Breivik: “According to strict, atheist Darwinism, the purpose of life is to reproduce.”

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 25, 2011

Culture, Darwinism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In “Norway Killer Cultural Christian, Practical Darwinian” (July 24, 2011), we learn from Creation-Evolution Headlines a bit of the background to World News Daily’s bringing the Darwinian leanings of the Norway killer to light:

WND first started challenging the depictions of Breivik as a Christian on the 23rd. Then on the 24th, WND posted the entire Breivik manifesto and described him as a Darwinian, not a ‘Christian’ in the usual sense of someone who believes in Jesus Christ the Son of God and submits to Him as Lord and Savior.

For example,

Support for Darwinian ideas can be seen in several places in his manifesto:

While arguing against the feminist destruction of marriage, he said, approvingly, “Marriage is not a ‘conspiracy to oppress women’, it’s the reason why we’re here. And it’s not a religious thing, either. According to strict, atheist Darwinism, the purpose of life is to reproduce.”

Here’s Uncommon Descent’s story on Breivik and other Darwin-motivated gunmen.

Comments

Elizabeth: Why do you presume to know what atheists deny? Are you an atheist?
Still, how would that allow him to know anything about your position? You share the same lack? Quick, we both do not have elephants under our chairs--what does my chair look like?! Principle: there is a lot of equivocation on "atheism". Are we supposed to understand things atheists tell us or not--specially as an ex-non-believer. Reality has a basic shape with atheists, nature is simple or not knowing would kill us (okay, simplistic, but I'm summing). Reality is more complex with theists (which I'm quite sure you won't believe), nature and the law of man and our well-being require a complex--and often hard-to-understand "maintenance", teaching and interaction. The best we get is as a blind person in darkness suddenly aware of the glow of the light. One worldview, they teach you in school, and requires simple, provable principles. Another, the main points are given in stories, and you can get some sermons, but the teacher is active in your life as a "still, small voice". Which is harder to see from the other side? I'm not talking about the other side where "They're just a bunch of un-evolved spazzes". But from the side of "what if they were right about God" as opposed to "what if they were right about no God". A lot of stuff that I learned as an qualifying atheist, and a lot of things that atheists have told me about their worldview have held up. I was just telling some "you secretly believe in God" Christians just the other day that "no, you're really not that concerned", because that's the way I would have described myself at the time. When I got my car stuck in sugar sand way out in the wilderness, it was "Pleasegodpleasegodplease!" but my ability to call upon a concept that bored me was put away neatly in my categorical drawers, and I was accordingly uninterested in pursuing it further. Funny enough, I have been told that perhaps I wasn't a good enough, or "serious enough" atheist for it to stick. His lack is bigger than my lack, I guess. (But the elephant that I don't have in my house, is about twice the size of his!) Also witness that somebody on this thread points out that we have access to the same input as to morality.jjcassidy_{July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT}

One of the things I often see from atheists is what I call the "Intentional Fallacy". The intentional fallacy suggests that you'd never find a healthfood nut eating ho-hos, because eating ho-hos is against his stated principles. Scientists who are Christians is often a suspect hodgepodge ("you cannot serve God and Science"), but Moralist Atheists is taken for granted because there are people who identify themselves in both subsets. So despite the scientist's best efforts to be a scientist, he only achieves--in the worldview of many--to the extent that he moderates one with the other. On the other hand, atheist is the easiest capacity to achieve there is. If somebody drops you on your head tomorrow, and you find you don't understand the concept of God, you too can be an atheist. Atheist simply lacks belief, I have been told. However, another definition of atheism comes up: The Intentional Fallacy shows up in another way: "I am more rational that you because I eschew irrationality." Well, the ability to discern rationality is a distributed talent, from what I have seen. No amount of committing yourself makes your arguments any better than what they are. However, the tendency of people who argue in this way is to make moralism just as cheap an entry. "He says he believes in morality. You don't have to believe in God to believe in morality."
Now, if everyone goes around making themselves feel better, and no-one else is harmed, there is no gak
And apparently no competition for mate choice or scarce resources in your world.
And I’d say that atheists are just as capable of developing thus into moral adults, and indeed of being good, caring and wise mentors, as anyone else, because it doesn’t actually require belief in God, just the conviction that the more people with a strong anti-gak drive in the world, the happier we all shall be.
I would agree that atheists under a-non-rigorous worldview are. But does atheism require this belief? I understand "no". So because atheism, by being a situation, requires nothing. It gives you a choice whether you accept atheist Edens or "gak-drives". Let's imagine that gak-drives are like sex-drives. Some have revved-up drives, some have muted ones. So you can answer such questions, if you invest in a model of morality. If you don't, because it doesn't seem rational or evidenced , who knows? You can't propose a model that is "solves the same questions" and ignore that this is entirely optional, if in anyway compelling. I would have believed in as an agnostic, but my journey to faith was to be shown all the preposterous things I just believed as a "skeptic". So you can say: if you invest in a model of morality, you can be moral. However, I'm skeptical about the dramatic differences between model-commitment and belief . In answer, the modern rationalist would say, "I can always discard it if it becomes unwieldy". Well, did it solve problems or didn't it. Provided an unwieldiness, will you just go on to another model of morality or reject workable models of morality? Will you, 1) trust in morality itself, knowing that there must be a workable model, 2) keep jumping from model to model until the problems with the model become evident (and in some ways belying the claim that the model "worked"), 3) stick with a model despite problems with it? Let's say you develop fidelity to it. Who then can deny a variation of atheist who looks at the problem that other moral atheists are having with their models, and to the extent that they don't agree on terms--and just goes Carnap: "It's all meaningless." Locke's "State of Nature" is ridiculous without references to some sort of Eden beginning and Lion-and-lamb eternal resolution. And if Locke was a Deist, as some claim, he answers no Deist questions of today. (17th century deism was indeed a miracle-light theism, so JL's "deism" is of no matter). I find just as ridiculous atheists who find Eden stories ridiculous when the are religious, but their main hope in either that--or perfectible man--when nature is not about "perfecting" us, on the other. What I charge is not that there cannot be some well-meaning atheists, but where they "solve" moral questions their reasoning is so paltry (or motivating) as to create a rational push away from their own sentimentality (or at least disinterest in their thought experiments). Darwin's immediate followers basically took him to task on this "so-called" "higher nature", so that his own sentimental view of human nature was subjected to peer review, to the point that ~70 years that bastion of American liberty, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes could forcibly sterilize a C-student on the ruling that the state of Illinois had an "interest" in controlling the stock of its people. If you think that Darwin's "higher nature" is apiece with his "natural selection", you just might be guilty of my Intentional Fallacy.jjcassidy_{July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT}

