47 replies to this topic

[Mr Right Wing]

and then, on 11 April 2012 - 12:40 PM, said:

I'm happy to see that you feel willing to take responsibility for your own actions, that's a start.  I think we are talking at cross purposes.  When I say that any citizen of a democracy is ultimately responsible for the actions taken by that democracy I am speaking on a moral level, not one with some legal binding.  I am American.  When my country bombs a wedding party in Afghanistan or Iraq due to bad intelligence and a couple dozen innocents are killed, then hell yes I am responsible.  My labor/taxes make it possible for those aircraft to be there.  My votes put in power the leaders who determined we should fight there.  Ultimately that sin lies at my door also.
I don't really understand your stance that my feeling responsible for my government's actions makes me the equivalent of a mass murderer like Breivik.  I apparently have touched a nerve of some kind which I never intended.  I still resent the insult but I don't want to argue the point.  Good day to you.

Democracy doesnt work in the sense people stop standing up for themselves. They take the weaker course of action which is to vote the incompetant party out of power at the next election. Then as they still dont stand up for themselves the next party doesnt listen to them either.

Then the nutters start appearing who think a terrorist attack will change things.

I think we need mass peaceful protests and to demand Democracy centres are setup where the internet is used to give us True Democracy. The sooner the people are the Government the sooner all societies problems can be corrected.

[Cute_Gingrich]

ShadowSot, on 11 April 2012 - 03:52 AM, said:

You might want to actually look to see how it works. 'Cause that ain't it.

Seriously. He even posted it after I posted a link which explains why Breivik won't be coming out in 20 years time.

Not that it matters now that the topic has derailed into some dumb **** about democracy.

[ShadowSot]

Garbage man, on 11 April 2012 - 03:13 PM, said:

Seriously. He even posted it after I posted a link which explains why Breivik won't be coming out in 20 years time.

I stopped expecting people to read links years ago.  

[Helen of Annoy]

Garbage man, on 11 April 2012 - 03:13 PM, said:

Seriously. He even posted it after I posted a link which explains why Breivik won't be coming out in 20 years time.

Not that it matters now that the topic has derailed into some dumb **** about democracy.

That **** about democracy is not dumb, it’s you that is too dumb to understand it

Seriously, you’re right. Back on topic, back to Breivik.

Of course he’s insane. Only deeply deranged person can kill so many people for no good reason. His political agenda is just an excuse – in my opinion – and his true motive is severe but simple psychopathy. He clearly enjoyed committing murders, he clearly enjoys media attention, he clearly cannot feel any sympathy for his victims and so on.    
But that’s not the kind of insanity that makes people unable to understand what they are doing.

What perplexed me is that two sets of professionals gave two completely different estimations of Breivik’s mental health, in very short time span. No one can act that well, so one of those two teams was clearly led by non-medical criteria.
That is scary thought. You may be declared insane (or sane) not because you are such, but because someone thinks it would be opportune diagnosis.

[Parsip]

He seems perfectly sane to me. Evil and insanity aren't the same thing. Only those who don't believe in morality use mental illness to explain evil.

[Helen of Annoy]

Parsip, on 11 April 2012 - 05:06 PM, said:

He seems perfectly sane to me. Evil and insanity aren't the same thing. Only those who don't believe in morality use mental illness to explain evil.

I could nitpick (Breivik apparently is a very firm believer in his version of morality), but I can’t seriously disagree with you. I'm not sure if mental illness can explain the evil.

[and then]

If he isn't insane then it makes me shudder to think of a human being that could so coldly and methodically slaughter 77 people....most, children.  Whether insane or not, they are still dead but somehow there is a bit of comfort in the idea that a human just has to be broken to do such things.  To accept that just anyone could be capable of such an act is  horribly depressing to contemplate.

[Star of the Sea]

and then, on 12 April 2012 - 11:03 AM, said:

If he isn't insane then it makes me shudder to think of a human being that could so coldly and methodically slaughter 77 people....most, children.  Whether insane or not, they are still dead but somehow there is a bit of comfort in the idea that a human just has to be broken to do such things.  To accept that just anyone could be capable of such an act is  horribly depressing to contemplate.

Yes it is an awful thought that a human being could do such terrible things without being insane. Are some people born evil or with a diseased brain? I watched a programme on the BBC recently about Psychopaths and it was fascinating. Here is an article: http://www.bbc.co.uk...health-15386740

Edited by Star of the Sea, 13 April 2012 - 12:14 AM.

[Leonardo]

Helen of Annoy, on 11 April 2012 - 04:38 PM, said:

Of course he’s insane.

Breivik isn't insane.

He holds deep-seated beliefs which grant him a different ethical and moral response to situations than you or I, perhaps, but he is quite rational with those beliefs.

Because of the difference in moral and ethical prespectives, some might label him "Evil", but of course he is not that either. He simply has a very different set of values than most people. This does not make him any less dangerous.

[Chronii]

Leonardo, on 13 April 2012 - 11:00 AM, said:

Because of the difference in moral and ethical prespectives, some might label him "Evil", but of course he is not that either.

Not sure if there even is a definition of evil, but I've always seen evil as the complete lack of empathy. Not once has he shown any regret for what he did, he was laughing and cheering as he gunned down defenseless children, so I disagree, I'm pretty sure he's evil, as a person who cares about other people would never be able to do such a thing.

[Leonardo]

Chronii, on 13 April 2012 - 12:18 PM, said:

Not sure if there even is a definition of evil, but I've always seen evil as the complete lack of empathy. Not once has he shown any regret for what he did, he was laughing and cheering as he gunned down defenseless children, so I disagree, I'm pretty sure he's evil, as a person who cares about other people would never be able to do such a thing.

Empathy would require people have the same moral/ethical viewpoint to empathise with each other. Find another person with Breivik's moral/ethical pov, and you will find they empathise.

I agree we have created this concept of "evil". This is because the majority of people have the same, or a very similar, moral/ethical prespective and by the definition of that concept we label those, like Breivik, who do not share this common perspective, as evil. All this suggests is that "evil" is a subjective pov.

[Mr Right Wing]

Leonardo, on 13 April 2012 - 12:28 PM, said:

Empathy would require people have the same moral/ethical viewpoint to empathise with each other. Find another person with Breivik's moral/ethical pov, and you will find they empathise.

I agree we have created this concept of "evil". This is because the majority of people have the same, or a very similar, moral/ethical prespective and by the definition of that concept we label those, like Breivik, who do not share this common perspective, as evil. All this suggests is that "evil" is a subjective pov.

I think Breivik is correct.

Allowing people to emmigrate into your country while allowing them to keep their religion and cultural values leads to conflict. The reason is some of them will always be fundies and will try to force their religion and cultural values onto their new nation. I think there are problems coming for Europe in the decades ahead.

However I also fit Breivik into one of those fundy groups. He thinks he too has the right to force his values onto others through violance and acts of terrorism.

That fool may well have set nationalist politics in Norway back 50 years.

[Chronii]

Leonardo, on 13 April 2012 - 12:28 PM, said:

Empathy would require people have the same moral/ethical viewpoint to empathise with each other.

Not true. No matter how much I dislike someone, the very idea of hurting them makes me feel the pain as if I was hurting myself. Obviously some people have more empathy than others, but you don't have to agree with someone's views to empathise with them.

Mr Right Wing said:

I think Breivik is correct.

Allowing people to emmigrate into your country while allowing them to keep their religion and cultural values leads to conflict. The reason is some of them will always be fundies and will try to force their religion and cultural values onto their new nation. I think there are problems coming for Europe in the decades ahead.

However I also fit Breivik into one of those fundy groups. He thinks he too has the right to force his values onto others through violance and acts of terrorism.

That fool may well have set nationalist politics in Norway back 50 years.

Well said.

Edited by Chronii, 13 April 2012 - 12:55 PM.

[Leonardo]

Chronii, on 13 April 2012 - 12:53 PM, said:

Not true. No matter how much I dislike someone, the very idea of hurting them makes me feel the pain as if I was hurting myself. Obviously some people have more empathy than others, but you don't have to agree with someone's views to empathise with them.

My emphasis.

That is a description of sympathy, not empathy.

[Helen of Annoy]

Leonardo, on 13 April 2012 - 11:00 AM, said:

Breivik isn't insane.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Psychopathy

Not delusional, but definitely not sane.
He, who went hunting lesser beings, is actually severely damaged and, according to his morality, therefore the one that is lesser.

Interesting detail is that he had more than one plastic surgery, so he actually does feel inferior.

In short: typicall right-winger issues. Run over by their own fantasies since mid 1940s.