…and this is a 
You can now find a ghastly manifesto, purportedly by Anders Behring Breivik, on the web. The guy was delusional and insane: it's an incoherent 1500 pages long, and it reads like an obsessively fussed-over set of rules for a nerdy fantasy role-playing game…except, of course, that this lunatic thought it was real and charged off to murder people.
He claims to be a Justiciar Knight, part of a new organization called PCCTS.
Pauperes commilitones Christi Templique Solomonici - PCCTS (the Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon), the Knights Templar was re-founded in London in 2002 by representatives from eight European countries, for the purpose of serving the interests of the free indigenous peoples of Europe and to fight against the ongoing European Jihad (referred to as the "third Jihad"). The Knights Templar was re-founded as a pan-European nationalist military order and a military/criminal tribunal with two primary objectives. The order is to serve as an armed Indigenous Rights Organisation and as a Crusader Movement (anti-Jihad movement).
He also claims to have met with about a dozen anonymous guys to set up this organization — that's about it, at best a handful of kooks, and who knows how many of them were products of his egotistical imagination. Amusingly enough, after mentioning these stalwart, unnamed few, he goes on in further obsessive detail to describe all the different ranks in his order (more than there are members!) and to list with illustrations the various medals that can be awarded, including campaign ribbons for places all around the world.
I looked to see what he had to say about atheists, and it's quite a bit. His fantasy order is most definitely Christian, but he allows cultural Christians to be members: you don't have to believe in Jesus, but you have to respect the traditions and dogma and hierarchy of the Christian church. Jews are OK, but not those awful horrible liberal multiculturalists Jews. He is careful to say that he hates Adolf Hitler, but not for the reasons most of us would give: it's no big deal that he killed six million Jews, but he betrayed the European cause with his doomed strategies and irrational priorities that led to the downfall of the German empire.
You want a window into the sick mind of this evil fellow? Here are his musings on atheism and his plan for his martyrdom in some grand plan. Bonus mission? This guy thought he was a brave Christian knight playing a video game. Only in this game, the 'hero' murders unarmed teenagers with a rifle.
There are no atheists in foxholes
I'm not going to pretend I'm a very religious person as that would be a lie. 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 f 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... But I'm pretty sure I will pray to God as I'm rushing through my city, guns blazing, with 100 armed system protectors pursuing me with the intention to stop and/or kill. I know there is a 80%+ chance I am going to die during the operation as I have no intention to surrender to them until I have completed all three primary objectives AND the bonus mission. When I initiate (providing I haven't been apprehended before then), there is a 70% chance that I will complete the first objective, 40% for the second , 20% for the third and less than 5% chance that I will be able to complete the bonus mission. It is likely that I will pray to God for strength at one point during that operation, as I think most people in that situation would.
I can't possibly imagine how my state of mind will be during the time of the operation, though. It will be during a steroid cycle and on top of that; during an ephedrine rush, which will increase my aggressiveness, physical performance and mental focus with at least 50-60% but possibly up to 100%. In addition, I will put my iPod on max volume as a tool to suppress fear if needed. I might just put Lux Aeterna by Clint Mansell on repeat as it is an incredibly powerful song. The combination of these factors (when added on top of intense training, simulation, superior armour and weaponry) basically turns you into an extremely focused and deadly force, a one-man-army. At the moment, I do not fear death, but I am very concerned about being afraid on the day of the mission. I'm afraid that the potential fear I might experience during the mission will paralyze me or will result in me "crapping my pants" so to speak. Theoretically, this will not happen, as I have grown to be extremely mentally disciplined and I have undergone numerous hours of training and simulations. Nevertheless, it is impossible to properly simulate a martyrdom operation so I am still somewhat concerned for my mental state during that time.
If praying will act as an additional mental boost/soothing it is the pragmatical thing to do. I guess I will find out... If there is a God I will be allowed to enter heaven as all other martyrs for the Church in the past.
I am pursuing religion for this very reason and everyone else should as well, providing it will give you a mental boost. There is no shame in praying minutes before your death. I highly recommend that you, prior to the operation, visit a Church and perform the Eucharist (Holy Communion/The Lord's Supper ). As we know, this ritual represents the final meal that Jesus Christ shared with his disciples before his arrest and eventual crucifixion. You should also solve any issues you might have with God and ask for forgiveness for past sins. Finally, ask him to prepare for the arrival of a martyr for the Church. A hardened atheist may think this is silly, but believe me when I say; you will be extremely glad you did as soon as you realise you may actually die after the initiation of your operation.
Sure, many deny God now. But when they're looking death in the face, when they're sick or in an accident or staring down the barrel of a gun, they'll change their mind. They'll beg for God then. There are no atheists in foxholes.
Breivik also has a section where he discusses well-known atheists and their failures. I'll just quote the piece about Dawkins, to illustrate how pathetic his scholarship is.
Clinton Richard Dawkins 1941-
Twice divorced, Richard spends his days popularizing the idea that everything, absolutely everything (including his marriage failures) can be explained through purely materialistic means. Raised in the Church of England, he decided that the theory of evolution better explained the universe than his religious understanding. So, in 1976, Mr. Dawkins wrote a book called, The Selfish Gene, to show that we are only selfish creatures at best, and the only reason why we survive so well is because we are actually good at being selfish. Our selfishness is part of our genetic make-up, and it drives almost everything we do.
Richard has since written many more books promoting his interpretation of the mechanics of life, but he has a very clear agenda - to blame God and even the concept of God for all of man's ills. He seeks to prove that mankind would be so much better off without any moral anchor, and without any moral judge except ourselves.
There's the Midgley error: Breivik has obviously never actually read the book. He also makes the common Christian error of thinking atheism is all about hating his god. So in addition to being violently insane, this guy is pretentiously stupid.
Oh, and one more thing I stumbled across (I have not read this 1500 page mess, obviously! I jumped through it and every page I leapt to contained outrageous crackpottery). He identifies three main enemies of Western civilization: Islam, Marxism, and feminism. But don't you worry about feminism! He has a plan to cure it!
1. Limit the distribution of birth-control pills (contraceptive pills): Discourage the use of and prevent liberal distribution of contraceptive pills or equivalent prevention methods. The goal should be to make it considerably more difficult to obtain. This alone should increase the fertility rate by 0,1 points but would degrade women's rights.
2. Reform sex education: Reform the current sex education in our school institutions. This may involve limiting it or at least delaying sex education to a later age and discourage casual sex. Sex should only be encouraged within the boundaries of marriage. This alone should increase the fertility rate by 0,1 points.
3. Making abortion illegal: A re-introduction of the ban on abortion should result in an increased fertility rate of approximately 0,1-0,2 points but would strip women of basic rights.
4. Women and education: Discourage women in general to strive for full time careers. This will involve certain sexist and discriminating policies but should increase the fertility rate by up to 0,1-0,2 points.
Women should not be encouraged by society/media to take anything above a bachelor's degree but should not be prevented from taking a master or PhD. Males on the other hand should obviously continue to be encouraged to take higher education - bachelor, master and PhD.
It's all about fertility, ladies, and if only we keep you ignorant and trapped in the home, you'll start pooping out babies for us. Isn't that sweet?
He does briefly describe the dozen people who supposedly met to create the PCCTS. Let's hope European police are trying to track them down — these guys are dangerous monsters who do not belong on the streets.
Comments
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE
|
July 23, 2011 8:36 PM
Yeah, but he was no true christian.
Posted by: Azkyroth
|
July 23, 2011 8:40 PM
Of course you realize, the Media Fuckers will be portraying him as an atheist extremist in no time.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE
|
July 23, 2011 8:42 PM
I have no intention to surrender to them until I have completed all three primary objectives AND the bonus mission.
This idiot is going to be fodder for "omg teh eeebil video gamez!" trope, for years. Never mind the fact that millions of kids have played video games and not become crazy spree-killers, hooo-boy!
Posted by: sirdarkstar
|
July 23, 2011 8:42 PM
I was in a very serious accident, one that required emergency surgery and left me shy one standard issue organ. I neither prayed, nor felt undue fear about dying, nor did I convert to some belief.
And, there are atheists in foxholes of course: http://www.militaryatheists.org/
[but I know you already knew that]
Posted by: sandiseattle
|
July 23, 2011 8:43 PM
Googlemess@1: don't even start, it won't get any traction here.
Posted by: frustum.myopenid.com
|
July 23, 2011 8:44 PM
Interesting that he used English. Perhaps he was simply trying to maximize his audience.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 23, 2011 8:48 PM
Fine, show me your recent signed letter from your imaginary deity giving permission to make such a pronouncement on his behalf. Or, failing that, any person claiming to be Xian, is yours, deal with it elsewhere.Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter
|
July 23, 2011 8:51 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if the other members of the PCCTS were all in his mind. He sounds as severely delusional as John Nash in "A Beautiful Mind" (whose delusions weren't violent, IIRC).
Posted by: Dianne
|
July 23, 2011 8:54 PM
A re-introduction of the ban on abortion should result in an increased fertility rate of approximately 0,1-0,2 points but would strip women of basic rights.
It's interesting that he adds the "but would strip women of basic rights" part. It's almost like he knows his idea is immoral or at least can sort of see the other side. Or maybe it's just his bad english showing. But if he really does understand that, indeed, banning abortion would be a fundamental violation of women's rights then he is actually more enlightened than the average mainstream US right winger.
I also wonder what mission 3 and the bonus mission were. And if this is really by Breivik and not someone pretending to be him.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
July 23, 2011 8:55 PM
If we assume the Oslo bomb was the first mission and the island shooting was the second mission, he did surrender before completing all three objectives and the bonus mission.
Posted by: Brother Ogvorbis, Emperor of Fire, Steam and Absurdity
|
July 23, 2011 8:56 PM
Each Christian believes that he or she belongs to the one and only true version of Christianity. This means that, whenever something like this happens, even if the person self-identifies as Christian, all the other godbots can dismiss the offender with "Yeah, but he was no true Christian."
===========
PZ:
I admire your fortitude (if not your wisdom) for your willingness to wade into that shit.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
July 23, 2011 8:56 PM
I'm sure the Sami appreciate the thought very much. So kind of him to look out for their interests.Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
July 23, 2011 8:58 PM
Wow, what a mess. His formula for dealing with women is right in line with what Repubs and religious right are managing to do in too much of the U.S. Can't have those uppity women doing something like thinking they're people.
This is all so damn sad. So many people dead, for this...
Posted by: MGolz
|
July 23, 2011 9:02 PM
Don't you know that belief in god grants a +1 bonus to all physical attributes?
On the other hand... this guy is a loon, plain and simple. I've never heard someone blatantly admit sexist and discriminatory techniques should be used to convince women to make babies/avoid higher education. Given, I'm sure most people who suggest things like these wouldn't like to admit that it's sexist. The fact that this guy is perfectly comfortable in saying that he doesn't mind sexism or stripping women of rights makes it all the more disturbing.
Posted by: Becca Stareyes
|
July 23, 2011 9:03 PM
sandiseattle @ 5
I was assuming Googlemess was deliberately trying to invoke 'No True Scotsman', but tripped over Poe's Law. (Hint: You always need to mark sarcasm on the internet, as people will say anything in all seriousness.)
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkMlNKpcPKQcJ-yJ-A3gSRqTtJwzFu0OFQ
|
July 23, 2011 9:03 PM
Interesting to note that even a psychopathic lunatic's misunderstanding of the Selfish Gene is nevertheless closer to the mark than Uncommon Descent's 'Spam-4-Cash' madame, Denyse O'Leary.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
July 23, 2011 9:03 PM
Jesus Christ but you're all triggerhappy today? Is this a known googlemess?Doesn't the "Yeah, but" help point out the snarkiness? We all know that the Christians use the no true Scotsman, and plenty of the regulars have dragged it out themselves to mock the idea.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE
|
July 23, 2011 9:07 PM
Fine, show me your recent signed letter from your imaginary deity giving permission to make such a pronouncement on his behalf.
I was being sarcastic; I'm sorry I didn't think I needed to label it as such because I thought it would be an obvious reference to the "No True Scotsman" argument.
As I've been reading some of the news coverage about the attack I've noticed that his religion is increasingly being edited out. Now, he's just a crazed nut, perhaps a crazed right-winger. But if he'd been a muslim we know that would have been the 2nd or 3rd word of every headline.
Posted by: tms827
|
July 23, 2011 9:11 PM
I shivered in fear just reading that. The fact that people think like that is horrifying
Posted by: Dianne
|
July 23, 2011 9:12 PM
FWIW, the headline in the NYT online reads "Christian extremist charged in Norway." So it hasn't escaped quite everyone's attention that there are other forms of extremism than Islamic. They aren't calling him a terrorist though, despite his obvious and stated intention to cause terror. Can't have everything I guess.
Posted by: Laurent Weppe
|
July 23, 2011 9:15 PM
Never mind the fact that most of his victims played video games.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
July 23, 2011 9:16 PM
I also assume Googlemess#1 was invoking the Scotsman, because I was about to do so myself. ;)
Posted by: kayala
|
July 23, 2011 9:18 PM
The feminism part reads like he's not really serious. But good on him for pointing out what we already knew about anti-abortion and anti-contraception conservatives.
Posted by: Otranreg
|
July 23, 2011 9:18 PM
There's also a bonus stage where you can blast more commie bitch brown people eggs with your spreadgun, and get an additional 0.02 points per egg! Get closer to that Nimbus of Squashing!
Golly, do they grow. A hundred years ago a crackpot of this magnitude would grudgingly allow women the luxury of literacy. Perhaps.
Posted by: sandiseattle
|
July 23, 2011 9:19 PM
whew! crisis averted :-)
Posted by: maggotpunk
|
July 23, 2011 9:19 PM
On a positive note he never asked a girl out for a coffee, that would have made him creepy.
Posted by: Paul888
|
July 23, 2011 9:20 PM
Sickening. Mother Jones ran some excerpts from Anders Behring Breivik, also (http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/07/anders-behring-breiviks-online-comments).
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 23, 2011 9:27 PM
Speaking of creepy.
Posted by: moonkitty
|
July 23, 2011 9:34 PM
Looks like his obsession with limiting women's education and access to contraception has to do with his belief that Muslims, by reproducing faster than Christians, are poised to take over Europe. He speaks of "demographic genocide", "demographic suicide", and "demographic Jihad" in his video.
Posted by: Lynna, OM
|
July 23, 2011 9:41 PM
Paul @27, thanks for the Mother Jones link.
Anders Behring Breivik is quoted as saying, ""...while the old-established truths of patriotism and cultural conservatism today is branded as extremism."
Sounds just like Michele Bachmann et. al.
And hey, Anders, it is extremism when it leads to gunning down more than 80 teenagers after a first course of blowing up part of one's home town.
Though, I do recognize those acts as consistent with conservatism ala "second amendment remedies."
I would hate to think that the USA is exporting Tea Baggerism. Maybe it's just that there are conservatives going off the rails everywhere, even without Tea Bagger help?
Posted by: lhikanliveson
|
July 23, 2011 9:42 PM
>bonus mission
Shit I started laughing my ass off at this.
Sadly, I do have to agree with him about one thing: Lux Aeterna is a kickass song.
Posted by: amavra.mcdowd
|
July 23, 2011 9:46 PM
I am related to someone who talks like this. It concerns me a lot, but its hard to predict how dangerous people like this are. And I have no ability to control whether this person gets the psychiatric help and medication he needs.
You know that picture of Laughner (sp? the AZ congresswoman shooter) where he's staring at the camera with a vacant smile? He looks exactly like that. Seriously what should I do because it would not surprise me if he snapped and went on a shooting rampage. I just keep track of his ramblings (even though they are hateful, nonsensical or both) and keep telling my dad to get him into therapy.
Most people I know read this kind of thing after a tragedy and its incomprehensible to them. I read it and I get the sick feeling in the pit of my stomach because its all too familiar to me
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 23, 2011 9:50 PM
If you think he's serious, alerting the cops isn't a bad idea. At least he'll be on their radar.
