Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Let’s See If Graham2 Sticks To His Nihilist Guns

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The commenter who goes by “jerry” writes:

‘What does the term evil mean?’ If we are going to use it, then we should define it . . . I have asked this question several times over the years on this site and so far no one has been able to answer it . . . no one will offer up a definition.

I responded:

OK, why don’t you offer up a definition? Your choices now are: 1. Dodge the question (which is what I predict you will do); 2. Offer up a definition; 3. Say the word has no meaning.

Graham2 jumped in uninvited and responded:

I would pick 3.

Let’s test this. Consider the following truth claim: Torturing an infant for pleasure is evil.

Given Graham2’s statement, he must respond that the truth claim is false. He says the word “evil” has no meaning. He says that the statement is akin to saying “torturing infants for pleasure is mudnelsday, where “mudnelsday” is a made up word without any meaning.

BTW, for those who are curious, jerry fulfilled my prediction by offering a “definition” of evil that is absurd on its face. Under jerry’s definition, torturing infants for pleasure would not be considered evil. Thus, he essentially dodged the question.

I am thankful for both Graham2’s and jerry’s willingness to express their nihilism so candidly on these pages so that we can examine it. (Truly, I sometimes wonder if they are not fundamentalist Christians shilling for rhetorical effect.) We are back where we started. A self-evident proposition is one that can be denied only on pain of descent into absurdity. Both Graham2 and jerry appear more than willing to descend into such absurdity. They do not need an argument. Again, one cannot argue for self-evident propositions. Graham2 and jerry need simple correction, and I will correct them once again.

Graham2: The term “evil” does have meaning, which I am sure you would be the first to admit if you were kidnapped, robbed, raped, shot and left for dead. You would not say of your assailant that in your fallible subjective estimation you believe he might possibly have done evil if only that word had meaning. You would say he did evil, and the word you used to describe your assailant’s actions would have meaning, and the meaning would apply to the evil done to you, and you would be absolutely certain of your conclusion (and correct BTW).

Jerry, torturing infants for pleasure is evil. You are a fool (and a liar) if you say otherwise.

Of people like jerry and Graham2, I believe KF has had the best word.

Those who choose to cling to absurdity after correction, we can only expose, ring-fence and seek to protect ourselves from. And, we can look at the systems that lead people into such confusion and ring fence them too as utterly destructive.