Mung:
Do you ever actually stop to think about the things you write and ask yourself whether they make sense, or even more importantly, whether they are in fact true?
Mung, I'm afraid I frequently ask myself the same about you. So there we go. See you around :)Elizabeth Liddle_{July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT}

EL: ...atheists are as human as you are... Mung: While denying what it means to be human. Elizabeth Liddle:
What do you think that atheists deny? Last time I looked they didn’t believe in god or gods. Nothing there about “denying what it means to be human”.
Thank you for making my point. Do you ever actually stop to think about the things you write and ask yourself whether they make sense, or even more importantly, whether they are in fact true?Mung_{July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

Why do you keep saying this stuff, Mung? Why do you presume to know what atheists deny? Are you an atheist? What do you think that atheists deny? Last time I looked they didn't believe in god or gods. Nothing there about "denying what it means to be human".Elizabeth Liddle_{July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle:
Well, firstly, because atheists are as human as you are...
While denying what it means to be human. Imagine that. All that exists is just matter in motion.Mung_{July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth, I'm not an atheist in the sense of not believing, I'm a vague agnostic who would rather like an afterlife but I want to offer you a standing ovation for what you said in post 22. Superbly explained. The problem I've always had with the idea of absolute morality (as in prescribed by God) is that although plenty of people seem to think that they have a hotline to God and can tell us what God wants, they all seem to tell us different things. I doubt God is schizophrenic so in the absence of incontrovertible dictacts from God about morality then our best bet as a society is to determine morality for ourselves.DrBot_{July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT}