Posted by: erpease
|
July 23, 2011 9:54 PM
I wonder if he had written on humanism. The Norwegian Humanist organization is one of the largest in the world both in numbers and in percentage of the population and is hosting the World Humanist Congress in a few weeks. Norway also has a civil confirmation course and ceremony which about 15-17% of fourteen year olds take instead of or in addition to a religious ceremony or nothing (the Norwegian Humanist organization is responsible for it though most youths taking it aren't officially humanists).
I believe most Norwegians are fairly fluent in English and would probably use it to communicate with other Europeans which would explain why this (if he did write it) is in English.
Posted by: amavra.mcdowd
|
July 23, 2011 9:55 PM
I've thought about it, but i don't have anything concrete. Its the tone, the mannerisms, the ranting and the irrational obsessive paranoia. The delusions of grandeur and self glorification. On the upside, this person is not isolated and has recently taken his obsession to movie criticism which is annoying but not dangerous. I feel like I'm the only person in the family who's watching out for him and I am living in another country right now. I am sure there are a lot of people like this but remain impotent. I am just not sure what other signs there are that a deranged person is about to become violent.
Posted by: Ragutis
|
July 23, 2011 10:00 PM
He might not consider himself particularly religious, but he sure sounds Christian. Like he took all the xenophobia, misogyny, and hate, but enjoyed sleeping in on Sundays.
Posted by: lhikanliveson
|
July 23, 2011 10:01 PM
@amavra.mcdowd
If he starts talking as though he's not going to be around much longer or big changes are just around the corner, that's a red flag. I'm not sure what else to watch for, though, not that there's a whole lot of watching you can do across international borders.
Posted by: azumahazuki
|
July 23, 2011 10:01 PM
@29
He has a point in the sense that Idiocracy made the point. But he's going about it precisely bass-ackwards: the key is to get MORE people onto contraception.
Posted by: nemo the derv
|
July 23, 2011 10:08 PM
In a nutshell (his head to be specific),
This is Breivik's message to all women.
"Shut up and breed or we'll lose the holy war"
At least that's how i read it.
Did i miss anything?
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
July 23, 2011 10:12 PM
Objection!Fact not in evidence.
Posted by: kantalope
|
July 23, 2011 10:15 PM
1500 pages- PAGES!
That is some dedicated prankstering.
And last night CNN thought I would be more interested in Nancy Grace than finding out what was what in Norway. No wonder no one watches that network any more.
Posted by: azumahazuki
|
July 23, 2011 10:18 PM
@39
Nope. Not at all. You nailed it dead-center.
Posted by: nemo the derv
|
July 23, 2011 10:21 PM
#40
He probably did ask quite a few out for coffee,
got rejected every time
and figured they must be the problem
hence his proposals on how to "correct" them.
Makes you (almost)feel sorry for the homocidal rampager.
Well, not really.
Posted by: ema
|
July 23, 2011 10:22 PM
@amavra.mcdowd
I'd run your concerns by a physician or a psych nurse. At the very least they'd be able to advise you on what to look out for and how to approach/elicit information from your relative.
Posted by: timnotgod
|
July 23, 2011 10:23 PM
News media also thinks Amy Winehouse is more important than Norway... who is Amy Winehouse?
Posted by: andrew.david.smith
|
July 23, 2011 10:29 PM
I also enjoy Mansell's Lux Æterna. Now every time I hear it, I'm going to be reminded of this terrible tragedy and it's going to make me very sad.
Posted by: vaeisenberg
|
July 23, 2011 10:33 PM
#3
This actually might be some sort of poor english showing, the guy is nuts after all... he simply used language that he knew, as game language he might have been familar with.
I remember i once (well, i was a kid, and my english was still very poor at that point - am non native) when arguing with someone in a rather broken english, used "User error" in the sense of "you are wrong/messing up"
Posted by: Larry Poppins
|
July 23, 2011 10:38 PM
This story has had me quite disturbed since I first read about it. Given that my profession has me surrounded by teenagers most of the day I can not help but see my students in the photos of the dead on the island. I've also worked at summer camps, flirted with self-styled masonick adeptz, and had my romance with xenophobic ideologies and romantic notions about Nordic folks so this story is forcing me to look at many things I had hoped to put behind me.
I want to say something cute and clever like:
Muslim or left-wing ideologues who kill= Terrorists
Christian or right-wing ideologues who kill people I would like to see killed= Extremists
Christian or right wing ideologues who kill people I would not like to see killed= Lone Wolf/ nutjob/ kook etc.
But that's not right. I can't just blast teh media and find something to pour over some ice cubes. Guy's crazy , okay, but so are enough of my friends. So was I for longer than I'd like to admit. Is he the monster I could have been, probably not. But what exactly is the probability there? Why am I not a cheerleader for this guy pissed off at his targeting instead of his motives? I don't really know, but this blog has something to do with it, I think.
I really am feeling low and I really do need to marinate those ice cubes.
Posted by: jablair51
|
July 23, 2011 10:41 PM
The story on Yahoo says that he posted on Christian fundamentalist websites. I wonder what his user name was on Rapture Ready.
Posted by: nemo the derv
|
July 23, 2011 10:42 PM
100 armed system protectors./i>
I'm trying to decide if he is referring to police in such a way that he doesn't have to think of them as people
or if he believed that there would be little flying robots with lasers chasing after him.
detachment disorder or schizophrenia?
Posted by: prince.albert.aberg
|
July 23, 2011 10:49 PM
@50
He clarifies what he means by system protectors in other sections. He is referring to the police, the army, etc.
Posted by: raven
|
July 23, 2011 11:10 PM
You must have been in a coma for the last 2 decades and woke up an hour ago.
The Tea Party and their leaders say that every day. His program for the enslavement of women is right in line with the Catholic, Mormon, and fundie xian attitudes and fantasy programs for women.
In fact, there is a huge amount in his statement that would fit right in with the Theothuglicans, Tea Party, and fundie death cultists. Especially the anti-Islam and anti-women plans.
I don't know why PZ is calling him a madman. Sounds to me like every fundie xian troll I've ever seen.
Posted by: shakln06
|
July 23, 2011 11:11 PM
He did, here are some quotes from his manifesto"Multiculturalists/cultural Marxists usually operate under the disguise of humanism"
"The name of the devil: cultural Marxism, multiculturalism, globalism, feminism, emotionalism, suicidal humanism, egalitarianism - a recipe for disaster"
"Humanism is systematically exploited as a smoke screen by the multiculturalists and Muslim lobbyists that has resulted in liberal family reunification and political asylum arrangements. These are political mechanics which facilitates Islamic demographical warfare."
"The only thing that separates Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot with today’s cultural Marxists, suicidal humanists, career cynicists and capitalist globalists (multiculturalists) is that the tyrants of today are all directly responsible for the extermination of THEIR OWN people and intend to sell the rest into Islamic slavery."
Posted by: raven
|
July 23, 2011 11:12 PM
Posted by: cowalker
|
July 23, 2011 11:17 PM
From reading Breivik online comments at Mother Jones, he fears a Marxist/Islamist conspiracy in which each group thinks it's using the other to advance its own cause. The most fearsome Muslim weapon is their high birth rate.
Therefore:
He murdered as many Norwegian youths as he could.
He is no more lucid than the Arizona loon.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
July 23, 2011 11:17 PM
Assclam.
Posted by: nemo the derv
|
July 23, 2011 11:22 PM
#52
I think he meant that he's never seeing so directly spelled out like that. Like it's an admission.
The right wingers tend to blur it up with redirects like "right to life"
or obscure meaningless concepts like "family values"
of course they want to keep voters happy (and confused)
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
July 23, 2011 11:24 PM
Also maggotcake, did you fucking notice what this murderer suggest how women should be treated. That is way beyond fucking creepy.
Pound that fucking dead porcupine so far your fucking ass, the brain of the dead animal knocks out and replaces your brain. It will improve your intelligence.
Posted by: Iris
|
July 23, 2011 11:32 PM
Caine, Vicieux Royale:
From the Vision Forum 2008 voter guide:
(BTW, this constitutes the entirety of their voting concerns in 2008. Srsly. WTF.)
Maybe someone can 'splain the difference between right wing American Christians and Mr. Breivik.
Posted by: kaylakaze
|
July 23, 2011 11:34 PM
Situations like this make me sad that we don't use torture as a form of punishment. Hell, in Norway, this guy will probably only serve 5 easy years.
Posted by: nemo the derv
|
July 23, 2011 11:35 PM
#60
I can think of one thing.
They haven't killed us (yet).
oh wait.....abortion doctors.
nevermind
Posted by: Toiletman
|
July 23, 2011 11:38 PM
I fear he will not see prison for long. He seems to suffer from schizophrenia or another psychotic mental disease. He has many delusions and also seems to have hallucinations of God,too. Actually, I would not be surprised if these new templers did not even exist. If they exist, they will most likely be the usual internet nationalists you can find in many forums. The least probable case is that they are the young cadres of European nationalist parties. What worries me most is that he has all done this in a way that is supposed to encourage like minded guys (uhm maybe also girls so that I won't discriminate anybody) to do something similar. I fear we need to expect more terrorism from the very-religious-nationalists. I think many of them out there consider him a hero especially because he did not attack random people but the youth cadres of the ruling party.
Well, the Islam problem exists in Europe but just here. In the USA, Evangelical Christianity is the problem and might become in South Korea ( American style Evangelical Christianity is already the biggest religion in Korea and some parts of China might have such problems in the future,too.
The fertility thing is strange in his case as he is Norsk. He lives in the one of the very few countries of the more enlightened of Europe that come close to the necessary fertility of about 2 children/woman. (Iceland and Faroer (and if you accept colonies the almost entirely European origin Argentine and New Zealand) are even over it). That's no comparison to Germany (1.36) or Ukraine (1.22) (the developed East Asian ones are even blow that).[actually it was exactly a comparison, strictly speaking].
Immigration problem? Sure. But I'm veeeeeeery suuuuuuure that his silly actions will make it even more taboo topic in European countries. Apparently, a points based system would be racist for Europe, which are mostly densely populated countries, while this points system is not racist in Canada with its lots of free space for new migration. Anyways, since when are political issues coherent.
Gaming? This idiot's delusion will once again make it possible for the conservatives to blame it on videogames. Maybe even on world of warcraft, which he had played. Oh my god! I already see the hysteric articles saying that WoW made him a soulless killer and that the horde/alliance devide is the cause for his racism (I'm not sure if he is actually racist or religiously motivated).
However, if he is found mentally ill and only sent to asylum, he might be a good public figure to make us understand their organisation better, if he would get released as cured from his delusions. In norway, he will only sit in for like 21 years so we might see these news again in about 21 years or some years later :D
Btw: I'm really eager to make my make an own semi-silly secret society with my net friends [= actually just a place to discuss :D] now. Hmm I might re-found the Illuminati. It would be quite self-opinionated from me to found an organisation called "The Enlightened" :D :D :D
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
July 23, 2011 11:39 PM
Creepiness is a continuum, maggotpunk.
Thank you for generously illustrating the concept by providing yourself as an excellent data point for the region between Elevatorguy and Norwegian Mass Murderer.
Your job here is done. Now go away.
Posted by: raven
|
July 23, 2011 11:41 PM
No.
He's not even ahead on body counts. Timothy McVeigh has him beat.
Posted by: imnotusingthisblog
|
July 23, 2011 11:46 PM
FWIW - just some of the killer's political views:
* Nationalists/conservatives are always portrayed in a de-humanising manner. Dissident views are undermined by demonising the people or organisations that have these views.
* My view of the United Nations is quite clear: It is at best irrelevant. At best. Increasingly, it is turning into an outright enemy, an enemy funded by us but used to attack us. I don’t know about anybody else, but I’m goddam tired of sponsoring enemies, at home and abroad. I’m all for boycotting the UN and making it truly irrelevant by bleeding it dry for funds and ultimately withdrawing from it.
* Not only is multiculturalism a one-way street with the rest of the world flocking into the West and changing it dramatically whilst the nations of these immigrants retain their identities and cultures, the doctrine of Multiculturalism is only ever applied against Western - make that white - people.
* You might know them as environmentalists, enviro-communists, eco-Marxists, neo-Communists or eco-fanatics. They all claim they want to save the world from global warming but their true agenda is to contribute to create a world government lead by the UN or in other ways increase the transfer of resources (redistribute resources) from the developed Western world to the third world. They hope to accomplish this through the distribution of misinformation (propaganda) which they hope will lead to increased taxation of already excessively taxed Europeans and US citizens.
* Christians need to understand that there can be no peace or understanding with the Islamic world. They want to subdue us, pure and simple. Church leaders of all denominations, Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, must stop stabbing Israel in the back and campaigning for a de facto open borders policy while Muslims are threatening to swamp our lands. Yes, Christianity teaches compassion, but it also teaches identifying evil and standing up to it. At the end of the day, the Church must decide whether, in the defence of civilisation, it wants to be a part of the problem or a part of the solution.
Posted by: nemo the derv
|
July 23, 2011 11:50 PM
#65
I thought that McVeigh was more of a militia turner diaries type.
Y'know. the "I hate the government because they take my guns, tax me and give the money to these damn minorities" type.
Of course, Breivik seems to fit quite well in either category.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
July 23, 2011 11:50 PM
And this tells us all we need to know about the kind of human being (term used very loosely) GeneralE is.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
July 24, 2011 12:02 AM
Your introduction is enough to convince that I want nothing to do with it.
Fucking die already, you fucking waste of meat.
Posted by: Iris
|
July 24, 2011 12:02 AM
Well, unless you're GeneralE.
Posted by: psycholist
|
July 24, 2011 12:02 AM
From the following article.
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/07/23/what_did_the_oslo_killer_want
Posted by: It'spiningforthefyords
|
July 24, 2011 12:04 AM
Dear GeneralE,
What names now banned have you previously posted under?
How abusive were your parents?
Exactly how lonely, justifiable at your current physical age, are you?
Are others slightly more repelled more by your ideas, your grooming habits (maybe that should be just "habit"), or your physical appearance, or is it impossible to gauge?
Also, please brag about the size of your asshole in public, so someone can show you what your organs look like when removed from the pulp that is your rancid flesh.
Till then, fuck off.
-- Someone who does pity you, and could even forgive you, for being what you are.
Posted by: Dianne
|
July 24, 2011 12:12 AM
I doubt Breivik's schizophrenic. Schizophrenics aren't usually well organized and motivated enough to successfully make a bomb. I suspect he's a perfectly mentally "normal" (that is, not diagnosable with any formal mental illness) fanatic.
Posted by: Neil Rickert
|
July 24, 2011 12:13 AM
I am not convinced that the guy was insane. Maybe it is his fundamentalist religion that is insane. He merely took it a little further than do most.
Posted by: psycholist
|
July 24, 2011 12:13 AM
@GeneralE
Do you MRAs have some sort of radar system or something? Feverishly scouring the net for a chance to express your hatred for women.
Pathetic.
Posted by: Dianne
|
July 24, 2011 12:14 AM
PZ, could you please get rid of the off topic idiot troll? He appears to be too stupid to find his way off the thread on his own.
Posted by: Phalacrocorax, not a particularly smart avian
|
July 24, 2011 12:15 AM
Shit, a male supremacist spammer. You can't sink much lower than that, can you, GeneralE? That's more pathetic than David Googlemess Marshall's blogwhoring.
Posted by: Abelard
|
July 24, 2011 12:18 AM
Manners aren't decided by polls you fucking moron. Go back to your mom's basement and leave the adults alone.
Posted by: nms
|
July 24, 2011 12:21 AM
GeneralE has now qualified for an astonishing six out of eight categories in GeneralE's Checklist of Hatred.