Comments
Graham2 @ 58: I will tell you why I harp on this issue so much. People like you and Mark Frank genuinely frighten me. And I want to expose your dangerous ideas (which, taken to their logical conclusion, allow for any horror one can imagine) for what they are. I hope our culture will wake up and repudiate those ideas before it is too late. You might take succor in the thought that your side is probably winning. You took the institutions 30 years ago; you now probably have a majority in the culture. KF, StephenB and I are probably just fighting a rearguard action, and when the jacked booted feet kick down our doors, and they haul us off to whatever camp has been prepared for wrong-thinking undesirables, you won’t have to worry about us anymore. In the meantime, I am going to do everything I can to, in KF’s apt phrasing, “expose, ring-fence and seek to protect ourselves from” you.Barry Arrington
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT
WJM: You really shouldn’t use the same word to try to define a word. Values are things that people consider to be important.
I was intentionally stating the obvious. People don't really need a definition for "values." Since adding a plural to "value" doesn't change what we already know about the word. I don't think anyone disagrees on its definition.
CS: “Evil” is suffering, distress, calamity, “bad times”, etc., without a higher purpose. What determines a “higher purpose” is determined by values. WJM: So, if one values the the annihilation of all “inferior” races, and sets about causing all sorts of evil, as you have defined it, in pursuit of that which he/she values, then the suffering and “bad times” they cause is not evil?
To the perpetrators it isn't. However, you and I might disagree with their value-set and set about to attack the core of it. Maybe we would succeed and maybe we wouldn't. What would you say to an Assyrian marauder in 650 B.C. to convince him that your values were superior as he is about to hack your head off? Or a modern day Islamist.
WJM: You seem to be forgetting a necessary component of “evil”: intent. Is it “evil” when there is natural calamity, which we assume serves no “higher purpose”? How does that fit into your system of definitions?
I call that "natural evil." And I don't think it is germane to the current discussion. If there is a God, he is responsible for it. If not, then nobody is. What else is there do discuss, except possible divine motives, which I think it beyond the scope here.
WJM: What about a person who is building a torture chamber in his basement and his intention is to kidnap children and torture them; are his thoughts, his intentions evil?
More specifically, I would saw that his thoughts have the potential for evil, and will lead to evil if not curtailed. In common speech, saying he has an "evil heart" would be appropriate.
CS: “Morality” is relative within societies and it exists to guard against “evil.” There is no essential difference between morality and ethics are the same thing, although often “morality” is used with respect to religiously based ethics.What am I missing? WJM: What you’re missing is a principle by which one can disagree with what society claims is moral and obligates one to defy such norms even when faced with personal harm & sacrifice.
What do you offer as The Principle?CentralScrutinizer
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT
Translating Graham2 @ 58: "I got nothin'. Let's talk about something else."Barry Arrington
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
Mark:
Pathological is not a synonym for twisted. It means “involving or caused by a physical or mental disease.” So all I am saying that his views were so different from normal human views they might be regarded as a mental condition to be cured i.e. he was close to being nuts.
So you are saying that Hitler was twisted and nuts because he was unusual, but not necessarily evil. Does that mean that Mother Teresa, who was also unusual, was twisted and nuts.StephenB
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT
Barry: There is a familiar pattern here: You present an extreme case, then taunt others to agree or they will be lampooned (or banned). I occasionally rise to the bait when the 'objective morality' nonsense is waved in front of me, but generally, is it all achieving anything ? Why not devote some space to presenting the latest results of ID 'research'. Surely all those ID 'scholars' out there cant be idle.Graham2
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT
Nowadays the word “normal” usually means “what happens most often” “or what is to be expected” and does not point to any norm or standard. It is quite interesting to plot the history of the word normal and its change from meaning “what ought to be” to “what happens most often”. However, I certainly did not intend to imply anything other than “what usually happens”.
Ok, but that doesn't really work as an explanation for your reaction against Hitler's views. You obviously wouldn't call every case where a person had extraordinarily different views something "twisted" (a term with a negative connotation). Even by just looking at physical evil, there's a standard or norm (health, good-feeling, etc). A condition is pathological not just because it is different but because it has a negative relationship to health. In that case, health is the standard; "the good". But there are other kinds of evils other than just physical evil. A requirement for intellectual health is a commitment to the truth. The evil related to that would be a willingness to knowingly say things that are not true. Or to consider truth and falsehood to be equivalent values. That would destroy all rational discourse.Silver Asiatic
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
Can't you just see Mark F and Graham2 being dragged before the court at Nuremburg? "Evil acts? Define evil!" "Obviously, the court here is refusing to define "evil" or any other terminology pertinent to these proceedings!" "Illegal? By what standard? Morals and laws are social norms. We were just going along with the social norms and laws of our peer group!!" "It's all relative. You say potato, I say Zyklon B."William J Murray
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
I wonder which provides the more fertile ground for evil to grow; apathy, or relativism?William J Murray
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT
#53
The key term “normal”, points to norms or standards
Nowadays the word "normal" usually means "what happens most often" "or what is to be expected" and does not point to any norm or standard. It is quite interesting to plot the history of the word normal and its change from meaning "what ought to be" to "what happens most often". However, I certainly did not intend to imply anything other than "what usually happens".Mark Frank