Thanks, Chris! I very much agree with this:
Frankly, I don’t really care whether or not Breivik was a fundamentalist Christian or a fanatical Evolutionist. I don’t want to know why he did it or what went wrong in his life. He has forfeited any right to our curiosity.
There was a horrible murder near my home town a few years ago, and after the killer was finally convicted, I heard a very moving interview with the girl's parents. They were remembering Susan, fondly, and expressing their grief at her loss. Then the interviewer asked what they though about he killer. They said something like: "we don't think about him. He's a nothing." I will try to respond here to both the rest of your post and to your previous one (if the mods are OK with that!) From your post above:
The more interesting point is this: how can any atheist condemn Breivik in terms that can be reconciled with their worldview? If life is meaningless and we face oblivion then nothing really matters – there is no wrong or right, because there is no Good or Evil: even the purpose we forge for ourselves is an act of self-deception if the atheistic worldview is true. That is one of the points I make in the aforementioned post. I hope you will respond to it here on this thread.
To take your first question: "how can any atheist condemn Breivik in terms that can be reconciled with their worldview?" Well, this doesn't seem very difficult to me! Acts have consequences, and those consequences include making people feel better and harming people. But as words are awkward, and come with baggage, let me invent two new ones: I'm going to call acts that make you feel better at the cost of harming other people "gak". Now, if everyone goes around making themselves feel better, and no-one else is harmed, there is no gak, and everyone has a good time. But if people go around doing stuff that makes them feel better, but harms other people, not everyone has a good time. So although it might be tempting to give yourself a good time by doing gak stuff, nobody else is going to agree with you, because they are going to get the rough end of the gak. So we make some social rules: we say: if nobody does gak stuff, everyone will have a pretty good time. But if people do gak stuff, some people will have a horrible time, even if the gak-doers get a heck out of a kick out of it. So, for the good of us all we will declare gak taboo. And to make sure that as little gak is done as possible, if people are found doing gak stuff, we try a number of things; we lock them up so they can't do it (containment); we make them do something they don't like doing, so that they (and others) learn that even if gak stuff makes them feel better at the time, they end up having a rotten time in the end anyway (deterrence); we try to make them see that if everyone forgoes the gak stuff, everyone else, including them is better off, and anyway, it's much more fun making other people feel better than making them feel worse (rehabilitation); and we try to get them to undo the harm they did (reparation). And this works pretty well, because as human beings we have this remarkable capacity called "Theory of Mind", which enables us not simply to see things from our own point of view, but from other peoples, and even to feel things on other people's behalf - what we call "empathy", or, better, "love", although some people seem unable to do that last part. For those, sometimes, some kinds of rehabilitation can help, but unfortunately, sometimes, permanent incarceration is the only answer, if the rest of us are to be safe from the gak. So that's it really. Instead of "evil" we have "gak". But we call it "evil", because it looks exactly the same as what you call evil. It's just, like the old gag about Shakespeare goes ("Did you know that Shakespeare's plays weren't actually written by Shakespeare, but by another man living at the same time, with the same name?"), another thing with the same properties and the same name.
And on that thread you wrote: Now then, your response to my post (51). You expressed many thoughts, but alas, I don’t believe you actually answered my questions. They were: 1. Why should such a miserable atheist bother with life at all?
Because it's fun, and beautiful, and filled with good things! Including joy, and curiosity, and love. Why does an otter bother with life? Think of atheists as otters.
2. How do you dissuade an atheist from free-riding?
Well, firstly, because atheists are as human as you are (:)) they share the same capacity for empathy, and the same capacity for joy in another's joy, and grief in another's grief. So it's not a major problem, and, in any case, not all free-riders are atheists! But there are indeed free-riders, and we deal with them as above, which includes persuasion ("look, if you don't do gak stuff, you still have a good time, and so does everyone else - in fact you have a better time, because actually it's a lot more fun to enjoy things that other people enjoy too, than to do stuff that only you enjoy and other people hate. Also they are more likely to like you, which is nice, and less likely to incarcerate you, or make you do stuff you don't like in return. Also gak is ungood, and ungak is good. You don't know what good is? Here, let me show you...." *demonstrates kindness and empathy*). But if that doesn't work, deterrence and incarceration are backups.
Looking at the first question, it seems that you think a miserable atheist simply needs to recall that “one of our drives is to be, simply, happy.” But I don’t think a miserable atheist needs reminding of this fact, do you? He is all too aware that happiness is what he wants but he is struggling and suffering on a regular basis.
Why is he? I don't mean that you have the answer, but if someone is unhappy, it's good to know why. Then either they can fix it themselves (as long as that doesn't involve gak) or someone else can help. Usually a bit of both. We all need a little help from our friends :)
Even if a miserable atheist does experience glimpses of happiness, they are all too brief and soon disappear to be replaced by the norm: drudgery and hopelessness. You then point out that “We are… therefore able to transcend ourselves.” Again, I don’t see how this provides a reason for the miserable atheist to bother with life at all.
But life is good! I mean, not for everyone, but it's not only atheists who suffer, and the answer could be anything from relief of poverty to treatment for a mental disorder. Or, even, getting out a bit, and helping other people. That cheers most people up. I'm not meaning to be flippant here, Chris, I just think you are describing a non-problem. Or, rather, a problem that is not at all unique to atheists. I do know of a few nihilist atheists, but most are not, and I've known pretty nihilist Christians as well. And anyone who hates being alive needs help. Think of those otters.
If he can feel another’s pain, then that is only adding to the pain he is already experiencing on a daily basis!
hmmm. Empathy is an odd thing. Yes, another's pain hurts, but shared hurt is not something on the whole one shuns. And sharing hurt can help. It's like that old saying (golly I sound like the Readers Digest today) about love being the only thing where the more you give the more you have. But you know this, Chris. What I'm saying is that atheists know it too, they just don't give it the same name. I still do (habit, I guess, I call it grace) but atheists are just as capable of, and receptive to, grace. It's just they don't call it that. Not sure what they call it, but not everything needs a name. S
o again, I’d be grateful if you could tell me what you, an actual atheist, would say to a fellow miserable atheist who no longer knows why to bother with life at all.
Well, first I'd want to know why. Then I'd try to suggest things worth living for, and help them understand how much they are valued, and loved, and how much they'd be missed. And then I might suggest some fun activities - join a samba band, go hiking, do an evening class. And if all that failed, I'd probably suggest seeing their GP and maybe getting a referral to a psychiatrist. I know that's not the answer you want, but I guess I want to know why that isn't the answer :) In other words, if someone isn't enjoying life, the answer is to help them enjoy life. As an atheist obviously what I wouldn't say is: don't worry, the next one will be better - the snag is that you aren't allowed to deliberately leave this one early. And I certainly wouldn't say: look, life may be miserable, but the next one will be a heck of a lot worse unless you suck up this one, do your duty, whether you like it or not, and keep your nose out of trouble. Not that I ever did that, and I'm sure you don't. In which case, how do we differ?
Stick to atheists, don’t worry about believers. If you want to know why a miserable believer should bother with life at all, then let actual believers answer that question.
Sure :)
Looking at the second question, you first of all appeal to the “collective” over the individual. If we had all been assimilated by the Borg, then resistance to that argument would indeed be futile! But, we’re not. And an intelligent, rational, logical but selfish atheist knows just how to exploit that. He knows that the moral society we live in isn’t about to break down just because he is free-riding on it. He “can look at that situation logically and decide that as long as he maintains a public appearance of moral steadfastness, he can commit immoral acts whenever he desires as long as he avoids detection.” And, your very interesting response to this was: “Well, sure, but so can a theist.” Woah! Blink and you miss it! Let’s rewind and slow that down before getting ahead of ourselves. A rational atheist can logically free-ride: maintaining a public appearance of moral steadfastness while committing immoral acts whenever he desires (as long as he avoids detection) and your response is “Well, sure…” I think we should pause there for a moment, Lizzie, to let that important fact sink in rather than trying to gloss over it by changing the subject to theism. If you agree that a rational atheist can logically choose immorality then atheistic morality fails.