GeneralE, if you could condemn gay stem cells in your next post, that would really help me out.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
July 24, 2011 12:24 AM
Shit for brains, you linked to it once. If anyone is stupid enough to follow it, they can.
Now fucking die already, you fucking waste of spam.
Also, the fact that you point at the cesspool that is youtube commentary to back up your verbal vomit says a lot about you. (It is not good.)
Posted by: Dianne
|
July 24, 2011 12:29 AM
the fact that you point at the cesspool that is youtube commentary to back up your verbal vomit says a lot about you. (It is not good.)
People who comment on youtube. What else is there to say about them? Besides that PZ has already definitely demonstrated the hopelessness of trying to prove anything with an internet poll.
Posted by: Dianne
|
July 24, 2011 12:33 AM
GeneralE has now qualified for an astonishing six out of eight categories in GeneralE's Checklist of Hatred.
I'm pretty sure he's hit seven. People who claim youtube popularity as evidence of correctness of a viewpoint are pretty clearly anti-science in practice, even if don't make any overt statements against science in theory.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
July 24, 2011 12:35 AM
Ah, look, GeneralE has been reduced to reposting the same pitiful screed over and over and over again.
Its higher faculties (if it ever had any) must have melted down, reducing it to repetitive stereotypical activity only.
Looks like this troll is broken. Hopefully PZ will take out the trash soon.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
July 24, 2011 12:42 AM
It is time to ignore GeneralCupcake, it is very off topic.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
July 24, 2011 12:42 AM
I find it somewhat appropriate that GeneralE is turning into M*bus on a thread called "A glimpse into the deranged mind of a mass murderer"
Posted by: kantalope
|
July 24, 2011 12:43 AM
Why o why isn't there an ignore option?
Posted by: nms
|
July 24, 2011 12:43 AM
YouTube's new rating system automatically deduces the viewer's feelings towards the video based on their age, sex, nationality, and past browsing history. Input via the like/dislike buttons is discarded.
Posted by: Phalacrocorax, not a particularly smart avian
|
July 24, 2011 12:45 AM
GeneralE,
I must retract my previous comment. It is clear to me now that you have sunk even lower by being a xenophobic genocide apologist on the other thread.
But carry on your great trolling. Maybe it will get yourself banned, and you'll able to blame it on the Marxist-Feminist conspiracy.
Posted by: Joey
|
July 24, 2011 12:46 AM
Yes, Islam AND feminism are both horrible enemies of our civilization. That's gotta be it.
Posted by: Militant Agnostic
|
July 24, 2011 12:48 AM
Creepy Elevator Guy - is that you (GeneralE)?
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
July 24, 2011 12:52 AM
Kantalope,
Killfile for Firefox works pretty well.
Is this the thread where we can veer completely off topic and post whatever comes to mind? In that case, I saw Captain America tonight and...
Oh? It's not that kind of thread? You don't say.
I wish I had something pithy and enlightened to say about the events in Norway and Anders Behring Breivik, but I don't. I'm deeply saddened and horrified.
Posted by: Dianne
|
July 24, 2011 12:54 AM
it is very off topic.
Is it? If Anders B happened to find Pharyngula on a wander through the internet, there's a good chance that he would sound quite a lot like GeneralE. Most bigots don't ever go on to actual violence, but quite a few do and I don't think PZ would be outside of his rights to inform the police of this guy's IP address.
Which brings up the question of what to do about people like this. I'm not particularly fond of the German Verfassungschutz, but maybe there is a point to banning some hate speech as 1. likely to incite violence and 2. not acceptable in this society. But is that the right approach? Wouldn't it be better to educate people so that when they hear illogical and hateful speech they recognize it for what it is and reject it? Is that even possible on a whole population level?
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/hMTnrH8JkegRx6gXqRPC43XjYan1vnC7vw--#c00c5
|
July 24, 2011 12:57 AM
"The combination of these factors (when added on top of intense training, simulation, superior armour and weaponry) basically turns you into an extremely focused and deadly force, a one-man-army"
Apparently this only works when you are shooting people who don't shoot back. When the cops show up, you meekly surrender.
Another idiot who thinks First Person Shooters are reality. Also this seems to be the first one who is not a politician running for re-election.
Longstreet63
(Sorry about the googlemess.)
Posted by: kantalope
|
July 24, 2011 12:57 AM
Maybe GeneralE saw 'deranged mind' in the headline and wondered how best to demonstrate his group loyalty?
I'm wondering about the link between the desire to write up a manifesto and mental illnesses. I can kind of see random exclamations (or links to vile youtube vids) but why the long documents?
Posted by: Bertie B
|
July 24, 2011 1:09 AM
You blew your troll cover with this:
"I wish people(including PZ) would stop abusing the word "insane" and throwing it at every opportunity.
Anders Breivik is not insane, how is that not obvious from all the material he wrote?"
Go back to wanking into your socks.
Posted by: Multicellular
|
July 24, 2011 1:09 AM
GeneralE
I did watch the first few minutes of that video (that's all I could stomach). I assume the person in it is either you or you are much like that person. Based on that I came away with the conclusion you/he are an ignorant, limp dicked ass hats.
Posted by: Timberwoof
|
July 24, 2011 1:10 AM
Crazy?
I'm with those who are skeptical of claims that he is clinically insane. I'm not defending him: fuck no! I just don't buy into the idea that since he thinks wrong things, he's insane. There's a difference between a sane mind coming to wrong conclusions based on fearfully delusional assumptions and biases, and an insane mind ending up totally in the weeds.
Let's wait for a clinical assessment by real live experts in the same room as him. I'm not keen on internet diagnoses based on blog rants.
If we call him insane without a proper clinical diagnosis, based only on his wrong-headed political ideas, then we simply feed into the notion that while certain political ideas naturally lead to violence, other political ideas are basically sane and all their insane followers who blow up things and kill people are unexpected aberrations.
According to latest news reports he has admitted his guilt, so innocence need not be presumed. Let us maintain the presumption of sanity until it is shown otherwise. "No sane person would do this" is a No True Scotsman fallacy.
Posted by: Dianne
|
July 24, 2011 1:23 AM
According to latest news reports he has admitted his guilt, so innocence need not be presumed.
Although I'm having real difficulty thinking of any scenario where the alleged perpetrator could be innocent in this specific case, I don't think this statement holds as a general rule. People have been known to falsely confess for all sorts of reasons and a confession can't always be taken as an absolute proof of guilt.
Posted by: ???????????
|
July 24, 2011 1:41 AM
A Rapture Ready thread about this started out. . .
EVIL MUSLIMS EVIL MUSLIMS
Then
sympathy for the victims
And now
POOR PERSECUTED CHRISTIANS
Posted by: holyspiritdenier
|
July 24, 2011 1:46 AM
Regarding Rebecca Watson & feminism: I have to credit Republicans for trying to act in the interests of beta males by cutting off the money to supply to the state which feminist women prefer to "marry" for support of their children conceived through their hookups with alpha male cads. Women like Rebecca just want beta males to work and pay taxes without showing sexual interest in them, in effect a strategy which cuckolds the employed beta male population:
http://www.parapundit.com/archives/006761.html
Posted by: america4me
|
July 24, 2011 1:51 AM
ok so I have to ask the obvious- why is it that he wrote this manifesto in English and not his native language. If he didnt and you have translated it, then why is it full of American slang? I find that makes it lack credibility.
Posted by: nms
|
July 24, 2011 1:57 AM
We should have "deranged mind" threads more often.
Posted by: Ragutis
|
July 24, 2011 2:09 AM
A murderer isn't the only deranged mind we're getting a glimpse into tonight.
Did a nerdy girl laugh at your willy one day, General? Such anger. So much emotion. And all you can do about it is post some comments on a blog. How frustrating those feelings must be. Impotence. Rage. Impotent rage. Yes, that seems quite appropriate.
You're not the first vile person we've had to deal with here, GeneralE, but boy are you getting fucking annoying. No one wants you here spouting that shit, and PZ will undoubtedly toss you in the dungeon when he gets up in the a.m., so just fuck off and take your bilious misogyny elsewhere where people might be entertained by you waving your flaccidity around.
Posted by: Equisetum
|
July 24, 2011 2:21 AM
"Why o why isn't there an ignore option?"
Greasemonkey + killfile. I don't use it often, but GeneralE is perfect candidate.
GeneralE: I watched the video up to the point where he totally misrepresented the incident (he was not an acquaintance) and Rebecca's response. Why should I listen to a liar? And the fact that you give him credence tells a lot about you. Well, that and your misogyny.
(And, yes, you are kill-filed because you have absolutely nothing of value to say.)
Posted by: Drekoguk
|
July 24, 2011 2:42 AM
Gotta have a piece of Jesus in you before you commit a massacre.
Now his satiated soul will fly up to heaven.
Hallelujah!
Posted by: Azkyroth
|
July 24, 2011 2:52 AM
You know, even if I started out in complete agreement with Rebecca Watson's detractors in substance, this sort of mindless, sneering, juvenile bugfuckery the intrusive trolls are deploying would have me re-evaluating my position in a hurry.
Posted by: Anri
|
July 24, 2011 2:59 AM
Hey there, General E.
I watched your video link up until the point that the speaker said that RW had lambasted EG as a pervert (or something along those lines). Any chance you could link to what she said and show me where she said that?
Because if you can't, I really have to assume that you're either utterly dishonest or so completely clueless as to not be worth talking to.
When you can provide the link in which RW calles EG a sexual deviant (I seem to recall her saying 'Guys, don't do that.'), than I'll watch the rest of the video.
Thanks!
Posted by: kraut
|
July 24, 2011 3:09 AM
An unmitigated arsehole like the GE is incapable of accepting a simple request by Ms. Watson to please not approach a female fellow human being in an elevator at early hours in the morning, after having made it abundantly clear previously that said female feloow human being has one goal only - to visit her bed ALONE.
Misogynistic arseholes like GE are unfortunately abundant and see it apparently as their right to approach anything that has or seems to have a pussy without restraint. The simple cure is to have those idiots what a certain llady in India has done - cut the dicks dick off. Problem solved and one arsehole less.
As to the idiot in Norway - just another unmitigated arsehole not worth talking about except to kill him fast - I do not think he should be fed and housed on taxpayers money for the rest of his life. D
Delusions of grandeur similar to the delusions of unrestrained male alphaness as espoused by the maybe more mitigated arsehole GE.
Posted by: kraut
|
July 24, 2011 3:12 AM
"The simple cure is to have done to those idiots what a certain lady in India has done - cut the dicks dick off."
I hate it when postings cannot be edited. What archaic system is this here?
Posted by: kraut
|
July 24, 2011 3:20 AM
"Of course, this is what jesus-cultists do in real life and online"
Guys like you give atheism really a bad name.
Fortunately misogyny is rather more dominant in religious circles. Maybe you will find more comfort there, Mr. GE?
Posted by: Antony
|
July 24, 2011 3:22 AM
@GeneralE
Women like Rebecca just want beta males to work and pay taxes without showing sexual interest in them, in effect a strategy which cuckolds the employed beta male population:
I'm thinking that GerneralE might have spent some time here.
link
Posted by: kraut
|
July 24, 2011 3:26 AM
.no wonder US is one of the very few countries in the world with a death penalty when morons like you are in abundance."
Get your English at least half correct so one can understand what are you trying to convey.
i assume you are trying to say "where morons" ..
no, I am an immigrant to Canada, and usually have no sympathy for the death penalty because the margin of error in common criminal cases. In this case the responsibility for the actions seems rather clear cut, and I do not see any reason to keep garbage like that alive.
I would approve of the death penalty could the system be made fail-safe, as I do not see any reason to keep human offal like Mr. B alive on tax payers accounts.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkeLqvxJwZnFfZZgAupUmv3KhuBj7Olb-g
|
July 24, 2011 3:27 AM
He wasn't deranged. He was an ideologically motivated far right 'soldier'. It's what they do. He was no different in his outlook to the hundreds, sometimes thousands, of young English men who cause havoc on the streets of the UK protesting against the 'Islamification' of Britain.
(That would be the English Defence League)
Whenever these people strike we are always told that they are 'deranged' or 'mad'. Its like we can't accept that we are perfectly capable of carrying out the most atrocious of acts because of what we believe. This guy wasn't crazy. The 9/11 pilots weren't crazy. These things take time and meticulous planning to succeed. Crazy people tend not to be able to function well enough to carry out acts like this.
Posted by: kraut
|
July 24, 2011 3:29 AM
"I'm thinking that GerneralE might have spent some time here"
a glimpse into the deranged mind of the misogynist....
Posted by: Felix
|
July 24, 2011 3:31 AM
(Yahoo! News)Let's see: a deranged guy, armed with legal weapons, member of a gun club, auto-christianifiedly-religious and ostensibly playing computer games.
Any guesses which item will be picked out to conduct a War on _______?
Posted by: davem
|
July 24, 2011 3:34 AM
A guy on BBC news was saying that as he was a loner, we shouldn't strictly call it terrorism. ...I wonder if the Internet isn't encouraging guys like Breivik into turning crazy ideas into action. Pre-internet, he may have had difficulty in finding anyone else to agree with his views. But now, he can find like-minded individuals, and reinforce and encourage his mind set.
Posted by: Felix
|
July 24, 2011 3:37 AM
kraut @ 137
Since financial stress seems to be your motivating factor advocating for the death penalty, you would want to remove inmate's rights to appeal and to have state-funded legal representation, right?
I wonder at what point you'd put your name beneath the next proposed "fail-safe" system. I think the words "Titanic" and "Fukushima" do ring a bell, no?
Posted by: kraut
|
July 24, 2011 3:38 AM
"This guy wasn't crazy. The 9/11 pilots weren't crazy"
no, they are just arseholes. Plain and simple.
And arseholes deserve to die because they show to be unfit in the evolutionary sense.
They either die during their life denying actions - one problem less for the courts - or their death wish should be accommodated by the justice system.
In any case they prevent themselves or should be prevented from breeding.
Posted by: labhamster
|
July 24, 2011 3:38 AM
#1
Yeah, but he was no True Christian (TM).
Fixed it for you.
Posted by: Anri
|
July 24, 2011 3:39 AM
Old joke about an exchange between politicians:
"You're lying!"
"Yes, I am, but hear me out!"
Posted by: Gorogh
|
July 24, 2011 3:43 AM
An introductory note to GeneralE and replies: Could we PLEASE stop to talk about Elevatorgate? Please. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic, and all you are doing in reply to GeneralE's trolling behavior only reinforces it.
Even if you do not like his attitudes in that matter, by now we all know how compartmentalization works and presumed idiocy in one realm does not necessarily lead to it in another. Please focus on his usable contributions like
which are sensible enough to warrant treatment in a fair argument.
To me, the whole subject is too instructive a piece of psychology than to waste an opportunity to talk about it.
Posted by: Gorogh
|
July 24, 2011 3:46 AM
Can anyone chunk that document into like 300-pages-chunks? This machine and OpenOffice are obviously overchallenged by opening it/OO crashed at some point.
Posted by: kraut
|
July 24, 2011 3:49 AM
Can you read? I clearly said that a fail safe system does not exist for establishing criminal responsibility (except in cases as the one presented) does not exists and therefore I cannot support it. I am not opposed to the death penalty in principle can responsibility assigned 100%.
And yes, why should we support a person at roughly 50 - 80 000$/year in a cell who is hypothetically 100% guilty of a serious crime that took away the life of another?
I find it rather unconscionable to cage a sentient being for life rather than to penalize him by cutting his life short. A swift process compared to tens of years of agony and mental torture. Advocates of life sentences appear to me more inhumane than those advocating the death penalty.
I would have no qualms killing in self defense, I have no qualms killing animals for food.
Posted by: kraut
|
July 24, 2011 3:51 AM
fucking system that does not permit editing - i hope PZ switches to a more modern site soon...