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT
#47
extraordinarily different from normal human views
I think you're getting closer to definition that is generally shared. The key term "normal", points to norms or standards. We look at human history and find some universally normal human views. Evil: the discrepancy between what is and what ought to be. Evil: the loss or deprivation of something necessary for perfection. Evil is a privation of the good -- so it only "exists" in relation to the good. Being itself is a good, so nothing that exists can be totally evil. The greatest good would be the most perfect state of, or actuality of, being. Evil is a subtraction of being -- as strange as that might sound. Perhaps better, evil takes away what is good -- what ought to be.Silver Asiatic
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT
StephenB
You are begging the question with a synonym, substituting pathological for twisted. You have not yet provided the standard by which you separate twisted/pathological from not twisted and non pathological.
Pathological is not a synonym for twisted. It means “involving or caused by a physical or mental disease.” So all I am saying that his views were so different from normal human views they might be regarded as a mental condition to be cured i.e. he was close to being nuts.
But you didn’t express it in personal terms, you expressed it in absolute terms. You didn’t say that you had a negative emotional reaction to his behavior. You said his mind IS (was) twisted. Which is it? Do you think his mind was twisted or not? If so, what standard of morality did he violate with his twisted mind?
I used the word “twisted” to combine some factual information – it was so different from normal it was almost nuts – plus conveying my attitude to that abnormality.  It is a common thing to do with words. If you describe something as “funny” you are both conveying factual information and also your attitude to that thing.  There is no need for any standard.Mark Frank
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT
CS said:
Morality and evil are two different things and should remain distinct in one’s thinking. “Values” are what people value. That’s obvious. Values are prioritized.
You really shouldn't use the same word to try to define a word. Values are things that people consider to be important.
“Evil” is suffering, distress, calamity, “bad times”, etc., without a higher purpose. What determines a “higher purpose” is determined by values.
So, if one values the the annihilation of all "inferior" races, and sets about causing all sorts of evil, as you have defined it, in pursuit of that which he/she values, then the suffering and "bad times" they cause is not evil? You seem to be forgetting a necessary component of "evil": intent Is it "evil" when there is a natural calamity, which we assume serves no "higher purpose"? How does that fit into your system of definitions? What about a person who is building a torture chamber in his basement and his intention is to kidnap children and torture them; are his thoughts, his intentions evil? How so, according to your definitions? He hasn't actually caused any suffering yet.
“Morality” is relative within societies and it exists to guard against “evil.” There is no essential difference between morality and ethics are the same thing, although often “morality” is used with respect to religiously based ethics. What am I missing?
What you're missing is a principle by which one can disagree with what society claims is moral and obligates one to defy such norms even when faced with personal harm & sacrifice. You have also left "intent" and "thought" out of your list of things that can be evil.William J Murray
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT
Mark
One I am asserting that Hitler’s views were extraordinarily different from normal human views to the extent that might be regarded as pathological.
You are begging the question with a synonym, substituting pathological for twisted. You have not yet provided the standard by which you separate twisted/pathological from not twisted and non pathological.
Two I am expressing my person revulsion from those views.
But you didn't express it in personal terms, you expressed it in absolute terms. You didn't say that you had a negative emotional reaction to his behavior. You said his mind IS (was) twisted. Which is it? Do you think his mind was twisted or not? If so, what standard of morality did he violate with his twisted mind?StephenB
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT
You are probably just confused.
Maybe we are all confused. That is part of the human condition. I once was where the consensus on these threads are but have on reflection think that it is a confused understanding. We should be somewhere else. One of the reasons I came back to this site after a couple years of not commenting was to pursue the theodicy issue and see what people said about Meyer's book. (By the way I was one of the first people on this site to have read Meyer's book and tried to discuss it. I also have recommended two discussions on evil for people to pursue. See my comment on evil here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/is-this-a-photo-is-this-a-slur-is-this-an-argument/#comment-463638 ) You continue to misconstrue what I say. For example,
I called you a nihilist, because you gave a definition of evil that excludes almost all acts of evil. And in your comment you provide further evidence of your nihilism:
Where did I ever countenance any act or event that you would define as "evil." How does questioning a superficial understanding of the concept of evil provide evidence of nihilism. I am quarreling over the nature of what the term means and the fact that it tends to be very relativistic in how we apply it. And that relativistic use causes problems. So how does arguing against the use of relativistic terms, show that I am a nihilist. I provided an absolute standard and then said that all the instances being used are trivial compared to it. Tell me why that is not a correct understanding. I did not say that any of what you are using as evil acts are desirable or even neutral. They are certainly not. So I think you are missing my point. I get the impression that you may not like being challenged on any of this but I have an interest in what I believe is really relevant. I am not optimistic on convincing many on this but until it is done we may all be off on cul de sacs fighting the wrong battles. You and others seem to want to paint the materialist into a corner by providing extreme examples of malfeasance and by saying these examples are obviously evil. Ok they are evil in the sense they are contrary to a standard we use, but how would each of these examples compare to the one outcome I said was the only true evil. I think this attempt to pigeon hole the materialist is fruitless since they do not believe in any standard except what may affect their feelings personally or is necessary to get along with their neighbors or reach personal objectives. I think when one has a personal objective of salvation, the ultimate goal, then one's standards are very different. And often they might be in sync with the materialist but for very different reasons.jerry
