Extreme Rightwing Christian Terrorists attack Norway

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Northern, Jul 22, 2011.

  1. Waelstrum

    Waelstrum All Fourths Advocate

    Messages:
    1,281
    Likes Received:
    72
    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Location:
    Queensland, Australia
    I think (a good preface for a post on objectivity :lol:) that if there is an objective morality, it would be a biological one as you described. The problem with that is if it is only "do what is best for you species" then when species come into conflict, the victor will be moral in their own eyes, but immoral in the eyes of the defeated. It could be argued that therefore a more overarching objective morality could be "do what is best for all forms of life". But that is almost never going to apply, as the nature of life is that it is in competition with itself. Unless we pool all our resources into balancing all life on earth into some sort of perfect symbiosis (which IMO would be difficult bordering on impossible).
     
  2. chronocide

    chronocide Total Grind Hell

    Messages:
    616
    Likes Received:
    81
    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2011
    Location:
    Glasgow, UK
    Yep, all morality is evolved, and its most basic root is "don't do to others what I don't want to happen to me" which can be observed in near enough any group of creatures. It's subjective, though.

    Of course you can have morality without religion, it just can't ever be objective without a divine rulemaker.

    I will happily listen to any example of a moral code that can be argued to be objective.
     
  3. Waelstrum

    Waelstrum All Fourths Advocate

    Messages:
    1,281
    Likes Received:
    72
    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Location:
    Queensland, Australia
    I'm not saying either is necessarily correct, but I just gave two examples which could be considered a close approximation.
     
  4. chronocide

    chronocide Total Grind Hell

    Messages:
    616
    Likes Received:
    81
    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2011
    Location:
    Glasgow, UK
    I don't see that you've given an example of any kind of objective morality?
     
  5. Waelstrum

    Waelstrum All Fourths Advocate

    Messages:
    1,281
    Likes Received:
    72
    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Location:
    Queensland, Australia
    Again, not necessarily saying that these are absolute, but these are possibilities.
     
  6. chronocide

    chronocide Total Grind Hell

    Messages:
    616
    Likes Received:
    81
    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2011
    Location:
    Glasgow, UK
    "What's best for your species" and "Do unto others..." are the usual ones I hear quoted, but both are intensely subjective.
     
  7. Waelstrum

    Waelstrum All Fourths Advocate

    Messages:
    1,281
    Likes Received:
    72
    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Location:
    Queensland, Australia
    Well, yeah the do unto other one I always found a bit weird when you apply it to situations like rape and masochism (as extreme examples).

    I also agree that determining what's best for the species is a very grey area, and also in a hypothetical situation isn't what I might call moral. One example being eugenics, which might very well make our species a great and powerful one, but it seems a bit ruthless. (Plus I don't much fancy being sterilised/culled.)
     
  8. vampiregenocide

    vampiregenocide A Chap Called Ross

    Messages:
    16,166
    Likes Received:
    2,100
    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2008
    Location:
    Hertfordshire, England
    The general rule of thumb is don't do anything that would cause harm or loss to another person. That pretty much covers everything.
     
  9. chronocide

    chronocide Total Grind Hell

    Messages:
    616
    Likes Received:
    81
    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2011
    Location:
    Glasgow, UK
    I would say that's pretty much the basis of morality, absolutely. And it's subjective. Morality always is unless you a have a divine rulemaker to instruct you as to what is right and wrong.

    Which we don't, obviously.
     
  10. Explorer

    Explorer He seldomly knows...

    Messages:
    6,351
    Likes Received:
    934
    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Location:
    Formerly from Cucaramacatacatirimilcote...
    But even here, varying definitions mean this rule of thumb is not applied to everyone. Is it that the early American settlers didn't perceive the natives as people? Or the Australian transports perceiving the aborigines?

    What about the Taliban, who don't view other Muslims as real Muslims?

    And wouldn't those examples illustrate how subjectively we apply morality as a species?