Posted by: P_Smith
|
July 24, 2011 3:59 AM
About an hour ago, I watched CNN for a few minutes until my brain hurt. The spin doctoring was so going fast it made me dizzy.
Everything was worded to avoid mention of religion, including the editing of police and government people after the religious nature of the crime was known.
As well, CNN was trying to portray the Norwegian "Progress Party" as being akin to democrats in the US who call themselves "progressives". The Progress Party is an extreme right wing group, almost exactly like the teabaggers in the US.
And as per usual, making comments about this on the CNN website is impossible. Trying to post things that disagree with the official line isn't allowed.
.
Posted by: Gorogh
|
July 24, 2011 4:02 AM
@kraut
While your comment @150 does contain worthwhile arguments*, #144's
are certainly not. What has evolutionary fitness to do with anything?
*even though the matter is very complicated still - what are the consequences if life/death is decided upon partially for economic reasons, besides, I just read an article on the expense of the death penalty which are astronomic; as to the ethical dimension of
by that reasoning we'd have to ask the people affected, i.e. the criminals, what they prefer. I am rather sure most preferred life over death still.
Posted by: Gorogh
|
July 24, 2011 4:10 AM
@P_Smith #152,
that's very disconcerting :/
I really wonder, are such decisions (someone has to decide on what to de-/emphasize) ever documented? Is there someone at CNN stating at a meeting "nah we can't say that because of X or Y, but we should mention the Democrats" and does this go into written reports?
Posted by: JediBear
|
July 24, 2011 4:21 AM
PZ, would it have killed you not to offer aid and comfort to the people who have already begun blaming this on video games?
The only delusions here were religious. His methods were rational and effective -- this guy just smashed the record for rampage shootings to bits shortly after a highly-effective bombing -- and he had no illusions about his chances of success or survival.
It's not preciselyright to call him insane, and no matter the language he used ("bonus" is the only mentioned tie to video games over genuine military terminology) this does not look like "a person playing a video game in real life."
A madman? More of a monster.
A gamer? Games aren't real, man.
Posted by: maxamillion
|
July 24, 2011 4:22 AM
@ googlemess
Never mind some of us have fully function irony/sarcasm meters.
Posted by: JediBear
|
July 24, 2011 4:27 AM
@#141, GeneralE:
I see no evidence for it. Muslims are a minority with little political power in a state that has a long-established state Christian church. Growing tolerance for Muslims is not "islamification," and neither are misguided efforts at multiculturalism.
Posted by: Joe Fogey
|
July 24, 2011 4:35 AM
To General E
I haven't come across you before, but I can see that there is nothing that you are likely to say that is ever going to convince me of anything.
Your general lack of respect for other people is clear both in the language that you use and in your trolling. You are not expressing freedom of speech by your selfish behaviour - you are defeating it by interfering with other people's right to discuss a serious subject without constant interruption from a childish oaf with no manners and nothing to say.
Aren't there any big kids in the playground you can go and annoy?
Posted by: defides
|
July 24, 2011 4:36 AM
Yesterday's news from Norway was about the massacres; today's news is about this Aryan superiority whack-job whose name I refuse to memorise (it'll unfortunately come as he is headlined profusely) and to that extent, yes, I think it is more important to know about Amy Winehouse rather than learn about this armed nerd's bid for the only immortality that was in his reach.
Posted by: kraut
|
July 24, 2011 4:49 AM
Meant rather facetiously, and targeting terrorists who are cowardly to boot by attacking civilians and not the enemy combatant.
But - those arseholes expect to die before they had the chance to procreate, thus effectively removing themselves from the gene pool, and one should help those that survive their cowardly acts to achieve that goal as in the case presented.
As to the death penalty - I think once you kill another human being with intent and not in self defense, you have forfeited the majority of your rights. You made this decision in full knowledge of your moral responsibilities and the law, and you suffer the consequences.
There are shadings to the extend of responsibility that have to be weighed in each case, that might speak for a lesser penalty than taking the offenders life, and a lesser sentence than life in prison.
If however the death penalty has been deemed appropriate, there is no choice for the offender.
That right has been forfeited by his deed.
The death penalty as the ultimate penalty cannot be meted out rather casually as seems to be done in some states in the US, China and Russia, leading to almost endless process of reviews in the former which can make the process rather more expensive than incarceration.
I also think that the number of appeals should be limited. In Canada it can only go as far as the supreme court after the lesser two or three courts have ruled - and that is the end afaik.
However, in cases where the perpetrator has been caught in flagranti, as in this case, the only consideration should be his culpability - is he fully responsible for his actions, and in the present case he is. He made clearly an informed choice with long range planning, with the intent to do as much damage to other humans as possible.
Posted by: cowalker
|
July 24, 2011 5:09 AM
Phalacrocorax @ # 100
According to the abominable Breivik, there's an Islamic/Marxist conspiracy already. But I think Breivik intuited that there is an Islamic/Marxist/Feminist conspiracy in which each group is using the others to further its own cause, expecting the others to eventually wither away.
Yeah, sure.
Those folks are all on the same page.
Posted by: consciousness razor
|
July 24, 2011 5:35 AM
kraut:
Is English not your first language? It appears a word or two is missing. I understand you were being facetious, but the second clause of the sentence doesn't make sense. Are you saying that "targeting" them is what you want to do? Are you being facetious again?
I hope you're being facetious yet again (though not in good taste, if you are), since you just said that you were about the evolutionary fitness bullshit...
So much wrong. So many questions. First, why would you help them achieve their goals? Second, why would you assume their goal is to die before procreating? Third, would you invent some other rationale for those who've procreated before committing a crime or for those who aren't cowards? Fourth, what does any of that have to do with preventing further criminal acts, protecting society, or administering justice?
Posted by: Moggie
|
July 24, 2011 6:11 AM
Since Breivik has a thing about martyrdom, I hope the police have him on suicide watch. I don't want him to die before we've learned everything we can from him about any links he had. In fact, I want him to live a long and miserable life as a failure behind bars, watching the people he despises making the world better in ways he hates.
davem:
The flip-side is that the Internet allows such a nut to be exposed to large numbers of people demolishing their arguments, or just telling them that they need medication.
Posted by: pilcrow
|
July 24, 2011 6:18 AM
He wants attention, he wants an audience - well, I'm not playing. I don't want to read his manifesto. I am not interested in anything he has to say. I don't want to hear his statement or to give his opinions any weight at all. Let the police drain him for information, let them lock him up and let everything about him be forgotten, down to his name.
(what defides @160 said)
Posted by: Moggie
|
July 24, 2011 6:26 AM
Yes, pilcrow, let's do our best not to learn anything from this incident. No good ever comes from learning, does it?
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
July 24, 2011 6:33 AM
Seems that the xian branded bollox's was maybe not the prime driving principle but rather provided a solid supportive foundational framework to his obvious insanity.
Seems when in slight doubt he would automatically invoke jeebus.inc to bolster his flaky claims.
Like a touch stone effect.
That is the defining principle of religion in general, the subjective rationalizations that can easily and without drama reflect any position, any dogmatic assertion, any bigotry, hatred, intolerance, peeve, fear, and ignorant state of being.
A one-size-fits-all remedy perfect for any and all barking strategies of any foetid dream!
That is the real danger of religion...the tool of the ignorant, the sword of the pompous and the shield of the criminal.
And the morally rancid theologically inclined clowns at Jeebus.inc HQ raise not one admonition, not one objection, not one correction, not one whimper as their religion is taken twisted and bent to fit utter barking drooling psychopathic insanity above and beyond anything Dante could conjure up!
It is worthwhile noting that the core of jeebus droolers incarnate support the right wing of politics more or less, it would also seem that in the present carnage, that passes for western civilization, it would appear they are mentally spooling up where either internecine warfare, civil war, or their head exploding...whichever comes first..is the preferred way of worshiping the fairy tale!
Seems they have a heard some supernatural dog whistle on the ether and are panting to let leash their very own idiotic chaotic version of war against, well everyone else, especially if they are godless!
They are just not quite sure which way UP is?
Mind you they have suffered that malady for nigh on 2000 years...they do not seem overly embarrassed by the fact!
Chummy in Norway is a symptom of what passes for ideological philosophy in the darker places of the internet.
Point is driving force is only required from the 'intellectualizing' meme, all that boogies when the fuel is 100% toxic effluence.
Step forward religion...you are indeed the anointed one!
Wind 'em up...set 'em off...death of the innocents is guaranteed!
Posted by: Gorogh
|
July 24, 2011 6:37 AM
@kraut #162, I disagree with most of what you say. One thing is, evolutionary considerations have no relevance in any of my ethical judgements, and I'd be surprised if you'd find a consensus on that matter by more than very few people here. "Removing themselves from the gene pool" is certainly accidental and not intentional for such high-risk-criminals, and even if it was intentional I do not see how it follows one should "help" them achieving that goal.
I also cannot follow your arguments regarding responsibility. Factually, IMO, there is none, ever. It is another question of how society holds someone responsible, and that should be crucially determined by the prognosis in each single case of how its individuals are going to behave. So far my statement is compatible with a possible demand for death penalty - but for reasons consciousness razor just described as
not for reasons of (non-existent) culpability.
Without factual culpability, even "in cases where the perpetrator has been caught in flagranti", the death penalty is only meaningful if every factor involved (from the laws permitting it to the publicity following it) serves to increase the likelihood of your personal values being actualized.
p.s.: Regarding the "justice" mentioned by consciousness razor, I'd need some more clarification about what is meant, though.
Posted by: Curlew
|
July 24, 2011 6:42 AM
As a Christian he will still be going to heaven.
Sean.
Posted by: Gorogh
|
July 24, 2011 6:45 AM
@pilcrow #166, regarding
I totally agree with Moggie. You should be interested for various reasons - to be not interested because he supposedly "wants attention" seems more a case of reactance on your part than anything else. He not only wants attention, he deserves it; objectively speaking, he is no better or worse than you or I.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
July 24, 2011 6:55 AM
Already yesterday evening, an analyst on Austrian TV news compared Breivik to McVeigh and mentioned his former membership in the Progress Party.
!!! !!! !!!
On the Rebeccapocalypse threads, there was a gigantic cupcake called Justicar (without the second i). He's now on ERV and continues gushing forth misogyny.
...I'm just saying.
Yep, he is. He knows it's immoral, but believes it must be done anyway, because otherwise WE'D ALL DIE OUUUUUUUUUUUUUT!!!1!ELEVENTY-ONE!
His English is very good, which is not surprising. I agree that he used it to have an international audience.
Who would write 1500 pages of fake insanity? I don't think Hitler's fake diaries, sold by the forger for a handsome sum of money, were that long together.
I find it very interesting that you don't mention France, which has got its fertility rate back up to 2.1 children per woman by means of *scary music* rampant socialism. You know, free crèches, free kindergarten...
He's the most desperate troll I've ever seen.
If you want to call racism a fundamentalist religion...
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
Do I need to spell it out? The respondents to both are not unbiased samples!
Do you know that new fun spare-time activity called thinking? You should try it once. :-)
I see this the other way around: I think a pretty big proportion of the general population has one mental illness or another. Many, perhaps most of us are high-functioning somethings.
What's obvious about that?
*facepalm*
*headdesk*
You are crazy. And ignorant.
Evolution is an "is", not an "ought". Arseholes who have fewer children have fewer children. That's it.
Implying that every Muslim is against those things is like claiming that every Christian is against them.
Like with Elevatorgate, you talk about things you have no idea of. That's why you're so desperate.
Posted by: Rainborowe Spence
|
July 24, 2011 6:57 AM
Assimilation? Ah yes, I remember they asked Jews to do that too.
But those stubborn Jews. They just kept on being, well, Jewish. The nerve of them!
But Hitler, he sure showed them, didn't he? Can't have people acting all different now, can we?
Perhaps you have your own ideas for a Final Solution to the Muslim Question?
++++++++++
Cultural conservatism is such a pathetic attempt at rationalizing self-privilege. Any difference is seen as a threat to the Family, Nation and/or Way Of Life. The immigrants are invading! The Muslims are breeding! The blacks are uppity! The women are screeching! The gays are flaunting! The professors are brainwashing your kids! Fifth columns are everywhere!
It would simply be laughable if it wasn't backed by corporate propaganda and largesse. But it's dangerous as Breivik has demonstrated. Every time a far-right atrocity like this happens, the cultural conservatives in politics and on the Op-Ed pages bear a little piece of the responsibility. Every time they declared that "Multiculturalism(tm) has failed" (I'm looking at you Cameron and Merkel). Every time they demonised and then bombed (Bush, Blair, etc). Every time they took part in the drip drip drip of tabloid fairytales. I'm sure Norway has its own examples.
Did they not expect the hounds to answer their dog-whistles? Or did they just not care in their pursuit of wealth or power?
Isn't it time the so-called conservatives started taking "personal responsibility" for the results of their rhetoric, or does that only apply to everyone else?
Posted by: davric
|
July 24, 2011 7:01 AM
I've been following the discussion about this in today's Observer:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/24/observer-editorial-norway-shootings-oslo
The creepiest quote I read there was how Breivik reserved €2000 from his budget to screw a hooker just before he went to mass in Frogner Church ... so that he'd be in the right frame of mind to go out and massacre people!
The twists and turns of right-wing Christians on that Observer thread as they seek to make out that it was his victims' fault that they got shot and that he wasn't really a Christian are par for the course - but a bit sickening anyway.
Posted by: Curlew
|
July 24, 2011 7:02 AM
My pastor will be praying for his soul today, which the killer has earned the right for, once he gave his life to Jesus.
Sean.
Posted by: Rainborowe Spence
|
July 24, 2011 7:03 AM
And like all good eugenicists, will you "show" them to be "unfit" and deserving of death by having them killed?
Posted by: Susan
|
July 24, 2011 7:09 AM
@Moggie
Seconded.I wish there were something we could do to help the parents/people hurt.
Posted by: pilcrow
|
July 24, 2011 7:14 AM
@Moggie
That is not what I said at all. Of course we should learn from it. We should learn how he could plan and do this undetected, how it was possible for one man to kill so many, how it can be avoided in the future. All of this we should learn, and all of this we will learn when the police interrogate the man.
But to play audience to the self-satisfied ravings of a mass-murderer, to listen to him brag about why he thought it necessary to kill people, to pay attention to the inner workings of his lunacy as he so clearly want us to - I don't think so. I don't see the educational value in that.
Posted by: pilcrow
|
July 24, 2011 7:20 AM
@Moggie
Also:
Seconded. And the most likely outcome is for him to get 21 years with 'forvaring', effectively life, so the chance of it happening is promising.
Posted by: Gorogh
|
July 24, 2011 7:24 AM
Not seconded at all. I do not see how this does any good - but I accept you feel better this way. As long as you are aware of the fact that it is not justice, but probably only dopamine and others at work here.
Posted by: KG
|
July 24, 2011 7:24 AM
That makes the position of the executioner somewhat tricky, as they have undoubtedly killed another human being with intent and not in self defence.
Posted by: Gorogh
|
July 24, 2011 7:33 AM
Just found this piece of news stating he actually did what he did in order to get attention for his manifesto, here's the Link (German), though not to the Norwegian source. As I stated before, this should have no bearing of whether we want to read it or not.
Posted by: Ms. Daisy Cutter, Vile Creature Powered Entirely By Bitter
|
July 24, 2011 7:36 AM
I also disagree with PZ that Brievik was "deranged":
Oh, and GeneralExcrement, do me a favor and don't agree with me, because it would make me feel soiled.Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
July 24, 2011 7:36 AM
The desire for retribution is irrational, as is the idea that people who harm others "deserve" to suffer. This is simply pre-rational religious thinking, which has no place in a rational system of ethics.
Like most people who commit similarly senseless acts of violence, Breivik is clearly unbalanced and needs psychiatric treatment. He obviously needs to be detained (probably for the rest of his life) for the protection of the public, but he certainly should not be treated inhumanely or cruelly.