Well, it's only logical as long as there is no system, agreed by "the collective" to deal with the free-riders. It comes back to this gak-thing again. In atheist terms, free-riding is gak. And we don't want to live in a society where gak is easy to do. So a) we persuade people of the benefits of not doing gak stuff (for them, not just for everybody else) and b) if that doesn't work, we invoke our gak-minimising system. Which is, of course what in your mirror-world is called a justice-system. So we call it that too, even though it's "really" a gak-minimising system. It just happens to be an identical system with the same name. We also call the process of devising anti-gak rules "ethics", like yours, and the incentive to keep to them "morality", like yours. Except of course it's really just our anti-gak drive. ;)
The whole point of morality is that it should take precedence over all other considerations. Morality is easy when the right thing to do is the thing we want to do. But, as soon as the wrong thing to do is the thing we want to do then, providing we can get away with it (or can live with the consequences) then atheistic morality is over-ruled by logic and reason.
Ah, but you are moving the labels. No, the anti-gak drive behaves exactly like morality. The only difference is that your justice system is has an infinity-drive powered CCTV camera and an automated incarceration system, complete with highly deterrent torture rigs, that infallibly awaits any freeloader who escapes the human-derived one. Except that, weirdly, it has a "faint hope" clause, which means that the infinity-drive judge will waive the incarceration under certain (not terribly well specified) conditions. For no terribly obvious reason, except that the uncertainty probably keeps people on their toes. Or perhaps that's not your vision (although it certainly is in some versions of Christianity). Perhaps in your vision, nobody gets the incarceration - in which case, it's no more effective than our gak-minimising system. What I'm saying, Chris is that all the aspects of morality that you see in terms of a judging God have their exact counterparts in atheism, with the sole exception of this bit that happens after we die. So we have: gak=evil. anti-gak rules =ethics anti-gak drive =morality gak-minimising system=justice system So to say, oh, but atheist morality is over-ruled by reason if they can't be found out, is,as I said, shifting the labels out of their categories. Atheist morality is a drive - the anti-gak drive, just as theistic morality is - the drive to be good, the love of God, if you like. In fact, I'd go so far as to cite Jesus in claiming they are identical: The two greatest commandments, in Matthew, are 1) to love God, and 2) "which is like it" is to love your neighbour as your self. And lest there be doubt as to whether loving your neighbour as your self was really "like" loving God, Jesus said "whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me". Well, as I think I've said before - atheists just cut out the middle man. Or may be the end man. You love God by loving your neighbour; we just love our neighbours. Both are what we call "morality" (although for us it's just our anti-gak drive of course....)
Taking that further, we can now argue that it would be irrational and illogical for an atheist to choose morality when there are literally no drawbacks to the immoral choice.
Well, practically, there are always drawbacks. Even hiding the body is a drawback. The loneliness. The regret. The nightmares. That's what I meant by "moving the labels". Atheists are as capable as anyone else of foreseeing the consequences of their actions, including those consequences for their own peace of mind. We are an empathetic species. We are stuck with it. We can over-ride it, and do, but always at a cost. I'm probably not being as clear as I could be (but I'm trying!) - but I think your mistake (and I'm convinced it's a mistake!) is in thinking too narrowly of what "benefits me", and envisaging atheist "morality" as merely "what would suit me now that I can get away with". Because you think that's what logic dictates. But what you are missing is the anti-gak drive. We are not, in general, comfortable with doing gak-stuff. At its most shallow, people don't like to be disliked, or considered selfish. More deeply, people don't like to see the pain they caused, even if it was fun at the time. That's why reparative justice works so much better than you might think it would. Doing gak stuff actually makes people unhappy, and one of the things we do when we raise children to be good ("teach them right from wrong") is to make them realise that if they are mean to another child, that other child will be unhappy, and unhappiness is infectious. Which it is. Again, for us it might "really" be showing children that gak usually rebounds in the end, and that gak now means misery later, rather than showing them the difference between right and wrong, but we call it that, because, yet again, it looks exactly the same:)
Free-riding is undoubtedly the best course of action available to intelligent, rational and logical atheists (especially ones who are more selfish than selfless). And, if the more selfless atheists ever truly realise that they are needlessly denying themselves on many occasions, then what is to stop them saying “well, if you can’t beat them, join them!” Based on your responses so far, Lizzie, absolutely nothing.
No, free-riding is not "the best course of action available to intelligent, rational and logical atheists". You let slip the reason in your parenthesis "(especially ones who are more selfish than selfless)". The best course of action availabe to intelligent, rational and logical people is to do things that will bring about their own long-term happiness. Sadly few of us are that intelligent, rational and logical, but we try. And for most of us, our long-term happiness depends on being decent people, and avoiding doing gak stuff. In other words, by being moral. And for those who are "more selfish than selfless") then those who have anything to do with those people (husbands, wives, siblings, parents, offspring), the first response strategy is to try to demonstrate the long-term benefits that they seem unable to see. Actually there's another point here, which I think is important: most people are not so much "selfish" as "short-termist". We do what makes us feel good now, no matter how bad we will feel later. My own take on "free will" is that it's best thought of as "freedom from immediacy". And most people as they grow, learn that gak-stuff usually brings only short-term fun. So with good, caring, wise (if only) mentors, we should grow up with a well-rooted anti-gak drive, i.e. become moral adults. And I'd say that athetists are just as capable of developing thus into moral adults, and indeed of being good, caring and wise mentors, as anyone else, because it doesn't actually require belief in God, just the conviction that the more people with a strong anti-gak drive in the world, the happier we all shall be. Sorry for the delayed response, and can I beg indulgence from the mods for the hijack, for both Chris and myself? Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle_{July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: "Eocene: Kindly read here. GEM of TKI" === Well that was certainly an intellectual bit on foundational footings of the church, but why not just quote the only true foundational basis for belieing in the biblical God from the bible itself. One of the main things i appreciate about the bible is it's simplicity. This makes sense since even William Tyndale recognized that even the Plough boy had a God given right to read the bible in the common language of the people. In that he followed Jesus lead in simple language and illustrations. In fact even the bible points this out and it was a distinguishing mark that separated Jesus from those wicked Jewish religious leaders who looked down on the people. But now back to the subject. Here's what the bible says and it's not what history reveals to us that the Churches did when it came to Darwinian Dogma and Principles. Acts 10:34-35 Amplified Bible (AMP) 34 "And Peter opened his mouth and said: Most certainly and thoroughly I now perceive and understand that God shows no partiality and is no respecter of persons, 35 "But in every nation he who venerates and has a reverential fear for God, treating Him with worshipful obedience and living uprightly, is acceptable to Him and [a]sure of being received and welcomed [by Him]." Now obviously there are more scriptural references than this, but clearly this verse was around when the Churches took the direct lead in promoting Social Darwinism. South African Apartheid encouraged by the religious Eugen Fisher who is quoted here in the "German Eugenic Legislation" document. "In a fervently patriotic peroration Professor Eugen Fishcer thanks God that the rich springs of German Folkness are still welling up to save the people from racial decay, applied as they are to the programme of the National Socialist Government." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2985360/pdf/eugenrev00292-0013.pdf There are countless other examples that I've also mentioned and have no need of repeating, but i've personally spoken to individuals here in Europe who grew up in Nazi Germany and Austria and the Evangelical Church rather than teaching the bible, taught Mein Kampf from the church pulpits in those early pre-war years. Now the question is, in light of the tonage of info from the scriptures on how to treat your fellow man, how could they have done such a hideous crime as putting such a clearly evil man in power over them and encourage all believers to do the same ??? Again, when such threads appear to bash the other side, a side I don't in any way agree with, then the truth should also point the other direction where warranted. Clearly Darwin's ideas if true would have made perfect sense in a materialistic animalistic world of mankind who ultimately would be no different than animals which apparently many today believe anyway. But that's not the case with Christians and clearly some sort of accounting should happen with regards the Clergy's bloodguilt. But then that of course would be God's choice on the matter.Eocene_{July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