    The human history of the world is more about mouthing platitudes about loving one's neighbor until push comes to shove. Sadly, those shoves aren't even necessarily about things which are necessities. The Japanese forcing Korean women into pleasure houses, forced to be whores for Japanese military? A completely different definition of "love thy neighbor." The gulags. The Long March. The Hutu mutilating and killing Tutsi women with machetes.

    Every moment of triumph on American Idol has the voyeuristic pleasure of the audience cheering on their favorites has its counterpart in the voyeuristic schadenfreude (joy in the misfortunes of another) when people clearly have no ability to sing at that level... and American Idol knows it. They even broadcast those who fail spectacularly, and those episodes are often better rated than the normal competition broadcasts.

    I'd argue that humans like to think of themselves as nice, and that's why so much lip service is paid to "love thy neighbor." "Oh, of *course* we're nice people... wait, don't let that person butt ahead of us in the merge lane!"
     
    AxeHappy likes this.
  11. vampiregenocide

    vampiregenocide A Chap Called Ross

    Messages:
    16,166
    Likes Received:
    2,100
    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2008
    Location:
    Hertfordshire, England
    It's not varying definitions of morality, it's just a change in how we apply it. One person can choose to put aside morals to further themselves at the expense of others. Causing harm to someone else is pretty much always wrong, whatever faith or nationality you're from. I think as a race we do have a collective sense of morality built into us, but sometimes we chose to ignore it.

    This is reflected in nature. Sand tiger shark babies take part in inter-uterine cannibalism. A couple dozen baby sharks basically eat each other until birth, when only a few if that are left. Those that are left are stronger and well fed so they enter the world ready for what it has to offer. Now on a numbers level, all those babies inside that womb never stood a fighting chance and only existed as food for the strongest. The shark has evolved a way of furthering it's own species in a pretty dark and harsh way. As humans we have a concious decision whether we want to 'cannibalise' our brothers and sisters to increase our chances of sucess, or we can use this gift of understanding to help society as a whole progress, instead of rising on the shoulders of the weak. Unfortunately, many people prefer to put morals aside and take the more aggressive route.


    Human beings have shown time and time again that we're willing to go against nature whenever we choose to. We're rogue animals with selfish intentions, and we don't see the long term effects of he damage we cause. Morality is another aspect of our nature that we're still coming to terms with collectively. Some people want to embrace it fully and to create a world that is safe for everyone, whereas some only seek self preservation. They want their religion to be universal, their country to be the most powerful, their company to be the most wealthy etc and they'll do anything they can to achieve this.

    So for this people, it's not that they have a different definition of morality it's just that they don't need it at all. Not causing harm or loss to another human isn't really open to interpretation, it can be applied to any interaction with another being. Killing someone or forcing them to do something they don't want to, goes against this rule, and therefore can be considered immoral. There are very few instances where it becomes foggy, but even then it can be dealt with. The only problem is whether people want to retain a sense of morality, or whether they'd rather just better themselves whatever that may take.


    Or some bullshit.



    EDIT - To summarise, because as often I got carried away, yes humans apply morality subjectively but that is their error it doesn't mean morality is at fault if that makes sense. People do think they're nice but we still play the same gane of survival that we always have, which often means stepping on others.
     
  12. Explorer

    Explorer He seldomly knows...

    Messages:
    6,351
    Likes Received:
    934
    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Location:
    Formerly from Cucaramacatacatirimilcote...
    So... it still sounds like primate politics are a better descriptor of what's actually happening. Primate politics is applicable in all cases, and doesn't require an explanation of why it gets put aside.

    As soon as you start coming up with explanations for exceptions to morality, it's not an accurate theory or description of the real world. Having to layer on exception after exception takes it from parsimony to apologetics. It's the philosophical equivalent to retrograde motion. Only by using heliocentricism does one explain such motion better than possible with geocentrism.