We should remember that we do not have free will, and that we do not "choose" our personalities or our behaviour. Like all other animals, human beings are the products of our genes and our social and environmental conditioning. The fact that the rest of us don't go around murdering people doesn't make us "better people" than Breivik; it simply reflects the fact that he is suffering from a serious mental illness, which the rest of us, thankfully, do not have. With this in mind, the self-righteous claim that he "deserves to be punished" is simply incoherent.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 24, 2011 7:41 AM
GeneralE has been banned and his comments removed for spamming.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that Breivik is clinically insane -- that takes a doctor and a close examination to determine. But read his manifesto. The guy was deep into a bizarre fantasy world that he obsessed over and elaborated to an extreme and nit-picky degree. He was not rational.
Posted by: KG
|
July 24, 2011 7:41 AM
pilcrow@148,
You're still missing opportunities for learning. Of course if you don't want to read or see anything by Breivik, that's fine, but it's simply foolish to suggest others should make the same decision. The "inner workings of his lunacy" are of central concern if we want to minimise such occurrences: if we know how Breivik arrived at the decision to commit these atrocities, we have a better chance of detecting individuals who pose a risk. In this case, it already seems clear that even if he was working alone (which is not yet determined), a particular toxic ideology, essentially that of European far-right populist Islamophobic parties such as Wilders' PVV, and close to that of the US Teabaggers, was a key component in that lunacy. I can think of quite a few people who have posted here who might usefully reflect on that fact.
Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
July 24, 2011 7:43 AM
The real villain here is not Breivik, or any other individual person. Rather, it's the ideology of tribal xenophobic nationalism, which gave Breivik his reasons for committing this horrific act of mass slaughter.
I've been worried and disturbed for some time by the rising tide of fanatical anti-Muslim sentiment in Europe. Far-right ideologues use anti-Muslim rhetoric as a convenient cover for racism and xenophobia (just as their predecessors a few generations ago used anti-Jewish rhetoric). They portray Islam as "the enemy", "barbaric", and as fundamentally opposed to the values of "Western civilization", they dehumanize and demonize Muslim immigrants, and they rant and rave about how "mass immigration" is destroying "our culture". Unfortunately, the mass murder in Norway is a perfect example of where this line of thinking eventually leads.
Posted by: pilcrow
|
July 24, 2011 7:44 AM
@Gorogh
If found guilty, he will be imprisoned, as is just. Due to the nature of the crime, it is unlikely that he will ever be let out, for the safety of the population, as is good. If his ultimate aim was to bring about or forward a right-wing, conservative society, then by all means, please let us disappoint him, and please let him grow to see his actions as a big failure.
Whether this pleases the rest of the population or not is irrelevant.
Posted by: Hodor
|
July 24, 2011 7:50 AM
You gotta love this guy's way of coming up with percentages out of thin air. His "battle plan" reads like the Gun-kata lecture from "Equilibrium":
Posted by: pilcrow
|
July 24, 2011 7:57 AM
@Gorogh
I do not listen to people on the basis of whether I consider them better or worse than me, objectively speaking. I listen to them if I think they have something to contribute. There are numerous platforms in which people can get their opinions across in Norway, and if he has not been able to attract an audience to the point where he had to commit mass-murder to gain attention, I doubt his arguments carry any weight on their own. From snippets I have seen in the news, it is old drivel, nothing new. So no, I don't see how this manifesto is at all interesting, irrespective of what type of a person he is.
Posted by: Ms. Daisy Cutter, Vile Creature Powered Entirely By Bitter
|
July 24, 2011 8:02 AM
PZ, #155: No, he wasn't rational at all. The thing is that I wish we could draw a clear and distinct difference in our society's discourse between people who commit atrocities due to mental illness and people who are not insane in any clinical sense, but who certainly are by the standards of a functional and humane society, because their hateful resentments have found fuel in an equally hateful subculture.
And, yes, Walton, Breivik IS a villain. I am so tired of the "no free will" crap being bandied about, and I find it especially grotesque when nearly a hundred people are dead. Breivik was about as privileged as you can get in this world without being filthy rich. Nobody forced his hateful ass to spout hateful ideology and mow people down. I have no sympathy or empathy for him, I hope he rots, and you and SGBM can wag your fucking fingers at me all you damned want.
Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
July 24, 2011 8:16 AM
Well, I find the advocacy of revenge grotesque. It makes me deeply depressed that, every time there is a horrible tragedy of this kind, some people's first reaction is to want to harm the perpetrator in revenge, and/or to advocate the death penalty (as "kraut" did earlier in this thread). Inflicting retribution on the perpetrator doesn't undo the harm; it simply creates more suffering. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
Why is that relevant? Privileged people can (and often do) suffer mental illness too.
Whether or not Breivik was "insane" in a legal sense, his perception of reality and ability to think rationally was clearly impaired to some degree. (We should remember that the strict dichotomy between "sane" and "insane" is largely an artificial one; it's a sliding scale, not a binary condition.)
I have no desire to wag my finger at you; I simply disagree with you, and I will not apologize for saying so.
Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente
|
July 24, 2011 8:19 AM
Well, my personality is such that I wish Breivik to rot in prison for the rest of his life. I don't wish him to be treated in an inhuman way, just to be kept locked up for the rest of his life (You are going to argue that is inhuman, aren't you? Technically, it is, but is also the only way to keep him away from society which he obviously is a threat to.) And I wish him a long life, with access to newspapers and media where he can see the world going in directions he would absolutely hate.Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
July 24, 2011 8:23 AM
Such a distinction is purely artificial. The dichotomy between "sane" and "insane" is an objectively meaningless one; in reality, the capacity for cognition, impulse-control and rational thought is a sliding scale, not a binary condition.
The law has to draw a distinction between "sane" and "insane" for the purpose of determining mental capacity and criminal responsibility, just as it has to draw a distinction between "adult" and "child" for the same purpose. But, just as the exact point at which the law draws the adult-child distinction - which, of course, varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction - is largely arbitrary, so too the point at which we distinguish between a "sane" and an "insane" person is largely arbitrary. We shouldn't pretend, therefore, that this distinction is morally significant.
Posted by: dag.erling
|
July 24, 2011 8:24 AM
@Gorogh: There is no death penalty in Norway. The maximum penalty for terrorism is 21 years' incarceration.
Posted by: Ms. Daisy Cutter, Vile Creature Powered Entirely By Bitter
|
July 24, 2011 8:25 AM
Beatrice: Thank you. Precisely.
Posted by: iam.b
|
July 24, 2011 8:28 AM
"Yeah,but he was no true Christian." I`ve known plenty of "true Christians" in my time,and without exception,they all want to tell the rest of us how to live,and if we won`t subscribe to their doctrine,we are somehow inferior.Once that mindset is reached,it breeds an attitude that promotes and justifies any means to convert or destroy dissent.
Most if not all of them claim some sort of special insight into the mind of their imaginary friend,and feel compelled to inflict it on us,by any means.
The difference between any religions is only the uniform.
Posted by: abyschan
|
July 24, 2011 8:34 AM
#3
Kotaku has already discovered that this cretin was a World of Warcraft player, but had dropped off from playing the game at least 6 months ago.
Considering that he moved out of Oslo to his 'farm' where he began buying bulk chemical fertilizer 2 years ago, it coinsides with when he started using World of Warcraft as his excuse to 'visit guildmates' plan and travel to make his preparations for these attacks. He also used 'I'm up raiding every night with a hardcore guild' as his excuse for vanishing to keep working on his bombs and writing that 1,500 page manifesto.
Read more about it here: http://kotaku.com/5824147/oslo-terrorist-anders-behring-breivik-used-modern-warfare-2-as-training+simulation-world-of-warcraft-as-cover
Posted by: murugend
|
July 24, 2011 8:42 AM
Reports are coming in claiming that parts of his manifesto are plagiarism of the unabomber manifesto.
Also, thanks for ruining lux aeterna for me, asshole.
Posted by: murugend
|
July 24, 2011 8:50 AM
His villification of the left, and the labour party in general is not something that is common in Norway, or any other European country to the extent of my knowledge.
But, it does remind me of some of the language that comes from the right-wing in the US. The description of liberals as traitor, babykillers, and so on. I just didn't think the rot had spread so far.
Posted by: Zmidponk
|
July 24, 2011 8:55 AM
Toiletman #62:
In my experience, they'll actually be so clueless about any of the games he actually played, or even games in general, they'll also probably actually claim that the references to Knights Templar he referred to was proof that he was deluded into thinking he was playing as the Knight class from the game or something (for those not familiar with the game, there is no Knight class in it).
Curlew #145:
Did you miss the part where he not only 'gave his life to Jesus', but that he believed that he was taking other people's lives for Jesus? According to his beliefs, your pastor need not 'pray for his soul', because, by carrying out the killing, bombing, et al, he already ensured his soul was saved.
Posted by: dag.erling
|
July 24, 2011 9:19 AM
BTW, I'm pretty sure the first "no true christian" comment was meant as a joke, cf. "No True Scotsman".
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
July 24, 2011 9:19 AM
it would help you not make such silly statements if you read the post you're responding to first. Let me help you out here:Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE
|
July 24, 2011 9:22 AM
I find the advocacy of revenge grotesque. It makes me deeply depressed that, every time there is a horrible tragedy of this kind, some people's first reaction is to want to harm the perpetrator in revenge, and/or to advocate the death penalty (as "kraut" did earlier in this thread). Inflicting retribution on the perpetrator doesn't undo the harm; it simply creates more suffering. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
Seems like an evolved-in instinct. "Tit for tat" in game theory, right? There's an argument afoot that altruistic behavior is a natural response to our environment, and makes sense because it confers benefits - well, "tit for tat" and revenge are alternate strategies. I wonder if some humans' reactions to things like this are partly motivated by a revenge instinct.
I'm not saying it's 'right*' - I'm being descriptive, not prescriptive. It seems to me that humans have a chance to recognize which of our behaviors may be driven by instinct, in order to better understand, and sometimes not follow, them.
(* the naturalistic fallacy is to point at how things are in nature and argue "therefore it's OK")
Posted by: davric
|
July 24, 2011 9:23 AM
What'll happen to Breivik now is that the police will investigate his background thoroughly. Then he'll be remanded in custody awaiting trial.
In the interim period he'll be interviewed several times by a psychiatrist with a view to answering questions like these:
1. At the time he committed the crime, did he understand what he was doing?
2. Did he understand that it was wrong?
3. Is he aware of the difference between right and wrong now?
If the answers are yes, he'll be 'sane' in the legal sense of the word.
If he's found guilty, he'll be sentenced to a maximum of 21 years, but with 'forvaring
Posted by: davric
|
July 24, 2011 9:27 AM
Sorry, iPhone buttons are small!
At the end of his term, a panel will make a judgement about whether he's still (then) a danger to society. If they decide that he is, they won't let him out. In other words, he'll be in for life.
Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold
|
July 24, 2011 9:28 AM
It is difficult to envisage circumstances under which it might be consider safe to release him as posing no threat, unless he is of an age where mental and physical frailty ensure he cannot harm anyone.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
July 24, 2011 9:37 AM
Which is it? "Curlew" or "Sean"? Make up your mind.
I don't see where she disagrees with Walton.
It has always existed – at the extreme fringe of the right: among the nazis and near-nazis.
Posted by: dag.erling
|
July 24, 2011 9:54 AM
@Zmidponk: no, he was a founding member of a small group that called themselves PCCTS but bore no relation to the historical Templars. He was also a low-level Freemason. The Norwegian media have not mentioned gaming at all, except as a passing mention in a description of his Facebook profile, which mentions WoW and CoD.
Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente
|
July 24, 2011 10:11 AM
@Jadehawk
Something that is considered necessary can at the same time be considered inhuman, right? Or, I should have used inhumane. Oh, screw it. Anyway, that's all I wanted to stress. If we say that imprisonment is inhumane, then my sentence would be a contradiction... And I botched it with inhuman/inhumane, right? Sorry.
------
I disagree with Walton in that I would in fact draw some satisfaction from Breivik staying in prison for a very long time. Breivik also knowing that his ideas for Norway are failing would satisfy my taste for revenge. So, that's where we disagree, I am vengeful. I want him imprisoned mostly for the safety of people, but I can't say there isn't some wish for retribution mixed in there.
------
It seems that he can get maximum of 21 years. I don't think that's enough. It might be enough for him to plan something new and worse.
Posted by: Species8472
|
July 24, 2011 10:15 AM
@dag.erling
Actually there were a longer segment on TV last night with some guy talking about his involvement in WoW and his posts on the wow-europe forum. Some of the posts were shown and the moron talking on TV was utterly clueless as to what the content of the post meant and came up with some wild speculations.
Granted, Breivik is a raging lunatic, but the stuff showed on TV of his comments were nothing special as it was worded in gaming jargon and seemed like nothing special. The guy expressed him self rather well in forums, and usually hid his true opinions. I have a copy of all his posts from the right-wing website as well, and his opinions as expressed there are not what most would agree with, but nothing extreme either.
Posted by: Species8472
|
July 24, 2011 10:23 AM
If he is declared insane, he can be kept locked up in an asylum indefinitely. If not there are two options: 21 year prison, maximum sentence, (30 years for terrorism according to new terrorism laws, but the new laws are not in effect yet, so he cannot be convicted according to those), or he can get "forvaring" which I don't know how to translate into English. Basically it means he can get 21 years at first, and they can add 5 years at a time as many times as they need if he is deemed still dangerous. In other words, there is no reason he'll walk free again, at least not until he's so old he'll be no threat to anyone.
Posted by: Equisetum
|
July 24, 2011 10:43 AM
googlemess @174:
Walton seems to think that the poor feller never had a choice whether to follow his instincts or not. So don't be too hard on the guy. It's not his fault.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 24, 2011 10:48 AM
Yep, fuck personal responsibility.
It doesn't excuse the ideology, but for fucks sake, he is a villain here.
And he should have to pay some sort of price for his actions.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
July 24, 2011 10:52 AM
no, he can actually get life, as people have been pointing out repeatedly: he will not be released until and unless he's no longer considered a danger.Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
July 24, 2011 10:56 AM
if you don't understand the concept of contra-causal free will (or the lack thereof), don't bother commenting, it makes you look like an idiot. "instincts" are not the only source of causation.Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente
|
July 24, 2011 11:03 AM
#185,
I should have read about that more thoroughly. I saw the explanation later in #182.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 24, 2011 11:08 AM
Is there no consecutive sentences in Norway? Can he not be convicted on each count of murder?
Posted by: vaeisenberg
|
July 24, 2011 11:16 AM
@154
In that case, other people don't have free will in wishing the fucker hanged, or doing it (in more civilised countries that retain death penalty).
Non-compatibilist determinism cuts two ways - if the attacker was not responsible for his actions, neither is anyone else and there is little point in arguing. Which is why (if i remember right) RD said that free will, although unproven, is a useful frame of thinking.
Also for fuck's sake, don't try to poison the welly by claiming the desire for reciprocation/revenge is somehow religious thinking. Culling certain types of people from society, especially after they have done lasting damage is rational.. it's analogous to the immune system of the body destroying cancerous cells.
Another question is justice/fairness, which is a drive that was definitely not introduced by religions, because even social primates tend to manifest it.
In what sense it is fair for the offender to have a better life than those he has injured or killed, and by extension, their relatives? Even worse is the fact that such systems leech resources from others to support this sort of human scum.
Now, before you leap with how death penalty tends to be more expensive than say, life imprisonment... but have you thought of *how* the money is spent? In case of death penalty ,it is spent to verify whether we are going to execute the right person through various appeals and legal procedures. And well, the whole reason we have courts instead of vigilantism at all is to make sure that the person who we are punishing is the one who deserves it. In the case of life imprisonment, it is spent for the benefit of the scum that we have jailed, which is an unacceptable use of public funds.
That said , if this fuckhead has really done this ,i hope he ends like J. Dahmer.