CD & JP: I shudder to think of that alternative history. I suspect though that hate-filled violent men with so much blood on their benumbed consciences would then turn on one another. (Think of how republican Rome disintegrated.) GEM of TKI PS: I do not think we can afford the luxury of throwing up our hands and declaring evil inexplicable. We need to identify the evil trends and do something about them; the highly machiavellian (and this man is plainly that) are very rational -- I did not say, reasonable -- and understand that they need to go dormant if they are likely to be detected and face severe sanctions, which will dry up the organisers who then spread out their poison like cancers. I have no more liking for Neo-Nazi fever swamps than for the others that are cropping up all over. PPS: I am astonished to see such neo Nazi nationalist/ethnicist statism described as "right" wing. The -ZI part of Nazi means socialist. In the aftermath of the demise of monarchy as a serious movement, the right is now libertarian ranging over to anarchist at the extreme. And 100 years ago anarchists were bomb throwers and assassins.kairosfocus_{July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT}

F/N: Dr BOT, 13 above is relevant to grounding morality objectively, also cf here. My more detailed thoughts are here -- a course lecture briefing note, here -- policy and technical development notes, and here -- a public lecture; BTW, apparently Gro Harlem Bruntland may have been an intended target of this mad man, or mad- bad- man. Note the use of a version of the categorical imperative in assessing moral soundness; but at the bottom of all such is a recognition of Imago Dei, in a cosmos that is understood to have as its foundation an Architect and Builder who is as to inherent character good; only such a basis can ground moral governance and principles of rights. I have drawn much on the thought that Locke used when he in his 2nd essay on civil govt set out to ground rights, i.e the cite from the judicious Richard Hooker in Ecclesiastical Polity, a thought that has an obvious root in the classic GR:
. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant.
I have long held the view that only such views as can ground OUGHT in a foundational IS are morally viable; all inherently amoral worldviews are morally absurd and can therefore be seen as untenable. On patently true first principles and facts of right moral reasoning. Such as that we really do have rights that ought to be respected, i.e. a right is a morally reasonable and binding expectation that we should mutually respect one another, on the inherent, intuitively and genrally accepted equality and dignity we have as persons.kairosfocus_{July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT}

Well said Chris Doyle. Imagine the scenario that Hitler wins WW II and exterminated all Roma, Gypsies, Russians, Serbs, Jews and Poles. These lands are settled by homogenous Aryan Germans who build up their Western Teutonic culture after rejecting the last vestiges of Christianity. What follows is no doubt a thousand years of 'West Germany'. Europe becomes a leader in the sciences, wealth and food generation for the entire world. Add that Japan also wins the war and does pretty much the same in Asia. We now have two great giants of science and technology with homogenous populations. These people are no longer divided by religion nationality, culture or ethnicity or even economics. Imagine if this new peace lasts for hundreds of years with countless lives saved from misery and war. Please note that I am only playing Devil's Advocate here. I too would have been exterminated above. I too lost a great grandfather and grandfather in concentration camps during WW II. Surely in utilitarian fashion it would not be wrong to do the above for we'd have achieved peace, scientific advancement and welfare for countless of people from then until perpetuity.JohnPen_{July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT}

Hi Lizzie, This might be a good place to refer you to my unanswered post about the unavoidable consequences of atheism on morality. Frankly, I don't really care whether or not Breivik was a fundamentalist Christian or a fanatical Evolutionist. I don't want to know why he did it or what went wrong in his life. He has forfeited any right to our curiosity. This man should merely be condemned for such horrific acts of evil: man-made justice will never be enough, but that's alright, he will face true Divine Justice in the next life however we deal with him for the rest of his life on this planet. The more interesting point is this: how can any atheist condemn Breivik in terms that can be reconciled with their worldview? If life is meaningless and we face oblivion then nothing really matters - there is no wrong or right, because there is no Good or Evil: even the purpose we forge for ourselves is an act of self-deception if the atheistic worldview is true. That is one of the points I make in the aforementioned post. I hope you will respond to it here on this thread. And, just in case you missed them, I responded to your question about Common Descent on GilDodgen's recent thread. I also continued our discussion about self-replication on the "Latest Origin of Life theory" thread because I couldn't post it on the original CSI thread. Sorry to bombard you: as always, take as much time as you need if you wish to respond.Chris Doyle_{July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

Keynes, at the end of his General Theory:
Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back. I am sure that the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas. Not, indeed, immediately, but after a certain interval; for in the field of economic and political philosophy there are not many who are influenced by new theories after they are twenty-five or thirty years of age, so that the ideas which civil servants and politicians and even agitators apply to current events are not likely to be the newest. But, soon or late, it is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good or evil.
It is possible to be mad and bad, once there is enough there to know right from wrong. I think this man likely meets this test. It is also possible for a madman to distil from the general culture and influences in it, trends and ideas that we all need to take a very serious look at. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