    There was better evidence for heliocentrism than geocentrism, even though geocentrism appealed greatly to humans' beliefs about the world and themselves. Similarly, there is better evidence for primate politics than morality, even though morality appeals greatly to humans' beliefs about the world and themselves.
     
  13. vampiregenocide

    vampiregenocide A Chap Called Ross

    Messages:
    16,166
    Likes Received:
    2,100
    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2008
    Location:
    Hertfordshire, England
    Well I think we're well aware that humans are the exception to a lot of rules in terms of nature, so trying to pin things down isn't very easy at all. I think the key issue is we spend too much time thinking about it and in doing so getting muddled up with our own ideals, therefore losing sight of the migger picture which is ultimately what morality is as it does not simply apply to an individual. Seeing as humans live in a very divided lifestyle compared to animals, which don't have religion or lifestyle decisions that we do, we therefore pidgeon-hole ourselves into certain ways of thinking, clouding our judgement and ability to come up with a common ground.

    Morality is an ideal, an ideal that some might say is out of reach. It reflects both our instinctual desire to create a better society. The 'no harm or loss' rule is pretty water tight, and there aren't many exceptions to it. I only accepted that there might be because I can't account for every single instance where a person might potentially wrong another.

    It's a funny thing. I don't think there is a real right or wrong answer as long as individually we learn from each other in trying to find a common ground.


    Also, where the hell did this thread go. :lol:
     
  14. Explorer

    Explorer He seldomly knows...

    Messages:
    6,351
    Likes Received:
    934
    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Location:
    Formerly from Cucaramacatacatirimilcote...
    I listed a wealth of exceptions to it. One need only read the newspaper or watch the news to find those exceptions.

    I'd say that there are lots of people who want to believe there is such a morality. Similarly, there are lots of people who consider themselves moral who want to believe that gays and lesbians aren't decent people because of who they choose to have consensual sex with, and so on.

    Going from "Some people hold this as an ideal" to "This is what morality is" is a leap without evidence. If I can argue all aspects of human treatment of other beings using primate politics, and if the only way to get around exceptions is to just ignore them or to say that one's theory of morality just has to treat them as exceptions to the rule... then that rule doesn't really act as a rule. It's just wishful thinking.

    ----

    In case more examples are needed, where someone could decide to treat someone better but doesn't in order to preserve resources for themselves and their own troop of primates:

    Illegal immigration
    Lower taxes on those least able to pay taxes
    Better programs to feed hungry children
    Acceptable civilian casualties in a foreign country

    and so on.

    When push comes to shove, morality and other ideals normally get pushed to the side by survival and protection of one's bloodline (whether actual or adopted). Cooperation is a strategy which has helped primates, but it's a strategy which can be abandoned if there is advantage in a different strategy.
     
  15. Jakke

    Jakke Pretty wisdomous

    Messages:
    4,391
    Likes Received:
    774
    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2010
    Location:
    In a van... DOWN' BY THE RIVER!
    "Do unto others what they have done unto you" has always worked fine for me...

    Just chippin' in:yesway:
     
  16. Waelstrum

    Waelstrum All Fourths Advocate

    Messages:
    1,281
    Likes Received:
    72
    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Location:
    Queensland, Australia
    I was just thinking this, but I think it's actually a sign of a good forum that when faced with such a horrific display, we get into a discussion about the nature of morality.



    I seem once again to be agreeing with Explorer. I would just like to say on the topic of primate politics:
    1) Wouldn't our politics be considered primate politics even if we acted different to the others, as we are also primates?
    2) ‪Tim Minchin...Confessions -‬‏ - YouTube
    particularly 5:24

    EDIT: I can't get the video to embed.
     
  17. chronocide

    chronocide Total Grind Hell

    Messages:
    616
    Likes Received:
    81
    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2011
    Location:
    Glasgow, UK
    Someone said objective morality exists, I said it doesn't (cause it doesn't) and BANG.
     