Posted by: raven
|
July 24, 2011 11:20 AM
He is not only guilty of terrorism.
He is also guilty of 95 counts of premeditated murder one and a lot of other crimes. The damage to the buildings alone would be considered vandalism or some such.
It shouldn't be too hard to string together a few sentences and keep him in jail for a few centuries. That is what they would do in the USA.
Posted by: Species8472
|
July 24, 2011 11:27 AM
No, not in the same way as in the US at least. 21 years is maximum prison-sentence. But most crimes have a lot shorter sentences in Norway, even murder. Even child-rapist-murderers don't necessarily get 21 years.
In general people think sentences are too short when the crimes are vile, but it is hard to say what is punishment enough. The guiding principle in Norwegian law is rehabilitation and prevention, not punishment. In these kind of cases it is still a matter of protecting the public against dangerous people rather than punishment.
Posted by: Species8472
|
July 24, 2011 11:35 AM
As for death penalty, there is no chance in hell that will be considered in Norway. You don't fight barbarism with barbarism.
Even after the clean-up after WW2 most of the death-sentences for high treason that hadn't already been carried out were changed into imprisonment after the anger had cooled for a few years.
Posted by: Equisetum
|
July 24, 2011 11:38 AM
I know that. I used the word because that word was in the post I was responding to, which was a response to one of Walton's posts.
Walton:
Here Walton specifically absolves the killer of any responsibility, which is what prompted my post.
Posted by: KG
|
July 24, 2011 11:40 AM
Sentences of several hundred years sound rather silly in Europe: they are never going to be carried out, so why pass them? I think all European countries have provision for keeping very dangerous people locked up for life, or at least until they pose no threat. That's undoubtedly what will happen to Breivik, whether he's judged sane or not.
Posted by: tekrene
|
July 24, 2011 11:56 AM
As mentioned by murugend, large parts of his manifesto is copied and pasted from the unabomber. He has changed the spelling from American to British, and replaced a few words, like "blacks" with "muslims" and "leftism" with "multiculturalism". Otherwise, it's a word-for-word copy. You can look at http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10080704. The article is in Norwegian, but the quotes from the manifestos are in English.
Getting arrested was always part of his plan, he thinks of this as the beginning of his "propaganda phase". A detention hearing is scheduled for tomorrow, and he has requested that the press be allowed into the courtroom. He has prepared some sort of speech, apparently. This raises the question of how much, and what kind of coverage the press should give his hearings and eventual trial. He is planning to use the press coverage as a propaganda outlet, and apparently has delusions of winning lots of followers this way. Of course, the court could decide to keep the doors closed anyway, and the judge probably won't allow discussion of matters other than why he should or should not be kept in detention. But it will be interesting to see how the press will balance between being used as his propaganda toll and outright censorship. We'll get the first taste tomorrow.
Posted by: Gorogh
|
July 24, 2011 11:59 AM
@vaeisenberg #189,
The way I see it, it leaves you with the instrumental approach that - since ethically, your value system is equivalent to everybody else's - you "should" try to spread your values as good as you can. There is a point in arguing simply because I feel about things in a certain way, and so do you.
Hope this makes sense.
Posted by: Anti-Theist
|
July 24, 2011 12:05 PM
Most often "the ideology of tribal xenophobic nationalism" is religious-based. Read the Bible or the Quran and you'll find massive evidence of this.
My Nordic friends tell me that Norway has a maximum sentence of 21 years and no death penalty.
This video shows Norwegian prisons and discusses sentencing and other factors:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=aec_1311427516
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
July 24, 2011 12:09 PM
@Walton
I'm curious as to how you would handle say, theft?
What you catch a person who has stolen, take away what he stole, give it back and send the thief on his way? Anything else after all would be giving the person discomfort and punishment because its 'what they deserve'. Forgive me if this is straw-manning because I can't see an alternative, but doesn't this have no real incentive for not doing crime? Honest people are punished because they are targets of theft and thieves are rewarded because they don't actually loose anything by being caught in crimes?
The only alternative I can see is sending an offender for 'treatment'...but not all offenders are insane or mentally ill in a clinical sense requiring treatment or curing. Some are just nasty bastards.
I agree that prisons should have more rehabilitation programs so to help the prisoners not slip back into re-offending but the idea that there is no need for any punitive/vindictive punishment seems unfair. Isn't the purpose of such laws for the state to say to it's citizens "We agree this action against you is wrong and wish to not only deter it but seek to create some semblance of fairness that does not actually exist in the natural world". Yes we shouldn't descend into barbarism and there are limits the state should have because some punishments are inherently unjust, but removing the idea of punishments seems as cold hearted to me as the conservative view on poverty. "Yeah you're poor, boohoo, get over it"=="Yeah you're a victim, get over it, what you want a cookie? The state doesn't give a shit that you were hurt".
Cultures seem to repeatedly come up with some system of Karma, which doesn't really exist...but clearly we'd LIKE some sense of justice where good are rewarded when they are noticed and evil are not rewarded.
I know the penitentiary system is horribly broken, but wagging your finger at people who have traces of a Kantian moral system or desire a sense of fairness in the world seems remarkable insensitive to people who have been victimized.
I feel like it's the same discussion I had before with "No most rapists are NOT insane, you can't just define insanity as someone who does X and thus treat anyone who does it retroactivly as if they were insane".
Posted by: KG
|
July 24, 2011 12:13 PM
That's far from the case, and such vilification is apparently very widespread in Norway, courtesy of the leadership of the "Progress Party", which gained 22% of the vote in the last election.
Posted by: Birger Johansson
|
July 24, 2011 12:16 PM
Death sentences erode the taboo on killing.
The judges say "death sentences should only be meted out to the worst of the worst, after a careful judicial process".
The crazies hear "it is OK to kill people who deserve it".
Norway, Sweden and Finland would likely have seen far more murders if there had not been such a strong taboo against killing, holding even most drunks and drug-addled fighters in check.
This vile person managed to by-pass that conditioning, but there are thousands who stayed their hand before landing a killing blow in a fight, because killing is off limits at a visceral level.
A century ago, when the death penalty was still in use, but people did not trust the authorities, it was de facto up to individuals to avenge theft or other crimes so the murder rate in the Scandinavian countries was as high as in any other countries.
With the arrival of trustworthy justice and the abolition of the death sentence, violent crime dropped.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
July 24, 2011 12:19 PM
I only know of two countries that do that: the USA and Spain.
How about deterrence?
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
July 24, 2011 12:26 PM
and you used it incorrectly actually no, he doesn't. he points out the causation without which such things wouldn't happen. and that vengeance doesn't produce anything of value and won't prevent the same from happening, because the problem is not the individual, but the ideology.Again, if you don't understand the concept of contra-causal will, don't argue about it.
Posted by: davem
|
July 24, 2011 12:31 PM
Does anyone know if he'll have internet access in prison?Posted by: vaeisenberg
|
July 24, 2011 12:32 PM
@ Gorogh, 196
Heh, it does.. we are some sort of memetic vectors, trying to propagate our "programming" among other people.
However, this does throw Walton off his high horse - there is no reason to consider his supposedly rational "turn the other cheek" (which is funny because this truly is a religious moral which people wouldn't adopt without there being a promise of some afterlife reward) mindset as superior to a mindset which seeks to "get even" for wrongs.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
July 24, 2011 12:37 PM
that's actually a strawman. besides: there is, by definition, no possibility for fairness in cases of multiple murder; what are you going to do, execute the murderer several times over?Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
July 24, 2011 12:38 PM
strawmanPosted by: Birger Johansson
|
July 24, 2011 12:42 PM
A Swedish expert on masonic symbols says the murderer reminds him of KKK, who also borrow similar symbols go gain some kind of credibility, while placing themselves completely outside the law.
(Swedish-language link) http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/forskare-tydlig-likhet-med-ku-klux-klan
Posted by: Dianne
|
July 24, 2011 12:43 PM
In general people think sentences are too short when the crimes are vile, but it is hard to say what is punishment enough.
Not possible in this case, don't even bother trying it. He has ended more than 90 lives, he can never make up for that. In some ways, the worst punishment would be rehabilitation: get him to really understand what he did and feel the full force of his own evil.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
July 24, 2011 12:43 PM
also, I'm wondering whether you, vaeisenberg, might not be conflating the non-existence of contra-causal free will with absolute moral relativism. certainly, your last paragraphs looks suspiciously as if that were the case.
Posted by: Birger Johansson
|
July 24, 2011 12:44 PM
@ 207:
Typo: "to gain", not "go gain".
Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
July 24, 2011 12:46 PM
I'm not denying that many people - you included, evidently - have an irrational desire for revenge. But that doesn't contradict my argument that the desire for revenge is objectively irrational. Indeed, I've never seen any serious argument to the contrary.
Revenge is fundamentally a pre-rational idea, deeply intertwined with religious and supernatural thinking. It rests on the idea that there is some sort of objective moral "balance", and that the moral order has to be "rebalanced" by punishing those who have done wrong to others. In the context of a secular materialist worldview, this is self-evidently nonsense.
I understand that you feel a desire for revenge. Humans are not purely rational beings, and we all experience irrational emotional states and impulses. The problem comes when people argue that public policy should be based on their irrational emotions.
=====
That's a much more rational argument - the deterrence value of punishment - and, in many cases, a very strong one. That's why I am not arguing that the criminal justice system should be abolished, or that no one should ever be punished for anything.
However, in the specific context of murders and murderers, I'd make two points:
(1) Murder is not usually an act conducted after a rational cost-benefit analysis. Most murders are committed in "hot blood" in the heat of the moment; and many murderers are also mentally ill. There's certainly no evidence that harsher punishments for murder (e.g. the death penalty instead of life imprisonment, or harsh prisons instead of humane ones) is an effective deterrent against murder. (Empirically, there is no correlation, either across jurisdictions or across time-periods, between harsher sentencing and lower rates of violent crime.)
(2) Imprisonment for life, even in humane conditions and in a rehabilitative setting, is a substantial deterrent in itself. With this in mind, there's no reason to suppose that the extra deterrent of the death penalty, or of inhuman or degrading prison conditions, has any further significant effect on the frequency of murders. Again, I'd point out that there's no evidence that harsher sentencing produces a fall in murder rates.
The problem is with the assumption that "justice for the victim" necessarily involves hurting the offender. Why should this be the case? Seeing suffering inflicted on the offender doesn't undo the harm already done to the victim. It doesn't bring murder-victims back to life. It just creates more suffering.
Posted by: vaeisenberg
|
July 24, 2011 12:48 PM
@200
That's shoehorning par excellence.
While a more trustworthy judicial system does discourage people from handing out justice themselves, i fail to see how death penalty does the same...in this line of argument, the taboo on killing is far more eroded by violent media, often portraying killers as heroes.
One of the thing in Norway and other countries is that they have an advanced social system currently, and as such low poverty levels. In my opinion, that , more than anything is the cause for lower violent crime levels.
You might as well argue that global warming is caused by a lack of pirates. (Arr, matey!)
Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold
|
July 24, 2011 12:52 PM
vaeisenberg,
Are you Norwegian ?
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
July 24, 2011 12:53 PM
except that only people with severe mental damage are incapable of telling the difference between reality and fiction to the point of thinking that what happens in fiction is acceptable or doeable in reality. The death penalty is not fictional, it's entirely real. And it does send the signal that killing in the name of justice is justified, not just in fantasies but in the real worldPosted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
July 24, 2011 12:56 PM
That's a strawman; I didn't argue for "turning the other cheek". Rather, I argued that the concept of retributive justice - that is to say, the desire to make a wrongdoer suffer because s/he "deserves" it - is irrational, and has its roots in religious thinking.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't defend ourselves from those who pose a threat to our physical safety. We should; and that's why I don't argue for the total abolition of the criminal justice system. But there's a clear conceptual difference between imprisoning a dangerous violent person (in decent, humane conditions) for the protection of the public, and being deliberately cruel to him or her in the name of "just deserts".
Posted by: No One
|
July 24, 2011 12:56 PM
He should be required to maintain a large garden, the proceeds from which should be donated to the people he despises the most.
Posted by: Gorogh
|
July 24, 2011 12:56 PM
@vaeisenberg,
is true from my standpoint, and the reason I tend to disagree on some of his conclusions, despite the fact he seems to have identical premises.
And your reference to memetics is exactly how I meant it, I am happy you get my meaning.
Posted by: Gorogh
|
July 24, 2011 1:04 PM
To clarify this, I disagree with Walton's positive/affirmative tone by which he states some of his conclusions. Determinism for me leads to relativism, so every opinion is factually equal. I am writing this while my mind is occupied with something, maybe I can elaborate it later if necessary.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
July 24, 2011 1:06 PM
this is incorrect; nothing about the lack of contra-causal free will leads inevitably to Absolute Moral Relativism. Why would it?Posted by: vaeisenberg
|
July 24, 2011 1:08 PM
@213
No, i am Slovak. Why?
@214
But.. that's exactly the sort of people who commit these sort of acts. Never mind that you get exposed to these sorts of violence far more often than you read a message in the newspaper about someone getting executed.
Never mind that killing in the name of justice very much *is* justified, also ,it's best left to the state to do it (that's also a message that's sent)
@215
But why should we *not* be cruel to someone that has been cruel to us? Does it benefit us? No, it benefits someone we have no reason to like or favour.
Posted by: Archaneus
|
July 24, 2011 1:08 PM
Please PZ, don't fall into the trap of relating this to video games, as you lightly did already. We know this is going to be another one of those bullshit video game inspired violence pieces for the media, but you should be better than that.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
July 24, 2011 1:13 PM
A Danish paper is quoting a Norwegian political philosopher saying that
1) The manifesto is a carbon copy of Ted Kaczynski's - the UNA Bomber.
2) He must have had help since producing those 1472 pages is an insurmountable task for one man with no formal education.
Posted by: murugend
|
July 24, 2011 1:14 PM
I am no fan of the Progress Party (PP), but feel I have to refute the way they have been portrayed in the New York Times and other US media.
The PP, although populist and radical by Norwegian standards don't come close to espousing the vitriolic hate speech and violent rhetoric that parts of the republican party have come to do in the last couple of years.
In the political spectrum I would put PP somewhere between the Dems and Reps, leaning toward Dems. And even though anti-immigration sentiment has been growing in Norway the last decade, we have always thought that the extreme right that would step outside the democratic process and take to violence was extremely small. A few dozen individuals at most.
Things never seemed to be as extreme as in the US where politicians and pundits calling their political opponents traitors has become commonplace. Given that traitors probably face the death penalty, such accusations in my opinion seem tantamount saying someone deserves to die.
By the way, on a happier note, the PP have shrinking in popularity over the last months and are now at about 16%, the third largest party vs second largest earlier this year. Still too big though in my opinion.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
July 24, 2011 1:17 PM
no. not all murderers are mentally ill; some are merely convinced they're right. because that's the sort of thing that starts centuries-long tribal bloodfeuds.simply put, it's socially undesirable (meaning, it causes more social harm than good) to base a society on tit-for-tat, or have a society that considers such a way of thinking appropriate.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
July 24, 2011 1:20 PM
Sorry. That philosopher is Pål Fossfrom Høgskolen in Østfold.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
July 24, 2011 1:21 PM
I'm mildly amused at this apparent assumption that KG is AmericanPosted by: Gorogh
|
July 24, 2011 1:26 PM
@Jadehawk, to
I can say, I am no philosopher, please tell me where this logic is flawed. If everything pertaining to moral considerations in a person is determined, then how can you, from your own determined position, deduce any binding values?
Posted by: Dianne
|
July 24, 2011 1:28 PM
But why should we *not* be cruel to someone that has been cruel to us? Does it benefit us? No, it benefits someone we have no reason to like or favour.
Why should we not be cruel to someone who has been cruel to us? To me the core reason is this: I don't admire cruel behavior. I don't respect Andres B* or the Unabomber or the 9/11 terrorists. I don't want to be like them in any way I can avoid. Especially not trying to be as cruel as them**.
However, I also don't agree that there is no benefit to us to not being cruel. Obviously, being cruel makes us...cruel and promotes a culture of violence. There's a fair amount of research suggesting that the death penalty encourages murder, for example. And failing to take revenge can disrupt the spiral of tit-for-tat violence and mistrust. Maybe we'll never reach al Qaeda or militia members, but their relatives, friends, sympathetic acquaintances, etc will be watching to see what we do and how we act and making their judgements about us. I'd rather they not see us as just as violent as them.
*Adopting Der Spiegel's use of first name and last initial on general principle: obviously, we all know the guy's full name. But those accused of crimes but not yet convicted should, in principle, have the right to not have their names dragged through the mud when they might be innocent. Yeah, yeah, I know there's not much doubt about his guilt.
**Which is not to say I'm totally without desire for revenge. I'm more of a psychological revenge type myself, though: I'd like people who kill or commit similar crimes of violence to understand exactly what they did and feel the horror of their acts. In other words, to live and reform. Which is far nastier than letting someone die believing that they're a righteous martyr, really.
Posted by: Geir
|
July 24, 2011 1:32 PM
21 years in prison is the most anyone can be sentenced to in Norway.
However one can get 21 years + custody wich means life in prison. After 21 years he will be evaluated and decided if he is fit to be set free.
I assume this is what he will be sentenced to.
I also think he wiil be quite isolated in prison.
The media reports and interwievs with his lawyer suggest that his has no intention of pleading insanity. And he wants an open hearing tomorrow.
However this is up to the judge.
He wrote his manifest in english because in his mind he is fighting for the whole of europe.
I can also add on the religious aspect.
He is conservative christian and he support the most conservative bishops and a very conservative newspaper. The rest of the media he denounces (the largest news media in norway are political independant)
His also state that all europe should convert to catholism, because they are more conservative.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
July 24, 2011 1:35 PM
are you confusing the lack of contra-causal free will with some sort of "fate" one is born into?anyway, what does physics have to do with the existence or lack of ethics? why would the lack of contra-causal free will prevent us from establishing social mores, or even determining (assuming humanist anxioms)the best methods of achieving ethical outcomes?
Posted by: murugend
|
July 24, 2011 1:35 PM
I didn't assume that KG was American. I inferred he wasn't Norwegian as he used "apparently" when referencing Norwegian politics, as if he got the information second hand.
I also inferred, maybe wrongly, that he had been reading the NY Times, since I myself found the same outdated stats and, in my opinion, inaccurate view of the Norwegian right wing there.
I could however be wrong. Where is KG from?
Posted by: Dianne
|
July 24, 2011 1:44 PM
In other news, a gunman in Texas killed 5, including a 16 year old, apparently as part of a family quarrel. Just another day in the US. Why are guns still legal? Make it harder to get a gun and homicidal assholes will at least have to work harder to kill. Just to remind people, the Oslo terrorist killed more people with a gun than with a 6 ton fertilizer bomb.
Posted by: murugend
|
July 24, 2011 1:47 PM
cont.
It just amused me that the American media would the Norwegian right wing Progress Party was somehow radical and fringe, when in fact they are a lot closer to the center than the republican party is.
Norway is a socialist country, our right wing is close to the American center. And by the way the Progress Party only has support of 16% while the repubs are closer to 50% in elections.
Posted by: KG
|
July 24, 2011 2:02 PM
murugend,
According to another Norwegian commenter on an earlier thread (tekrene?), Progress Party leaders have used quite extreme rhetoric. Certainly the party leader complained of "sneak-Islamisization" of Norway in the last election campaign, and it invited a prominent Tea Party activist to its 2010 conference.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
July 24, 2011 2:02 PM
If there are organizations turning out these kinds of MRA creeps, that would explain a lot about happenings elsewhere.
Posted by: Geir
|
July 24, 2011 2:03 PM
You are of course right Dianne.
there is no need for individuals to arm themselves and if we want to call ourself civilized we should all call for disarming of the public.
Posted by: Gorogh
|
July 24, 2011 2:05 PM
@Jadehawk,
I am not confusing it with it - lack of free will is the result of the physical confines of existence; only metaphysical assumptions can argue against such confines, or am I mistaken?
The lack of free will implies lack of factual, "objective" responsibility. You can do no other than you do; there actually is no "you" in the regular sense, only a neuronal response machine.
Of course social constructs such as ethics/the law can be formulated where one is *held* responsible in order for society to work, but that is all they can be justified with. I am not denying that possibility, or that consequentialist considerations are a good axiom - but none of them are binding or compelling by a natural order, but decided upon by consensus (that is why you called them "axioms" - not everybody will agree to them, and there is no compelling reason but a reference to a memetic majority).
I might be wrong of course, actually, I'd be glad if I were.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
July 24, 2011 2:16 PM
of course. are you going to argue that there's such a thing as objective morality? where would such a thing come from? but one is not born into a fate; environmental causation also exists, which means there's a reason to want to change said environment.Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
July 24, 2011 2:18 PM
and in any case, objective morality wouldn't exist regardless of whether contra-causal free will exists. That's not the same as to say that all moral standards are the same, or that no standards can exist.
Posted by: murugend
|
July 24, 2011 2:22 PM
KG,
you are absolutely right the PP are quite extreme. But to my knowledge they have never used violent rhetoric or sought to demonize or dehumanize their political opponents. That is a line that has never been crossed in mainstream Norwegian politics, to my knowledge at least.
Some members have said some rather vile things about immigrants, but these situations have always been quickly condemned by the leadership and resulted in resignations.
Post #233, pretty much sums up why i found the comments in the NY Times article weird, and felt I had to correct you.
Posted by: Gorogh
|
July 24, 2011 2:26 PM
@Jadehawk,
hell no. Did I imply that? Nothing could be further from my opinion.
Furthermore, what is "environmental causation" but the extended feedback from determined processes? "reasons" to "want" are determined, so whatever changes is determined, too.
Posted by: Hodor
|
July 24, 2011 2:30 PM
People imprisoned for life in Germany can apply for parole after 15 years. Still, in cases of "severe gravity of guilt", that sentence can be extended - RAF terrorists Brigitte Mohnhaupt and Christian Klar served 24 and 26 years, respectively. In exceptional cases where the prisoner is still considered a clear danger to society after that, it can be extended pretty much indefinitely as a "safety containment".
Norway, to my knowledge, has a similar system, so the chances of Anders Behring Breivik (who makes the RAF look downright saintly in comparison) getting an early release are pretty darn slim. And he's probably going to spend all those years in solitary confinment, as otherwise he'd get shanked in a nanosecond.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
July 24, 2011 2:31 PM
sure; and? that still means environmental influences exist, and as such it's not irrelevant which moral standard applies; it doesn't render all opinions equalPosted by: Gorogh
|
July 24, 2011 2:43 PM
@Jadehawk, I think I do not understand you. You stand there and can do no other than have your own opinion. You are determined in it. Mr Breivik killed a hundred people - and could at no point have decided otherwise, because there was no "he" to decide. How do your opinions differ, except... wait - do you mean your opinions differ from the conventional point of view (which, as I said, has been determined as well from the beginning of causation, give or take quantum effects I do not understand)?
Or - did I say all opinions are equal? If so, naturally I meant equally valid from an objective point of view.
Posted by: vaeisenberg
|
July 24, 2011 2:45 PM
@224
Close but no cigar.
Non-regulated arbitrary retribution, that's usually aimed at the family of the perpetrator and not him himself is what causes blood feuds. If the state does it for us, and does it to the one who is guilty , then it doesn't happen.
@237 Well.. that's kind of an ad-hominem fallacy - not doing it solely because you don't want to be like them. I myself don't admire the above lot either, but i do admire for example the soldiers that killed Osama bin Laden.
Posted by: Dianne
|
July 24, 2011 2:49 PM
I myself don't admire the above lot either, but i do admire for example the soldiers that killed Osama bin Laden.
I don't. I prefer the police who stopped Andres without killing him, even at risk to themselves. The soldiers who went after bin Laden had and knew they had overwhelming force. What's so admirable about killing an old man who is essentially helpless against you no matter how evil he is?
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
July 24, 2011 2:51 PM
that's an odd way of putting it. kind of dualist. of course there's a "he": there's desires and thoughts an influences, and they caused him to do what he did. wha's an "objective point of view"?I suppose you could say that from the point of view of the universe, what people do doesn't matter one way or another. I suppose in that way Absolute Moral Relativism is true; but that is an observation completely independent of the existence (or not) of Contra-Causal Free Will. I remind you again which sentence, specifically, I disagree with: "Determinism for me leads to relativism".
if "determinism" is simply the lack of free will, and "relativism" is simply lack of objective morality, then one cannot lead to the other; they're both true, but are orthogonal to each other. One could be true while the other could be wrong, theoretically.
Posted by: KG
|
July 24, 2011 2:52 PM
murugend,
According to another Norwegian commenter on an earlier thread (tekrene?), Progress Party leaders have used quite extreme rhetoric. Certainly the party leader complained of "sneak-Islamisization" of Norway in the last election campaign, and it invited a prominent Tea Party activist to its 2010 conference.
Posted by: KG
|
July 24, 2011 2:54 PM
Apologies for the double post.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
July 24, 2011 2:57 PM
true; in that case, you only get bloody revolutions. Not that it matters, since that's not what you asked about.Posted by: azumahazuki
|
July 24, 2011 2:58 PM
Aren't the libertarian free-will vs hard determinism types excluding the middle? What about a stochastic process, one that can be modeled in the the aggregate (psychohistory?) but is hard or impossible to predict completely datapoint-by-datapoint a priori?
Isn't this a little like the brain-inna-vat question? We can't ever conclusively disprove that we're not Matrix-style brains in vats, or that in reality all of this isn't just my dream (though I don't want to imagine being sick enough to dream up Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and the Ice Capades). Because it can't ever be proven or disproven, it means it has no effect on us, so it is not worth considering. It seems this is not the case, so I believe we are justified in acting as if it's not.
Similarly, we wouldn't be able to prove we're not all hard-deterministic automatons, right? But it doesn't seem we are. I suspect, based on evidence (Bayes again!) we either have stochastically-determined or partially-free will, neither of which make it impossible to come up with and enforce moral systems. In fact, combined with what we know of emergent behaviors and from watching our primate cousins, it's likely if not inevitable that even hard determinism will lead to a moral system, no?
Posted by: James_Evans
|
July 24, 2011 3:13 PM
Rarely do I worry about these crackpots or their conspiracies infecting the zeitgeist to any successful degree, but I have to admit the controlling/boosting fertility and anti-contraception bit that seems to play such a large role in the ideology of these extremist groups troubles me. Unfortunately, being that it can almost always be found somewhere in their belief systems, and given the deplorable history of human racial relations, I think the fear that white people are vanishing or being subsumed by brown people has deep resonance with many people. Even educated people who should know better.
And cute bullshit like this, or this, or not-so-cute bullshit like this, or this, doesn't help.
Posted by: Pareidolius
|
July 24, 2011 3:14 PM
Any chance this murderous git was the Justicar from the interminable elevatorgate threads?
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
July 24, 2011 3:33 PM
I remove a lot of objections since your argument seems specifically hinged on harsh punishments that I'm not for anyway because I believe there are some acts that it is not proper to institutionalize due to the mentality it brings (executions and torture highest amongst them). But while you note my argument for deterrence, which we seem to be agreed on, I think you missed another argument in the idea of a just society itself. We agree that the law is there to provide some negative incentive (which does not justify death penalty and other punishments because the deterrence levels out) but I think there's also a strong positive incentive that you're missing from punitive damages. It's not just about punishing the other person, and it may be some irrational and thus I think tempered, but I think there's value to policies that basically assure people that their society cares about their pain. If people believe that their society cares about creating a environment of fairness (karma if you will) they may be more proactive and invested in it and hopefully less apathetic. There's a big problem for law if the citizens loose faith in the law enforcers. Law becomes harder to enforce due to public dis-cooperation and distrust if they view the law as something that works against them rather than something that works for them. The world isn't inherently fair, but the idea that a society is working towards an ideal of imposing karmatic fairness may be, even if based on irrational ideas (tit for tat game theory) be positive. A system saying to its people "this person did you wrong, and while we don't believe in doing what he did we will strive to give a measured response and lower his freedoms and opportunity to enjoy life to provide some measure of fairness. He has unjustly enriched his life/impoverished yours and we'll seek to as best we can create a humane but impoverished condition to try to balance it out for you...taking away the happiness at the level it was taken away from you as best we can without being overly cruel. I hope that provides some closure",
Humans seem to overall hate the idea of someone getting away with something (which I think is where ideas like hell and superstitious punishments come from, not that punitive punishments come from them as you implied) and people will loose faith and investment in a society if they think it's allowing crime/cruelty to be a successful strategy. I think a growing problem with America is the perception that their law enforcement and legislators are uninterested in providing fairness or punishing people who rip off the public.
I also have to stress that I think if we are doing legal punishments a good deal of that should basically be a education/rehabilitation to instill/explain to the offender why what they did was wrong; rather than our current system which appears just to be to lock offenders in with each other and let them torment each other.
I have to detour the discussion to, because I had an interesting thought. You seem to agree that there are some people for whom which it is not safe to allow them open access to the public. Case in point, of the Oslo mass murderer or other mass murderers or serial offenders. But if this is the case do you think it is more cruel to separate them from society for the rest of their natural lives in a prison, or to deem them too dangerous and simply execute them to make the punishment swift and unprolonged? My conclusion on it is that executions a) propagate a mindset that is harmful towards the ideals of a just legal system and b) provide far too great of a power for the state.
@azumahazuki
The problem is your argument is valid for some definitions of free will and not for others. I think the concept is too ill defined to argue for and certain definitions fit into a deterministic world view.
This is sort of what I mean when I talk about the mindset I think executions cause. In general I think it may be justified if someone is killed during an apprehension or to prevent them from committing a crime (by which I mean someone stopping a home invader uses as much force as they can which incidentally leads to death or that in a hostage situation a SWAT sniper takes the shot. Not "Get off my property" bam). I think the idea of killing someone who is at that moment helpless, regardless of what they previously did or what danger they previously posed, is a dangerous idea. It may just be a visceral reaction on my part but it seems like an abuse of power if there are other methods of detention/future crime prevention (if we were in a post apocalyptic scenario where there weren't any prisons anymore it might be more justifiable as it's the only option for preventing future crimes one may have)
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
July 24, 2011 3:45 PM
Going off what I said about how some actions we shouldn't do in general because of the mindset is propagates; There are some qualities of our self that have a greater value than the satisfaction betraying those qualities would give.
You don't torture a torturer because you judge there is greater value in not being the sort of person who would torture than in giving a person a direct tit for tat. "You are a bad person who deserves X...ironically thought only a person as bad as yourself could execute punishment X and any such person would deserve it as well...therefore we give you less than X because we are not as bad people as you"
It may seem simplistic but the reason you don't just genocide post WWII Germany of Aryan Germans is because genocide is, in principle, wrong. It is easy to fall into myopia and there's greater value in being proactive against avoiding it.
I don't believe in moral absolutes in a literal sense, however there are some actions that I think are practically moral absolutely wrong because they inheriently cause such infringements on individual rights and dignity that it is very very very hard to imagine a situation upon which they'd be justifiable. The Christian cult, The Family for example believes they can use methods like Hitler's and 1984's Propaganda because they are using it for a good end. They fail to realize that the use of such tactics is almost inherently evil. Regardless of the end, mass disinformation and propaganda campaigns are usually just plan wrong. You cannot commit rape for justice, you can't commit genocide for the greater good, you can't enslave for freedom. These are actions that run contrary to any worthy goal they might be used to obtain.
For example, justification of genocide in war would require a foe like the Daleks; absolutely inherently evil, incapable of changing, completely dedicated to destruction, impossible to tame or negotiate with. There has never been a side in a war that fits that category, and likely never will.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
July 24, 2011 3:50 PM
@James Evans
Especially since, if you consider the alleged tactic and goals of Islamic Radicals is basically to start a permawar of attrition that taxes the west, causes them to over extend, and leads to a Rome-esq collapse....Artificially inflating the population beyond its cultural carrying capacity is going to decrease the overall comfort of life and accelerate that process.
It seems to be as if they threatened to burn down your barn with a magnifying glass and you respond by filling it with oily rags.
Posted by: Rasmus
|
July 24, 2011 3:58 PM
Justicar is an achievement that you can get if you play World of Warcraft for a really, really long time.
Any chance this murderous git was the Justicar from the interminable elevatorgate threads?
The man behind the Justicar psuedonym on Pharyngula has a youtube channel and if I recall correctly he is a brown-haired American.
Posted by: Gorogh
|
July 24, 2011 4:08 PM
@Jadehawk, could be it's odd, alright - for me, the concept of an active agent implies free will somehow, when really, all that is happening is that some big bang reverberates until today, curiously breeding a conscious reflexion in some of its material extensions. Regardless, my idiom is not a central issue I guess.
As to your following observations, I'd have to agree with
if that was what I "simply" meant. It isn't, though, but in fact that in my understanding, every physical thing happening is determined (well mostly determined - but definitely not permitting a conscious, metaphysical influence), from the beginning of time until the ions within your brain passing semipermeable membranes and thus causing depolarization and eventually neuron firing etc. at this moment. I actually meant the "view of the universe": If everything is determined, how is that not related to free will? And if so, how can this not apply to human society, and thus to moral considerations? How can "determinism" not lead to lack of "free will" and eventually to "relativism".
Not sure if I am still making sense here. Might have lost track a little.
To get me back on, tell me - on what grounds exactly do we get to decide (our decision already determined) your (determined) opinion of what's good is preferrable to that which (determinedly) made him go on a killing spree?
p.s.: Again, if by "moral values" you mean the "values agreed upon by society", naturally opinions differ in relation to those values. But to agree upon something requires some process - if this process is already determined, there really is no difference between those values and no values at all. That is my position - guess I am a nihilist - or maybe I'm just unable to understand you.
Posted by: Svetogorsk
|
July 24, 2011 4:18 PM
I don't propose to link to him or even name him, but that skin-crawlingly repulsive Norwegian "rape advocate" who was highlighted here a year or so ago reactivated his long-dormant Twitter account today to praise Anders Behring Breivik as a kindred spirit.
He seems particularly thrilled that Breivik managed to kill a policeman, which is one of his own longstanding fantasies.
Posted by: Dianne
|
July 24, 2011 4:32 PM
It may seem simplistic but the reason you don't just genocide post WWII Germany of Aryan Germans is because genocide is, in principle, wrong.
Since Godwin has already reared its ugly head...Germany is a good example of why you shouldn't go about taking revenge and in fact should treat defeated enemies as well as possible. At the end of WWI, the victorious and reasonably pissed off allies imposed punitive measures on Germany. The result? Poverty and a backlash against all outsiders or anyone perceived as an outsider (Jews, Gypsies, etc) and ultimately WWII and the Holocaust. After WWII, the allies, particularly the US and Soviet Union, set about rebuilding Germany instead. Their motives weren't pure-each wanted to prove that it was best by rebuilding its part the best-but the results weren't so bad: A recovered economy, self-analysis and a real change in society, the EU, and the French calling Germany "Our best friends" (even if kind of sarcastically.)
So I suppose my basic argument is that revenge is inefficient.
Posted by: A. Nuran
|
July 24, 2011 4:46 PM
PZ, don't fall into the Fox News trap. Whenever someone Muslim or dark-skinned does something bad it's "terrorism". Whenever a White person does something bad he's a "lone nut" or "deranged".
This guy is as much a terrorist as anyone in Al Qaeda. But you, like most of us, have been conditioned to equate "terrorist" with "Brown".
Posted by: Gorogh
|
July 24, 2011 5:15 PM
Ah and as a relevant p.s. to Jadehawk: in case I'll be too drunk to answer (or already in bed), if I'm actually not getting it, or rather, my mental capacities seem to low to understand you, maybe some other time! Hope I did not waste your (and, incidentally, my) time.
Posted by: Rasmus
|
July 24, 2011 5:22 PM
I watched Norwegian state television and they produced a segment where they compared it to terrorism in the US, which is terms of number of attacks is almost exclusively right-wing conservative Christian in nature, with acts of terror such as the Oklahoma city bombing and various attacks against abortion clinics and murders of abortion doctors.
The Islamists probably take the lead when you count the number of people murdered, although I wonder what would happen if you took the average over time. They killed 3000 people in one day, but the Christian terrorists are more persistent and they have been at it for a much longer time.
Posted by: Gorogh
|
July 24, 2011 5:25 PM
@Rasmus, I wonder if bodycount really is a good measure at all. What does it tell us? I guess all it does is appeal to some fascination of superlatives in the general population (me included, actually), but it says little about the virulence of the idology, or the inherent cruelty, or the actual danger of the people behind the deeds.
Or does it?
Posted by: Birger Johansson
|
July 24, 2011 5:55 PM
Swedish TV has had time to go through some of the murderer's diary. He writes about how to make bombs, how to take photographs of himself and how to best kill women (sic).
I am reminded of "Commandant of Auschwitz", the biography Höss wrote while awaiting execution.
And yet Höss, Eichmann and now Breivik probably do not count as insane in a clinical or legal sense.
They were very good at dehumanising "the other", a quality required by their ideologies (I see Breivik as an "original Fascist" rather than a Nazi).
Posted by: nemo the derv
|
July 24, 2011 6:26 PM
It's a bit more complicated that this, legales always is, but the basic litmus test to determine legal sanity is this question:
Did he know what he was doing?
I think the answer is yes here.
Posted by: Circe of the Godless
|
July 24, 2011 7:05 PM
Just like the repuplicans.
Newsflash wankers : my uterus is mine to choose what I do with & I will expunge as many fucking cells from it as I want to whenever I want to.
Posted by: slyfoxesq
|
July 24, 2011 7:06 PM
Am I reading this wrong, or does this guy (author of 'While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying the West from Within') just praise Breivik's writing and high intelligence (?!) for a couple paragraphs and then spend the rest of the article explaining why Islam is the real problem here anyway?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903999904576465801154130960.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Shorter Bawer: "I completely agree with this person's views, but I wish he hadn't gone and murdered a bunch of people because now he's making our cause look bad!"
(Incidentally, why is everyone calling this guy an "extremist" when his anti-multiculturalism/anti-Islam/pro-tradition views are shared by a good chunk of Europe's population, not to mention an embarrassingly large number of people stateside? Is "extremism" something we only attribute to actions and not beliefs these days?)
Posted by: Rasmus
|
July 24, 2011 7:23 PM
I don't know, but it seems reasonable to think that terrorists working together in cells probably kill more victims than terrorists working alone due to teamwork and more resources, although Anders Behring Breivik seems to be an exception to that.
Of course the crucial number is how many of these fuckheads are out there right now planning something like this and the potency of the weapons that they are able to get their hands on.
Posted by: D Futrelle / Man Boobz blog
|
July 24, 2011 7:55 PM
I've got more on Breivik’s misogyny, and some more excerpts from his manifesto, here:
Norweigian terrorist Anders Breivik’s manifesto reveals him to be a rabid antifeminist with views strikingly similar to many MRAs
Posted by: Timaahy
|
July 24, 2011 10:14 PM
It's started.
http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/games/from-fantasy-to-lethal-reality-breivik-trained-on-modern-warfare-game-20110725-1hw41.html
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE
|
July 24, 2011 11:26 PM
Walton writes:
the desire to make a wrongdoer suffer because s/he "deserves" it - is irrational, and has its roots in religious thinking.
If altruism might be an instinct evolved into us, desire for revenge might be as well. No?
Posted by: ozogg
|
July 24, 2011 11:27 PM
Ah - ha !
This blog, that PZ reports, confirms my allegations - in other areas - that Anders Behring BREIVIK, might suffer from the delusions famously advertised by Christopher MONCKTON, who is a "Knight of Malta", an extreme right-wing Roman Catholic Organisation that perceives "New World (Communist) Orders" erupting from under the nearest rock.
PZ reports (inter alia):
"(BREIVIK) claims to be a Justiciar Knight, part of a new organization called PCCTS.
Pauperes commilitones Christi Templique Solomonici - PCCTS (the Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon), the Knights Templar was re-founded in London in 2002."
So, here is a WIKI link to these "Knights" :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_Hospitaller#Knights_of_Malta
And here is a link to "MONCKTON - and the Knights of Malta"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley
Especially note this sentence in the previous link:
"In addition, we have both provided and received briefings from Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and his Deputy Paul Dundes Wolfowitz. We are proud to be considered an asset to the national security community during these times of serious global insecurity.”
Be VERY afraid folks !
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE
|
July 24, 2011 11:31 PM
Aren't the libertarian free-will vs hard determinism types excluding the middle? What about a stochastic process, one that can be modeled in the the aggregate (psychohistory?) but is hard or impossible to predict completely datapoint-by-datapoint a priori?
A stochastic process doesn't result in an autonomous actor or "free will" - it just turns you into a meat robot that rolls 2-d20 and thinks it has made a choice.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE
|
July 24, 2011 11:41 PM
Walton writes:
the desire to make a wrongdoer suffer because s/he "deserves" it - is irrational, and has its roots in religious thinking.
I was thinking about this a bit more and realized that revenge behaviors seem to be in a lot of human societies - regardless of religion (and in some cases contrary to it) - this makes me suspect that revenge behaviors do not come from religion at all, but some religions may embrace them after the fact.
What if revenge-seeking is an instinctive strategy, like altruism, parental affection, etc? What if those on this thread saying "kill him kill him!" are playing one tape and those who are arguing for moderated response are playing another? I've wondered before whether a game theory model would show that the highest-scoring response from society was to have a slight amount of unpredictability (for those of you hoping for deterrence) and an occasional bloody vengeance?
Posted by: flatoutpanic
|
July 24, 2011 11:51 PM
Timaahy @#271: I wish you hadn't posted that. I just about punched through the wall after seeing that bullshit.
I wonder when their hate rag will be offering screaming denunciations of religion, conservatism, and guns, given that those are the real factors in this.
Posted by: nemo the derv
|
July 25, 2011 12:02 AM
#271
He looks shockingly like my cousin in that picture.
Who is not that different from me.
This is just great.
I resemble the new face of terrorism
On top of that I've played MW2
I've lost count of the number of ways in which that sucks.
Posted by: Gorogh
|
July 25, 2011 3:10 AM
@Googlemess #175,
I'd tend to agree it is not genuinely religious, but something ingrained in our psyche. But, do not get hung up by that word "religious" in Walton's comment - it actually does not matter where it comes from (or how society responds to it), but whether or not it is, from a modern perspective, still appropriate/acceptable.
Still, it might be useful for a prognosis on how easily such attitudes ("vengefulness" if you will) can be changed on a broad scale - the closer to biological behavioral dispositions, the more difficult, probably.
Posted by: maureen.brian#b5c92
|
July 25, 2011 4:13 AM
As I understand it - and he will correct me if I am wrong - Walton is using the term religious thinking in a manner both more basic and more technical than any number of pretty clapboard churches and ancient texts can encompass.
The religious mind-set in this case operates at a visceral level and works out in daily life as a need to appease or please or not disturb forces beyond our ken. Such beliefs may be totally at variance with the official religion of the place, as in the present instance.
Michael Morpurgo did a spot on Radio 4 this morning in the wake of the killings. As you would expect from him, a thoughtful and elegant piece, beginning with the poem Beowulf used in two ways - to underline how much we have in common with the Norwegians but also asking whether, as there, the struggle against Grendel, the eternal struggle for balance between good and evil is not just metaphor but in some sense is real.
That is the sort of pre-religious thinking which exists everywhere I have had the chance to look. Sometimes it can be recognised as the one before last of that country's official religions. Sometimes it appears to be older than that.
It seems to spring from, first, the need to tell stories and, second, the eternal quest to understand how things, how everything works. And not a priest or an imam in sight!
Posted by: azumahazuki
|
July 25, 2011 6:58 AM
@274
Is that so bad? Even if my choices are illusions, they feel real, and I'd rather err on the side of caution here. I've realized even hard determinism wouldn't appear determined to us under most circumstances, so it's like the brain in a vat issue; could be true, but it affects nothing as far as we're concerned.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlgyZ_hs_ca1A4KyhXD5TKEpUqi9LTxTmI
|
July 25, 2011 8:20 AM
Apparently, the "Bonus Mission" was to kill the former prime minister, Gro Harlem Brundtland. She had visited the camp earlier in the day (http://www.lidovky.cz/norsky-strelec-chtel-zabit-i-byvalou-premierku-fru-/ln_zahranici.asp?c=A110725_065746_ln_zahranici_ape - in Czech, sorry)
Posted by: alain.griffen
|
July 25, 2011 9:43 AM
PZ, I think you missed the boat on this one, the only causal relationship between his beliefs and actions is his nationalistic fundamental rightwing conservative political views on "Marxists'" support for multiculturism. And even that statement is generalizing. Hjalmar van Marle preliminary stated he doesn't see any psychiatric disorders. It's still too early to speculate, but the correlation with 'knights templar' isn't a necessity to explain his actions. His political views and his willingness to escalate to violence are.
Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold
|
July 25, 2011 9:52 AM
Missed the boat does not mean wrong, it means late.
Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
July 25, 2011 10:54 AM
Well, as Maureen explains above, I was using the term "religious thinking" in a more generic sense. I'm not suggesting that the desire for revenge is purely a consequence of religious doctrine; but I'm arguing that it derives from the same basic cognitive errors that produce religion.
The notion of retributive justice, in the Kantian sense, rests fundamentally on the notion that there is some kind of objective moral "order" or "balance" between good and evil in the universe; and that, when someone does wrong, the moral order has to be rebalanced by punishing them in proportion to their wrong. (Hence Kant famously argued that even if society were to collapse, the last murderer remaining in prison should still be executed, so that his "blood-guilt" is atoned and "each has done to him what his deeds deserve.") This whole concept - the concept of retribution, of expiation, of blood-guilt - is a primitive, pre-rational way of thinking, just as the beliefs in deities and in magic are pre-rational ways of thinking. It's a mode of thought that pre-dates our modern attempt to understand and rationalize the world we inhabit, and which has no place in a rational system of ethics.
Maybe... but that doesn't mean we should behave that way. (That would be a naturalistic fallacy.) Society will be more civilized and more pleasant, for all of us, if we reject the notion of "revenge" and build our society instead on love, compassion and empathy for all human beings. The impulse for revenge may be in our nature, but that doesn't mean we can't strive to rise beyond it, just as we strive to rise beyond other forms of instinctive irrational thinking.
Posted by: nineberry
|
July 25, 2011 7:03 PM
Most of the 1500 pages are copied from different sources, mainly right wing anti islam blogs, but also christian blogs, wikipedia and other online ressources.
For example, the part on Dawkins is from here:
http://www.biblebc.com/ask_a_question/7questions/bible_contradictions.htm
Posted by: alain.griffen
|
July 26, 2011 6:36 AM
@Matt "Nora" Penfold
Missed the boat is an ambiguous expression, I mean the second:
Fail to understand something, as in I'm afraid our legislator missed the boat on that amendment to the bill. [Mid-1900s] Also see miss the point.
http://idioms.yourdictionary.com/miss-the-boat
As for my original post, I should ammend it with cultural conservative, more correlations:
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/07/loonwatch-has-been-warning-about-a-anders-behring-breivik-for-years/