DHL:
Allan MacNeill “Anders Behring Breivik’s attorney and his father are asserting that he was and is insane:” Is a 1500 page carefully researched document detailing the history of Islam and Marxism and their impact on Europe the product of a madman? How do you distinguish “insane” from “evil”?
You don't. It's a category error. Insane describes a mental state; evil describes acts. Both sane and insane people can do good acts; both sane and insane people can do evil acts.
Do ideas have consequences? Is action based on the teachings of Marx or Darwin any different from that based on Jesus?
Another category error. Marx proposed a political ideology; Jesus taught a moral philosophy; Darwin presented a scientific theory.
What if he is both sane/intelligent and evil?
What he did was evil, whether he was sane or not.Elizabeth Liddle_{July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT}

DLH:
Can you tell the difference between “love your neighbor” and “might makes right”?
I think every single one of us here, Christian, atheist, IDist, or Darwinist can tell the difference, DLH. And most of us can tell the difference between a scientific theory and an ideology. Scientific theories do not tell us that we should love our neighbour, nor do they tell us that might is is right. They, can, however, help us to love our neighbours more effectively. Unfortunately they can also help us to kill them more effectively. The problem isn't the science, the problem is people who make evil choices, and use scientific knowledge for ill not good. Worse are those who use science to justify evil. It doesn't. Ever.Elizabeth Liddle_{July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

Eocene: Kindly read here. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

Allan MacNeill "Anders Behring Breivik’s attorney and his father are asserting that he was and is insane:" Is a 1500 page carefully researched document detailing the history of Islam and Marxism and their impact on Europe the product of a madman? How do you distinguish "insane" from "evil"? Do ideas have consequences? Is action based on the teachings of Marx or Darwin any different from that based on Jesus? Look at the statistical correlations! What if he is both sane/intelligent and evil?DLH_{July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT}

Allan MacNeil #166 “The alternatives . . .are pure political propaganda of the most morally reprehensible kind.” Is not your accusation based on YOUR miss-characterization of the headline from a question to a statement in itself a morally reprehensible act? Furthermore, are you not asserting a question with extracts has the same moral reprehensibility as Hitler's propoganda on which he murdered 11 million, or Stalin’s on which he murdered 20 million, or Mao’s on which he murdered 60 million, or the 20th century communists who collectively murdered 100 million by acting on Darwin’s evolution in the 20th century? What happened to YOUR moral compass? Can you tell the difference between "love your neighbor" and "might makes right"?DLH_{July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT}

Now CNN is reporting that both Anders Behring Breivik's attorney and his father are asserting that he was and is insane: http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/07/26/norway.terror.attacks/index.html?hpt=hp_c1 Ergo, the only morally responsible heading for this post is: "Norway shooter a narcissistic psychopath" and the other two alternatives: "Norway shooter a Christian fundamentalist" and "Norway shooter a Darwinian terrorist" are pure political propaganda of the most morally reprehensible kind.Allen_MacNeill_{July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

Interesting: Now I'm apparently under moderation. Was it something I wrote in the other thread, or is this simply a means of removing me from the conversation until it is effectively over?Allen_MacNeill_{July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

On what grounds does Darwin have the authority is decree what is and is not reprehensible? Recall, he wasn’t yet “God” ...
What an odd thing to say. Do you regard him as a god then? On what grounds would you, KF or anyone else here declare something to be morally reprehensible? Without direct and globally irrefutable decrees on matters like this from God how can any of us decide what is and is not reprehensible? Perhaps we should all stop condemning things we dislike until we get specific deistic instructions that everyone on earth agrees is actually the word of God!DrBot_{July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT}