  18. zappatton2

    zappatton2 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    499
    Likes Received:
    91
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Location:
    Ottawa, ON
    I found this to be a very interesting conversation on the nature of morality, if one has the patience to sit through it and put up with the guy in the sunglasses with the mic:



    I find that people, much like the guy holding the microphone here, who can only think in absolutes, are potentially more dangerous to the public at large by being less flexible in their understanding of those around them, and much more likely to dehumanize those they disagree with (which to me is a big part of what happened with this dude in Norway, when you're too rigid, you're more likely to snap).
     
    Scar Symmetry likes this.
  19. thatsanegative

    thatsanegative SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Location:
    Oregon
    From the Asses mouth. Sounds like he shares more in common with various views expressed on this site here and there more than any thing Christian.
    He also makes little sense and contradicts himself.

    WASHINGTON – A review of Anders Behring Breivik's 1,500-page manifesto shows the media's quick characterization of the Norwegian terrorist as a "Christian" may be as incorrect as it was to call Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh one.
    Breivik was arrested over the weekend, charged with a pair of brutal attacks in and near Oslo, Norway, including a bombing in the capital city that killed 7 and a shooting spree at a youth political retreat on the island of Utoya that killed more than 80 victims.
    Piecing together Breivik's various posts on the Internet, many media reports have characterized the terrorist – who says he was upset over the multiculturalist policies stemming from Norway's Labour Party – as a "right-wing, Christian fundamentalist."
    Yet, while McVeigh rejected God altogether, Breivik writes in his manifesto that he is not religious, has doubts about God's existence, does not pray, but does assert the primacy of Europe's "Christian culture" as well as his own pagan Nordic culture.
    Breivik instead hails Charles Darwin, whose evolutionary theories stand in contrast to the claims of the Bible, and affirms: "As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings. Europe has always been the cradle of science, and it must always continue to be that way. Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I'm not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe."
    Discover how both totalitarianism and terrorism will wilt in the face of true freedom with "The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror."
    The terrorist also candidly admits he finds no support within either the Catholic or Protestant churches for his violent ideas.
    "I trust that the future leadership of a European cultural conservative hegemony in Europe will ensure that the current Church leadership are replaced and the systems somewhat reformed," he writes. "We must have a Church leadership who supports a future Crusade with the intention of liberating the Balkans, Anatolia and creating three Christian states in the Middle East. Efforts should be made to facilitate the de-construction of the Protestant Church whose members should convert back to Catholicism. The Protestant Church had an important role once, but its original goals have been accomplished and have contributed to reform the Catholic Church as well. Europe should have a united Church lead [sic] by a just and non-suicidal pope who is willing to fight for the security of his subjects, especially in regards to Islamic atrocities."
    (Story continues below)



