperative? With cooperation shouldn't evil have declined? — TheMadFool

Co-operative evil, i.e. conspiracy, has a much worse effect than non-co-operative, you might say it is a greater evil. So as the evil-doers become more co-operative the overall level of evil increases.

I don't know if you are joking or not. — god must be atheist

Sorry if my OP is poorly constructed. I posted it in The Lounge for a reason.

The entire concept you present sounds like a humourless joke to me. I could see the point in your post if it were funny — god must be atheist

It wasn't meant as a joke and I did a little bit of research. Here's a link that claims what I said in my OP.

Try to work on it some more. This is a good concept to work on. Just don't leave it in its present form — god must be atheist

Thanks. I read about how left-handedness is associated with evil and one good example for that is the word "sinister" which means both evil and left. This bias towards left-handedness seems to be cross-cultural. Of course it could be true that left-handed people are inclined to evil but this doesn't match the facts. Just as an example the holocaust required a high level of co-operation among the Nazis in terms of unified ideology and implementing of extermination plans against hapless Jews and other minorities. In fact I would say that had there been competition (left-handed folks) - opposing viewpoints - the Nazis may have not committed such atrocities.

As you can see, if you agree with the above, associating lefties with evil is not just a bias by the majority. It's in fact a falsehood and the reverse, right-handedness and its associated higher co-operativity has a greater connection to evil, is true.

That said, we all know one man can't do shit. If there's a good idea e.g. environmental awareness, helping the poor, etc., we need co-operation more than competition. So, it's not that right-handedness and co-operation are downright evil/bad.

However, evil, if not just benign, even childish, as one man cursing another, but at a level to unsettle even the toughest people and qualify as a true and undeniable atrocity (genocide, mass murder) required co-operation. As you are fully aware of in such cases only a handful of protests will be there and although they may not be left-handed they function in the spirit of competition which is left-handed.

Just as an example the holocaust required a high level of co-operation among the Nazis in terms of unified ideology and implementing of extermination plans against hapless Jews and other minorities. — TheMadFool

The deficiency in the thesis is that co-operation is not opposed to evil. That's what I tried to bring out in my post, evil people may co-operate, and this greatly increases the level of evil. So if co-operation is associated with right-handedness, then we need to turn to something other than left-handedness to account for the more serious evil of conspiracy. Maybe left-handedness is only a minor evil.

As you can see, if you agree with the above, associating lefties with evil is not just a bias by the majority. It's in fact a falsehood and the reverse, right-handedness and its associated higher co-operativity has a greater connection to evil, is true. — TheMadFool

You could have looked into the multiple meanings of the English word "right" to see that "right" is not always "right". So to say that right-handed is the right way to be, is just a bias. Likewise, the Latin word "sinister" has multiple meanings. The meanings might be connected through some old-school thoughts, but that really says little about today's beliefs.

However, that "little" may actually be a lot more than you think. Plato's Republic offers a definition of "justice" as "might is right". We will off-handedly reject this as ridiculous. But there's an edge to it, from the perspective of social Darwinism, which some people today might actually believe in. And so we are forced to look for real principles to support your dubious conclusion which appeals to our intuition, co-operation (might) in the service of evil, is actually the opposite of "right".

The joke was not stemmed for me from a disbelief that in Latin "sinister" means left-handed. The joke to me was stemmed in the connection of an ancient word in an ancient and defunct language, with its ancient-time meaning (left-handed) and juxtaposing that meaning with the same string of phonemes and letters and equating therefore the old meaning of sinister to the new meaning of sinister.

This is what I though you had in mind as a joke.

That sinister meant left-handed has been known to me for over 35 years. I had a friend who was a proponent of left-handedness, and he opened a shop selling stuff made for left-handed people, and he called his shop "The Sinister Shoppe". It's defunct now.

So please don't misunderstand me, but try to understand me. Today no learned and cultured person will look at left-handed people as sinister. We allow left-handed young students to write and type with their left hands, or wipe their asses, or handle the knife, scissors, needles, or guns, or masturbate, etc. which was historically frowned upon and beaten out of children.

The joke is the seriousness of handling the word "sinister" as if it meant both left-handedness and sly evil. No, in today's vernacular sinister means never "left-handed" to the average person. Hence I found no humour in your joke.

ancient word in an ancient and defunct language, with its ancient-time meaning (left-handed) and juxtaposing that meaning with the same string of phonemes and letters and equating therefore the old meaning of sinister to the new meaning of sinister. — god must be atheist

The bias is still prevalent so no, not "ancient" but very much alive and kicking two-thirds of the world still hates lefties dated 2013

The bias is still prevalent so no, not "ancient" but very much alive and kicking two-thirds of the world still hates lefties dated 2013 — TheMadFool

I did not know this. Honestly. Sorry. I live in a world where left-handedness is a matter of fact, like red-headedness or having buck teeth or a lisp. Nobody discriminates negatively in the circles I move in against lefties.

And so we are forced to look for real principles to support your dubious conclusion which appeals to our intuition, co-operation (might) in the service of evil, is actually the opposite of "right". — Metaphysician Undercover

You've just proven my point by saying "...is actually the opposite of "right"". My entire OP has been about this prejudice against lefties.

Yes, I completely agree that there is such a prejudice, we need to look no further than the English word "right" to see that.

But I think that some of your conclusions concerning this prejudice may be incorrect. Why is being right-handed associated with "right", as in correct? The two words, "right" are the same. I would say that it is because the majority of people are right-handed, so we look at this as the normal way of being, and the norm is the right way of being. Using the left hand is seen as not normal, therefore it is incorrect, and not "right".

Where I think your premise is incorrect is your association between right-handedness and cooperation. It could be that because the majority are right-handed, the left-handed are left out, excluded due to the prejudice, and therefore appear as uncooperative. It could be that they appear to be weaker, and people have a natural tendency to cooperate with those who appear to be stronger, the strength of the other being seen as an advantage, so we choose to cooperate with those who appear to be stronger.

I did not know this. Honestly. Sorry. I live in a world where left-handedness is a matter of fact, like red-headedness or having buck teeth or a lisp. Nobody discriminates negatively in the circles I move in against lefties — god must be atheist

No apology necessary. Any arguments against lefties?

Any arguments against lefties? — TheMadFool

You mean, of the kind, "Lefties don't exist! A leftie is like a flying teacup on an orbit around the sun. I can only believe, not know per se, that it exists, and that only if I want to."

No, I have no arguments against lefties.

:lol: Thanks