O'Leary has done this before - reposted essentially the same assertion as a previous post, at which the comments either fizzled out or didn't go in the direction she wanted. Well, two can play at that game. I posed a series of questions in the previous thread (here: https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/a-darwinian-terrorist/ ), none of which were directly addressed by the commentators. I therefore pose them again (with slight modifications to avoid pointless repetition), and respectfully request that they be addressed: https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/a-darwinian-terrorist/#comment-392030 In comment #47 ellijacket wrote:
“All beliefs affect our worldview. Evolutionary Biologist's view of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ [is] a direct and honest result of his belief in materialistic Darwinism. What other view could he possibly come to?”
The logic of this comment (and the title of the OP) seems clear to me: 1) atheists who accept the scientific validity of evolutionary theory are immoral and potential psychopathological mass murderers; 2) Evolutionary Biologist is an atheist who accepts the scientific validity of evolutionary theory; therefore 3) Evolutionary Biologist is immoral and a potential psychopathological murderer It is perhaps somewhat inconvenient to ellijacket’s logic that I happen to know Evolutionary Biologist. I do not know a more generous, kind, loving, mild-mannered, and scrupulously moral person. What is one to conclude from this? There are two alternatives: 4) Evolutionary Biologist is an exception to the rule that atheists are immoral and potential psychopathological murderers (i.e. the major premise is true) 5) the major premise that atheists are immoral and potential psychopathological murderers is false. It seems to me that the rules of logic entail (5). Do you disagree, and if so why? https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/a-darwinian-terrorist/#comment-392033 To continue the logic developed above, let’s change the major premise: 1) people who accept the historical accuracy and moral prescriptions expressed in the Bible are immoral and potential psychopathological mass murderers; 2) fundamentalist Christians accept the historical accuracy and moral tenets expressed in the Bible; therefore 3) fundamentalist Christians are immoral and a potential psychopathological murderers. If you assert that (3) is false, why is this not also the case for (5)? https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/a-darwinian-terrorist/#comment-392035 In comment #57 kairosfocus wrote:
“…playing to their own biases and failing to do due diligence before headlining slander-laced talking points…”
In which of the following statements is this happening: 1) Anders Behring Breivik is a Darwinist 2) Anders Behring Breivik is a Christian fundamentalist 3) Anders Behring Breivik is a psychopathological mass murderer Which of these assertions (1-3) is most supported by the evidence, and which are pure political propaganda? https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/a-darwinian-terrorist/#comment-392039 In my experience it appears to be extraordinarily easy for most people to infer a causal link between what people express agreement with (and preferences for) and their behavior. In many cases it appears to me that when people do this they are very selective in what they choose as their causal links. This "selective attention" effect is essentially a form of political propaganda. For example, which of the following preferences (expressed repeatedly by a well-known historical figure) can be causally linked to this person’s behavior: This person… 1) was a strict vegetarian 2) had a preference for Alsatian dogs 3) expressed a deep love for children 4) loved the operas of Richard Wagner 5) was especially fond of Franz Lehar’s opera, “The Merry Widow” 6) enjoyed watercolor painting 7) was nostalgic about the time he spent in the city of Vienna In addition, this person… 8 ) expressed virulently anti-Semitic views in his public speeches and published writing 9) exhibited the behaviors of a narcissistic sociopath 10) eventually became notorious as perhaps the greatest mass murderer in recorded history. Which of the preference listed in points 1 through 7 is necessarily causally linked to the behaviors listed in points 8 through 10? https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/a-darwinian-terrorist/#comment-392045 In comment #65 kairosfocus quoted the following list of factors cited by Anders Behring Breivik as justifications for his behavior :
“…logic, rationality, reason, science…”
Does this mean that “logic, rationality, reason, [and] science…” are necessarily causative factors in the behavior of Anders Behring Breivik? https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/a-darwinian-terrorist/#comment-392048 In comment #67 ellijacket wrote:
“I merely listed a quote of his and stated it is an honest worldview derived from his belief in materialistic Darwinism. Where in my comment did I call [Evolutionary Biologist] immoral or any other name? If you can’t show me that I would appreciate a retraction on your part.
To what end did you quote my friend Evolutionary Biologist? Was it to indicate that his beliefs have nothing to do with the topic under discussion? To be clear: Did you quote Evolutionary Biologist to indicate that there is NO necessary causal relationship between his beliefs (i.e. “Darwinian materialism”) and the behavior demonstrated by Anders Behring Breivik? If so, why did you post it? And if not, please so state and I will be happy to post a retraction to that effect. To be as specific as possible: If ellijacket is willing to state for the record that there is NO necessary causal relationship between “Darwinian materialism” and the behavior demonstrated by Anders Behring Breivik, I will be happy to agree with that assertion. https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/a-darwinian-terrorist/#comment-392053 In comment #70 kairosfocus wrote:
“…there is a problem of amorality in evolutionary materialism [as in the notorious is-ought gap]…”
What if we change this to:
“…there is a problem of amorality in organic chemistry [as in the notorious is-ought gap]…”
To me it seems that these two versions are semantically equivalent. That is, there does not appear to be a necessary connection between any scientific theory and morals/ethics. This was the essence of G. E. Moore’s analysis of the “naturalistic fallacy”, which is still the underlying assumption of mainstream ethical theory. By describing the connection between “is” and “ought” statements as “notorious”, does kairosfocus intend to assert that ethical prescriptions can be valid justifications for ethical prescriptions, and therefore that the “naturalistic fallacy” is not a fallacy but rather a legitimate ethical principle? If so, then isn't it the case that the use of evolutionary theory (i.e. a science based on “is” statements) as a foundation for eugenics (i.e. an ethical theory based on “ought” statements) would be fully justified? https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/a-darwinian-terrorist/#comment-392056 To be clear: I agree with Hume, Moore, Lewontin, and Provine (among many others) who have asserted that there is NO necessary connection between any science and any system of morals/ethics. https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/a-darwinian-terrorist/#comment-392061 In comment #76 ellijacket wrote:
“If someone believes in Darwinism then of course it will affect how they live.”
In what way? Please be specific, especially in relation to the stated premise in the title of the OP. For example, there are at least two alternatives: 1) If someone believes in Darwinism then it will necessarily have a causal relationship to their moral/ethical beliefs and behavior. 2) If someone believes in Darwinism then it will NOT necessarily have a causal relationship to their moral/ethical beliefs and behavior. Alternatively, 3) If someone believes in the historical accuracy and moral tenets expressed in the Bible then this will necessarily have a causal relationship to their moral/ethical beliefs and behavior. 4) If someone believes in the historical accuracy and moral tenets expressed in the Bible then this will NOT necessarily have a causal relationship to their moral/ethical beliefs and behavior. [BTW, I personally don't believe in evolutionary theory at all, any more than I believe in Newtonian mechanics or elecrophilic attack in organic chemistry. I find evolutionary theory a useful guide for empirical research and interpretation of empirical results. "Belief" per se (in the sense of "belief" in the existence of God or the Democratic Party) has nothing whatsoever to do with such usefullness, and indeed would violate one of the central concepts of empirical science.] https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/a-darwinian-terrorist/#comment-392065 Re comment #79: Evolutionary Biologist has asserted that there is “no ultimate foundation for ethics”. The word that seems to bother people in this quotation is “ultimate”. Will is very clear that there are many proximate foundations for ethics. This is simply mainstream ethical theory, which encompasses deontological, teleological, theological, and many other foundations/justifications for human behavior. Personally, I find the use of the phrase “ultimate foundations for ethics” to be essentially meaningless, as it does not define what “ultimate” means. Does it mean “logically necessary”? If so, then I respectfully disagree with my old friend. Does it mean that there is some foundation/justification that supersedes all others? If so, then I would respectfully point out that this would mean that the fact that a deity (or deities) asserted it to be valid is unnecessary and therefore irrelevant (c.f. the Euthyphro dilemma). https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/a-darwinian-terrorist/#comment-392068 To be clear, if an action is right then it seems to me that it is right regardless of whether a deity says so (or not). Killing almost a hundred innocent people (the overwhelming majority of them children) is not right, regardless of whether a deity says so or not (even if they were Canaanites). There can be no moral/ethical justification for such an act, including one fallaciously linked to a scientific theory. https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/a-darwinian-terrorist/#comment-392081 For the record (and to make my position as clear as possible), I strongly believe that the only justifiable headline for a thread like this is “Norway shooter a narcissistic sociopath” and that asserting either that “Norway shooter a Christian fundamentalist” or “Norway shooter a Darwinist terrorist” are both symptoms of a much deeper social pathology, one that necessarily results in unnecessary (but apparently deeply satisfying) demonization of people with whom one disagrees on non-moral grounds. Committing a moral wrong to counter another moral wrong does not make it right.Allen_MacNeill_{July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