    While Breivik says he considers himself "100-percent Christian,"[huh? how i don't understand since he basically professes otherwise in every other statement] he also expresses pride in his genealogical roots.
    "I am very proud of my Viking heritage," he writes. "My name, Breivik, is a location name from northern Norway, and can be dated back to even before the Viking era. Behring is a pre-Christian Germanic name, which is derived from Behr, the Germanic word for Bear (or 'those who are protected by the bear')."
    And while characterizing himself as "Christian" and "Protestant," Breivik says he supports "a reformation of Protestantism leading to it being absorbed by Catholisism." [sic]
    Likewise, media reports frequently characterized McVeigh as a "Christian," though he adamantly denied any religious beliefs or convictions – placing his faith in science.
    Breivik adds, "I went from moderately agnostic to moderately religious."
    In a question-and-answer section of his manifesto, Breivik asks himself, "What should be our civilisational [sic] objectives, how do you envision a perfect Europe?"
    His answer is hardly the response of a "Christian utopian": "'Logic' and rationalist thought (a certain degree of national Darwinism) should be the fundament [sic] of our societies. I support the propagation of collective rational thought but not necessarily on a personal level."
    Religious worship and study is never noted in the manifesto as part of Breivik's routine in preparing for his mission of mass murder. In discussing his preparation for the attack, he writes: "It has been a long-term process since I first decided I wanted to contribute. But it's not like I have been isolated for years. I have almost lived a normal life up until now. I still have a close relationship with my friends and family, just not as tight as it used to be. As for my current situation, I have been working on this book now for almost two years. It's essential that you reward yourself and enjoy life in this period. You can do things you normally wouldn't have done. You can basically live a normal life if you chose to; you just have to be extra careful. I have been practising [sic] certain rituals and meditation to strengthen my beliefs and convictions. For me, the most common ritual is taking a long walk listening to my favourite [sic] music on my iPod."
    Breivik also points out that his association with Christian cultural values is one of political expedience rather than religious commitment or faith
    "My choice has nothing to do with the fact that I am not proud of my own traditions and heritage," he explains. "My choice was based purely pragmatism. All Europeans are in this boat together, so we must choose a more moderate platform that can appeal to a great number of Europeans – preferably up to 50 percent (realistically up to 35 percent)."
    Breivik also claims membership in the Freemasons, which many Christians consider to be a cultic organization.
    More specifically, he calls himself a Justiciar Knight and explains what that means insofar as belief in Christianity:
    "As this is a cultural war, our definition of being a Christian does not necessarily constitute that you are required to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus," he writes. "Being a Christian can mean many things; That you believe in and want to protect Europe's Christian cultural heritage. The European cultural heritage, our norms (moral codes and social structures included), our traditions and our modern political systems are based on Christianity – Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity and the legacy of the European enlightenment (reason is the primary source and legitimacy for authority). It is not required that you have a personal relationship with God or Jesus in order to fight for our Christian cultural heritage and the European way. In many ways, our modern societies and European secularism is a result of European Christendom and the enlightenment. It is therefore essential to understand the difference between a 'Christian fundamentalist theocracy' (everything we do not want) and a secular European society based on our Christian cultural heritage (what we do want). So no, you don't need to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus to fight for our Christian cultural heritage. It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian atheist (an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy (Christian holidays, Christmas and Easter)). The PCCTS, Knights Templar is therefore not a religious organisation [sic] but rather a Christian 'culturalist' military order."
    Over and over again, Breivik goes out of his way to make clear to readers of his manifesto that he is not motivated by Christian faith.
    "I'm not going to pretend I'm a very religious person, as that would be a lie," he says. "I've always been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings and environment. In the past, I remember I used to think: 'Religion is a crutch for weak people. What is the point in believing in a higher power if you have confidence in yourself!? Pathetic.' Perhaps this is true for many cases. Religion is a crutch for many weak people, and many embrace religion for self-serving reasons as a source for drawing mental strength (to feed their weak emotional state [for] example during illness, death, poverty etc.). Since I am not a hypocrite, I'll say directly that this is my agenda as well. However, I have not yet felt the need to ask God for strength, yet."


    And here is the mindset of some of those people. Nice folks. Really "tolerant" of someones differing opinion.
    Or more honestly just ignorant punks.

    07-31-2011 05:15 PM Fuck off you idiot [​IMG] Extreme Rightwing... 07-25-2011 06:53 AM Go find another forum if you are just here to promote your religion [​IMG] Extreme Rightwing... 07-24-2011 08:06 PM You really joined up just to keep people from thinking this crazy dude was Christian? Get the fuck out of here. [​IMG] Extreme Rightwing... 07-24-2011 04:45 PM eat shit [​IMG] Extreme Rightwing... 07-24-2011 03:12 PM Enjoy some neg rep
     
  20. chronocide

    chronocide Total Grind Hell

    Messages:
    616
    Likes Received:
    81
    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2011
    Location:
    Glasgow, UK
    What sites are you copying and pasting from?

    And signing up to a guitar site in which politics is a very minor subforum specifically to argue the toss over whether a terrorist is Christian or not is likely to draw some ire. I don't think you should be surprised.
     

Share This Page