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT
5for
ID takes a beating at the hands of a smart commentator (RDF) and Barry goes on another childish you are with us or against us rant. Coincidence?
RDF was refuted at every level, but if you want to address those refutations, you need to visit the appropriate forum. Don't try to derail this thread with irrelevant subject matter.StephenB
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
Stephenb
Mark, in case you are not getting the drift of my question @39, I am asking you to define “twistedness,” a term that you did not hesitate to apply to Hitler.
The word combines several elements. One I am asserting that Hitler's views were extraordinarily different from normal human views to the extent that might be regarded as pathological. Two I am expressing my person revulsion from those views. Three it expresses my confidence that almost everyone else will agree with one and two.Mark Frank
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT
Simply put, people who believe in an absolute (God) have no problem defining evil as a concept. People who do not believe in an absolute are unable to provide a defensible meaning to evil, because everything is relative in a materialist world. Yet all but the insane and evil recognize that there are things that are inherently, objectively evil (e.g. bad, wrong, immoral, shouldn't be done). You want a absolutist definition of evil? How about this: Evil: Any action, attitude, thought, or event offensive to God and His nature. A practical guideline to not being evil? Well, the Law was God's gift to His people, and part of the purpose of the Law was to help them avoid evil. And the Law is summed up in "Love God" and "Love others as you love yourself". So, Evil in practice is anything that is not loving of God and/or not loving of others. Torturing babies? evil Holocaust? evil Just because there are times when it is difficult to define whether a specific action is evil, does NOT have any relevance to whether evil exists as an absolute concept. A materialist, of course, will not accept any of the above. Without an absolute reference, the word "evil" means nothing. So, to Barry's point: 1) Humanity understands certain actions to be objectively evil. 2) Anyone who disagrees that these actions are objectively evil is, by human definition, insane or evil. 3) Materialists lacking a foundation to define evil must deny that these actions are objectively evil.** 4) Materialists are, by human definition, insane or evil. **Realistically, of course, Materialists are neither insane nor evil. They are, to put it bluntly, inconsistent and illogical. Contrary to point 3, they will agree (or at least understand even if you can't get them to admit it) that torturing infants for fun is objectively evil. They will also argue that evil is a relative term and has no real meaning. Illogical. And so you are left with arguing semantics as seen in the comments above. Because trying to argue with an illogical person can be very entertaining, but is mostly pointless. --drc466drc466
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
KF, except for making the distinction between ethics as body of rules, and ethics as an academic study, nothing you quoted or said adds anything to what I said. But thanks.CentralScrutinizer
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT
5for: Your reporting is twisted from the actual evident truth regarding the exchange. KFkairosfocus
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT
SB: Good point, the use of "twisted" reflects the perversion-privation principle and definition of evil, and the underlying implication that there is a proper purpose of the mind and power in the state, which was being perverted by evil men. KFkairosfocus
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT
ID takes a beating at the hands of a smart commentator (RDF) and Barry goes on another childish you are with us or against us rant. Coincidence?5for
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT
MF: I see your descriptive ethics level discussion of morals, which is not the same thing as what is being asked for, it is two levels too low. And BTW, I should note that in many cases it is not the ethical principle that is in contention but the perceived facts. Once error is corrected on such -- e.g. why some cultures have people wanting to be buried alive, disagreement fades. Similarly, We are dealing with a yardstick case, the holocaust. I am sure you are aware that the defense offered by many of those who carried it out was they were obeying the orders of their lawful authorities duly constituted by electoral process. As you are further aware, the counter was that there is a natural, evident law rooted in our nature and dignity as human beings, that is above the errors and crimes of a given state's leaders. So, in the properse3nse the orders were not lawful, and this was evident to those who carried them out, who must have known they were doing what was monstrously evil -- mass murder etc -- as improperly ordered by wicked men. Again, we see the importance of yardstick examples, that have ever so much to teach us. KFkairosfocus
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT
Mark, in case you are not getting the drift of my question @39, I am asking you to define "twistedness," a term that you did not hesitate to apply to Hitler.StephenB
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT
Mark:
I have no doubt that Hitler etc would agree that good and evil exist. It was just in their twisted minds they did not think that exterminating lesser races was evil
What moral standard do you use to differentiate between a twisted mind and one that is not twisted?StephenB
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
CS: Here may help you. Let me clip Clarke and Rakestraw:
Principles are broad general guidelines that all persons ought to follow. Morality is the dimension of life related to right conduct. It includes virtuous character and honorable intentions as well as the decisions and actions that grow out of them. Ethics on the other hand, is the [philosophical and theological] study of morality . . . [that is,] a higher order discipline that examines moral living in all its facets . . . . on three levels. The first level, descriptive ethics, simply portrays moral actions or virtues. A second level, normative ethics (also called prescriptive ethics), examines the first level, evaluating actions or virtues as morally right or wrong. A third level, metaethics, analyses the second . . . It clarifies the meaning of ethical terms and assesses the principles of ethical argument . . . . Some think, without reflecting on it, that . . . what people actually do is the standard of what is morally right . . . [But, what] actually happens and what ought to happen are quite different . . . . A half century ago, defenders of positivism routinely argued that descriptive statements are meaningful, but prescriptive statements (including all moral claims) are meaningless . . . In other words, ethical claims give no information about the world; they only reveal something about the emotions of the speaker . . . . Yet ethical statements do seem to say something about the realities to which they point. “That’s unfair!” encourages us to attend to circumstances, events, actions, or relationships in the world. We look for a certain quality in the world (not just the speaker’s mind) that we could properly call unfair.
Thus, we see the focus of ethics as a philosophical discipline, and the major challenges to ethics over the past century: positivism deriving from the naturalist worldview, and relativism, deriving from the assumption that what is and what ought to be are effectively the same. Consequently, as Arthur Holmes points out, ethics has to address the is-ought gap:
However we may define the good, however well we may calculate consequences, to whatever extent we may or may not desire certain consequences, none of this of itself implies any obligation of command. That something is or will be does not imply that we ought to seek it. We can never derive an “ought” from a premised “is” unless the ought is somehow already contained in the premise . . . . R. M. Hare . . . raises the same point. Most theories, he argues, simply fail to account for the ought that commands us: subjectivism reduces imperatives to statements about subjective states, egoism and utilitarianism reduce them to statements about consequences, emotivism simply rejects them because they are not empirically verifiable, and determinism reduces them to causes rather than commands . . . . Elizabeth Anscombe’s point is well made. We have a problem introducing the ought into ethics unless, as she argues, we are morally obligated by law – not a socially imposed law, ultimately, but divine law . . . . This is precisely the problem with modern ethical theory in the West . . . it has lost the binding force of divine commandments.
The relevance of this comes out as soon as we consider the concept that we have rights:
If we admit that we all equally have the right to be treated as persons, then it follows that we have the duty to respect one another accordingly. Rights bring correlative duties: my rights . . . imply that you ought to respect these rights.
All of this circles back to the issue that in a world with purpose, ethics exists and is grounded in the one who gives purpose to the world. If one imagines instead that he world is purposeless, then all of this breaks down. It is the clash of incongruity that results when our worldview tries to tell us that something like the holocaust cannot be labelled as evil, that what Hitler et al did is not materially different from what say Mother Theresa did, that we begin to run into serious absurdity. That absurdity is trying to tell us that our worldview is in radical misalignment with the world as it is. But, if there are reasons that lead us to cling to absurdity . . . KFkairosfocus
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT
Barry: and if he denies that he knows all of this he is a liar
Come on. You're better than that.CentralScrutinizer
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT
Morality and evil are two different things and should remain distinct in one's thinking. "Values" are what people value. That's obvious. Values are prioritized. "Evil" is suffering, distress, calamity, "bad times", etc., without a higher purpose. What determines a "higher purpose" is determined by values. "Morality" is relative within societies and it exists to guard against "evil." There is no essential difference between morality and ethics are the same thing, although often "morality" is used with respect to religiously based ethics. What am I missing?CentralScrutinizer
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT
#32 Barry You have a lawyer's trick of trying to trap people with neat dichotomies and challenges which turn it from a serious investigation of the subject into a sort of intellectual game with winners and losers. This isn't a court room. If you are really interested in the meanings of words such as good and evil then I encourage you to read on. If all you want is to score debating points - that's fine we will stop here.
Then tell us what that meaning is Mark. Until you do, I have nothing further to say to you on the subject. Prediction: You never will.
I wrote a whole essay explaining why it is so difficult to say what it means except in the circular sense of defining it as "morally bad" or something like that. The closest I can get in a reasonable number of words is something like: "When someone says X is evil they are asking or demanding that X (or things like X) be prevented on the grounds that X leads to a specific type of revulsion that we (almost) all share. In most societies for most people this revulsion is a response to intense suffering so X is practically speaking largely coextensive with "leads to intense suffering". However, societies and individuals differ sharply as to what subjects of suffering create this revulsion and what other things cause this revulsion in addition to intense suffering." But that is hardly useful! So yes your prediction is right. I never will tell you what it means in any useful sense. And neither will you or anyone else. You can refute me by giving your definition and demonstrating that it concurs with what most people mean by evil. If it is in KF's comment #8 then just say which one it is.Mark Frank
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
and if he denies that he knows all of this he is a liar
In another ages, not so long ago actually, the inquisitor would have had all sorts of ways to extract the "true confession" from the "liar." Thanks, Barry. No need for you to back up assertions and really think through them. If they disagree with you and make an opposing case, they must be lying. We all see what and who you are. Pleased to meet you, we've guessed your name.LarTanner
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT
#31 Barry
To deny that the holocaust was evil is the same as denying that good and evil exist.
This is clearly false. I have no doubt that Hitler etc would agree that good and evil exist. It was just in their twisted minds they did not think that exterminating lesser races was evil.Mark Frank
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6

Leave a Reply