DrBot: "It is a shame Breivik didn’t heed the warnings Darwin issued about how taking these kind of actions would me morally reprehensible." === I'm actually suprized that yet another Breivik was a Darwinist thread[or maybe I should be since yesterday didn't seem to go all that well for the gang here yesterday like they hoped it would] was opened up again after yesterday's flame post had the desired effect. But I have found that the UD forum is not only about science but also of politicing and ideological agendas as are of course most any Darwinian forums and sites. Over in Sweden most of the Nazi Groups are of a so-called Christian pursuation in one form or another, so the original characterization wasn't really far off, though I can understand how the LifeWing side of Scandinavian Press[which isn't any more superior to RightWing reporting] could/would/&did exploit the situation for it's own agenda. Over in Sweden the Christian Democrats wholeheartedly support the annual Gay community's EuroPride festival in Stockholm. Most of the Christian Neo-Nazi literature does come from Sweden, in particular Karlskrona. And as being correctly reported in the Media now, Nazi sympathies are represented in almost every Scandinavian government and attitudes against immigrants. I was suprized by this when I first came here 6 years ago, because my only experience of Nazism in the States was the usual press excitement of some obscure place back east where a handful of clods were going to dress in Nazi Halloween costumes and march in some town square. But here it is common everyday dealings with it that is always in the news, though it's taken this outrageous act to expose it. Mostly I've learned to ignore it around here for the sake of my sanity. I use to complain and be publically apalled that the posterchild of everything wonderful and socialist had this common cancer in the thinking of a large half of it's culture. My wife and I lived in an area of Sweden at one time called Torslanda, but I had us move because I was tired of all the Nazi grafiti everywhere and night time 20' Swastika Cross burnings on hillsides around there. One of the most popular websites graffitied and advertised in Scandinavia is a site named 'Info14' = http://www.info14.com/ I actually looked up the online registered owner of the website and it linked to some american living in El Cajon, California. While visiting my mum i went by the address[curious] and it's directly across the street from the El Cajon "German American Society", how spooky was that ??? There are literally 100s of some type of extremist political groups here in Scandinavia and they don't necessarily lable themselves Nazis. When it comes to Nazi groups here, there are Christian Nazis, Atheist Nazis and Nordic Pagan Nazis. They fight amongst themselves, but are often found agreeing on forums like this forum for Nordic Identity, Culture and tradition. http://www.nordisk.nu/forum.php Admittedly, that forum does use info and pics from scientific sources regarding the evolution of humans to prove such races such as aboriginals, Africans, Pakistanis, etc are truly a vestigial drag on humanity. And it's all the ideological sides that promote this in these forums. Bottomline here is there is extremism on all political sides here and an unwritten agreement against inferior races and cultures, outside of homogenous Scandic Lands. I don't think there is any winners or losers here at these threads or any moral high ground that can be claimed by either side in this debate. Both sides have their dirty histories and more threads like this are a waste of time unless of course you feel you are on the winning side..Eocene_{July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT}

DrBot @ 5, Really? On what grounds does Darwin have the authority is decree what is and is not reprehensible? Recall, he wasn't yet "God" when he expressed mild squeamishness about the inevitable replacement of the inferior breeds by the superior, and expresses the mild wish that the replacement might be done gently.Ilion_{July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT}

KF, It is a shame Breivik didn't heed the warnings Darwin issued about how taking these kind of actions would me morally reprehensible. Perhaps he should have read Darwins words properly rather than just trawling though literature like Origin, the Bible, Shakespeare etc, looking for out of context snippets to bolster his ideology.DrBot_{July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT}

Breivik in his own words:
“Social-darwinism was the norm before the [sic] 1950. Back then, it was allowed to say what we feel. Now, however, we have to disguise our preferences to avoid the horrible consequences of being labeled as a genetical preferentialist.”
For background on this read here. Note especially Darwin in Descent of Man, chs 5 - 7. GEM of TKI GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT}

Breivik is wrong, on that and on everything else. Darwinian evolution says nothing about the purpose to life at all - it simply states that adaptation will occur because what reproduces best will be reproduced more often. "Purpose" is the function of a mind. We have minds, and our purposes vary.Elizabeth Liddle_{July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
02:43 AM
2
02
43
AM
PDT}

RB, I agree completely but I don't see the left as any more guilty than the right.
According to strict, atheist Darwinism, the purpose of life is to reproduce.
So he claims, but the theory of evolution is not prescriptive. I've seen plenty of ID advocates on this site make claims that start along the lines of "According to strict, atheist Darwinism ... " Should I conclude that they are also offering "Support for Darwinian ideas" - even though these claimed ideas have nothing to do with science and the theory of evolution?DrBot_{July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
02:11 AM
2
02
11
AM
PDT}

this is all about the unjust and foolish attempts of the establishment to discredit ideas if they can say evil deeds had these ideas behind them. The line must always be that evil deeds originate from evil intentions from evil people. The evil persons resentments are unrelated to their evilness. Ideas or identities are not implicated in evil even if they are invoked by the evil doer. its a evil accusation against those who hold ideas or are identities to make them even a shadow of complicity in the evil deeds. The left wing does this a lot I note. The origin of evil is not from ideas or identities. Evil comes from character and motives unrelated to the claimed complaints. Anything or anyone could be implicated since evil has been done in the name of everything. Segregate evil from common causes or one can be accused of making evil associations from evil intentions as far as words go.Robert Byers_{July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
12:08 AM
12
12
08
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply