The line between evil and good isn't thin at all. Seeing someone take out
the trash and wave hello in the morning doesn't automatically mean they are
"normal" or "good". It is a misnomer to think that evil people
act evil all the time. Hitler was really generous to his friends, kind to his
girlfriend, and gentle with animals. But people that knew him well undoubtedly
knew he was cruel and evil. The people that need to be asked in these stories
are the perpetrators closest friends, their family, perhaps their employers.
"He always waved", "he smiled when he drove by", "he loved
his dog" means very little to me.
Biftacular is absolutely right. The general public has become so lazy and
complacent that it has all but forgotten that evil exists, and as a result,
fails to be on the watch for it.The greater question, which Robinson
largely ignores, is: why is evil becoming more and more prevalent? It does no
good to recognize that evil exists, unless society is then willing to fight
against it.One major source of evil is the modern entertainment
industry. Indeed, modern Hollywood produces one movie after another that
glorifies gang violence, drug use, and deviant sexuality. It is completely
naive to think that the public can consume this evil without imitating it and
becoming more and more depraved.Another source of the problem is the
entitlement mentality promoted by the current government. The liberal handout of
welfare and other entitlement dollars has created a large segment of the
population that has a "me first" attitude. This segment believes that
laziness and sloth are desirable, and as a consequence, are more prone to engage
in criminal activity.In short, the ignorant and slumbering masses
must awake to a sense of civic responsibility before it is too late.
Re: John Charity Spring "The liberal handout of welfare and other
entitlement dollars has created a large segment of the population that has a
"me first" attitude. " Do you mean like the big
investment banks and insurance companies which were bailed out by the Federal
government, and continue to be supported with near zero interest loans? Now,
that is ENTITLEMENT on steroids.Your remark here is wide of the
mark, Mr Robinson's list is full of people who would be called sociopaths
by psychologists. And that's what the are. Such individuals have always
existed. Liberalism didn't create them.
It is human nature to want to be able to dismiss people with simple judgments.
Prejudice can enhance, as well as diminish, what we see in people. Hence the
American adoration and admiration of people with wealth. In the Old
Testament, God warned the people against having kings. Why would anyone want a
king to govern them, over their own agency to choose their leaders? I suppose
it's easier and more comforting to make yourself believe in a benevolent
monarch than having to weigh issues and use your own judgment. We
can't ever truly know someone because most of us don't even know
ourselves. I am reminded of a poem by the late Stevie Smith.Nobody
heard him, the dead man,But still he lay moaning:I was much further
out than you thoughtAnd not waving but drowning.Poor chap, he
always loved larkingAnd now he's deadIt must have been too cold
for him his heart gave way,They said.Oh, no no no, it was too
cold always(Still the dead one lay moaning)I was much too far out
all my lifeAnd not waving but drowning.
Re: "Such individuals have always existed. Liberalism didn't create
them."That's probably true, but liberalism certainly
empowers them, encourages them, and covers for them until serious things happen,
then suggests their evil is our fault, and that "fairness" dictates that
we excuse or overlook it.Look at the damage done to suggestive
children by Hollywood liberals, in the name of freedom of speech. And that done
to families by political liberals in the name of humanist compassion. And, then,
there are all the liberals engaged in the medical, psychological and
sociological industries, who insist on clinicalizing evil, suggesting there is
some medical or psychological intervention that can substitute for moral
rectitude.Liberalism exalts a variable, secular humanist approach to
evil, eschewing moral absolutes. Even though this approach has always failed.In other words, liberals surrender to, explain away, or, quite often,
embrace evil, if it's personally convenient to do so. In doing so, they
often find ways to convince themselves of the moral superiority of their
position, even as it predictably wreaks havoc in the lives of real people and
I am too busy trying to root out evil in my own character to spend much time
trying to recognize it in my neighbor.
If liberalism "created" all these people, perhaps someone can explain
why some of them, at least, were known to friends and neighbors as
"conservative" in their beliefs.Is it possible that at least
some of the people named in this article really were not "evil" until
some crisis pushed an otherwise sane person over the edge? Is it possible that
what we are seeing is part of the legacy of Ronald Reagan who shut down not only
mental hospitals but much of the support that was available for "normal"
people who were reeling under pressures in their lives but had no place to go
for help?Is it possible that better mental health care coverage
under ACA might be at least a partial solution to reversing the tragedy that
Reagan's dumping of mental health support created? Are people who crumble
under life's pressures "immoral" in some way?Is it
possible that this is not something created by "liberalism" but actually
by "conservativism?"Even thinking such things is probably
some kind of "immoral liberalism" to people who find it easier to cast
blame than to actually THINK and try to find better solutions.
"Look at the damage done to suggestive children by Hollywood liberals, in
the name of freedom of speech."Okay. What, specifically should I
be looking for?"And that done to families by political liberals
in the name of humanist compassion."Okay. What, specifically
should I be looking for? "And, then, there are all the liberals
engaged in the medical, psychological and sociological industries, who insist on
clinicalizing evil,"Okay. What specific evil(s) have been
"clicnicalized?""eschewing moral absolutes"Name one moral absolute. Just one.
"Is the line between good and evil — between normal/nice guy and
aberrant/sociopath — really that thin?"Apparently, one
man's aberrant sociopath is another man's normal, nice guy.Look at the Mountain Meadows murderers, the vast majority of whom maintained
positions of respect within the Church both before and after the murders . . .
In spite of the heinous nature of the crimes . . . murdering civilian men,
women, and children . . . and leaving their naked hacked-up bodies, unburied for
scavenging animals to consume, and then stealing everything that had once
belonged to these innocent dead.And yet these men went on to prosper
in society and raise families and grandchildren, and experience the joys of old
age surrounded by family . . . And that is something their victims would never
know.Were these murderers evil? . . . Or were they normal, nice guys
who had a bad day?
I agree with Bifftacular's post. Only a superficial people think that
someone is good just because he or she acts friendly. A smile and a wave cost
little especially if it is to succeed in covering sinister ongoing murderous
evil or other deplorable secretive conduct.Politicians and
sociopathic personalities, not always the same thing of course, know how to
ingratiate themselves with those from whom they wish to profit or easily
accomplish a good reputation. Reputations are built on good deeds not talk,
handshakes and nice suits.OTOH there's nothing wrong with being
sincerely friendly, quite the reverse.
One thing you must consider is that sociopaths and serial killers are very often
very good liars. They know how to act a certain way and create a facade that
they are normal, when in fact they are far from normal. They know that they can
deceive others, and they take pride in it. They don't bother their
neighbors, and are often friendly with them because the last thing they want is
for their neighbor to think they are capable of heinous crimes because then the
gig is up.
We set ourselves up for a fall, when we see the potential for evil only in
others. Frequently, it is our strengths, and not only our weaknesses, that get
us into trouble.Maybe this woman was so kind to the children of
others because of her own guilt. Many people compartmentalize their lives in
this way. It's like a chain smoking friend of mine who would only eat
If killing people is evil and originates from liberalism then why did
conservatives elect twice a repub President who loved starting wars in the
Re: "Name one moral absolute. Just one."Oh, that's
easy. In fact, I can do better than one -- here's two:". .
. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart . . . ." and ". .
. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."Those are moral
absolutes. The fact that some choose not to comply, or that others choose to
interpret them to suit their own fancy, or that some may not even believe --
does not change their status in the slightest.
My goodness people, my guess is if you did a study you would find murderers are
probably split pretty 50/50 down the conservative/liberal line. Also I'm
not sure I buy the evil is getting worse line, I suppose it's possible, we
are certainly taught that in church on Sundays, however if you study any sort of
history you quickly realize humans have been doing pretty terrible things to
each other for a very very long time.
". . . Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart . . . ." and
". . . Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."The first
presupposes the existence of a "Lord," something not supported by
evidence and the other is the tried and true "golden rule" which, while
a good idea, is clearly not an absolute.
Some of the comments on this board are extremely concerning. Suggesting that
someone's political affiliation is some how related to ones propensity to
commit crimes is nonsense. Suggesting that hand outs are defining of a
"taker" or "me first" society is very disingenuous. The vast
majority of people are intrinsically good people who want to work hard and
provide for their families, suggesting otherwise, without providing any
peer-reviewed research, is only your opinion, not fact. Also, it's
extremely unfortunate that these programs have to exist because tax policies
favor a very small and powerful wealthy group more so than any other group
because they have the most influence over politicians. When was the last time
you saw any efforts made on behalf of the most marginalized group in society?
Re: ". . . why did conservatives elect twice a repub President who loved
starting wars in the middle east?"It never happened.Just a quick reminder -- the first Gulf War was started, not by Daddy Bush,
but by Saddam Hussein invading and raping his small neighbor, and our ally,
Kuwait. The war in Afghanistan, by Osama bin Laden who, as de facto ruler of a
large part of Afghanistan, made a formal declaration of war on the US, then
followed it up with the largest attack on US territory since WWII. The Iraq war
was started, not by Baby Bush, but by Saddam Hussein making incessant,
in-your-face threats against us and the world -- threats rendered credible to
Democrat and Republican alike, not just by his past serial aggressions and use
of WMD -- but by his admitted stockpiling of WMD equipment and precursors.At least Republican wars were directed to threats against us and our
interests. Unlike Democrat wars, which tend to use US troops as logistic support
to, or the air arm of Islamist movements in countries of absolutely no
importance to US interests.
I think that kind of message is seen in the villain of Frozen. Nice for 2/3 of
the movie, then discovery of evil changes everything. No wonder
Jesus states "By their fruits ye shall know them." But I think it's
more than just seeing the number of good-or-bad things someone did. Rather, it
is their attitudes and reasons towards their actions that we should watch out
for. Is it a good thing for a bad guy to help the good guy fulfill
his mission in order to accomplish his own purposes? Remember, he is helping the
good guy. Therefore, he is good, right?
Re: "The first presupposes the existence of a "Lord," . . . the
other is the tried and true "golden rule" . . . clearly not an
absolute."Yeah, well, the beauty of a moral absolute -- a belief
that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of other
circumstances such as consequences or intentions behind them -- is that no one
gets to argue with it or explain it away.Sorry, but loving The Lord
is always right.Not loving your neighbor is always wrong.No amount of liberal guile, sophistry, or dissimulation can change it.
Loving the Lord is self-serving folly if the Lord dose not exist. Loving your
neighbor is neither right nor wrong so long as one does no deliberate harm to
Hey Mcdugall –“Suggesting that someone's political
affiliation is some how related to ones propensity to commit crimes is
nonsense.”Don’t be so hasty Mcdugall.Right
Wingers often laugh at Liberal Democrats for being pansies because of their
emphasis on political correctness and their propensity for respecting the
rights of minorities, and animals, and trees, and snail darters etc.
Haven’t you ever heard Anne Coulter go on and on about how she thinks
Liberals are unrealistic sissies ?Many Conservative Republicans, on
the other hand, share Ayn Rand’s philosophy that greed is good. That
philosophy is obviously very attractive to self-centered, uncaring sociopathic
types. Ted Bundy was a Conservative Republican. In fact Bundy was even a
delegate at the 1968 Republican National Convention in Miami.Yes,
there very likely is a correlation between Party affiliation and generous,
thoughtful, kind, and caring attitudes on the one hand . . . And the callous
self-centered, just plain mean attitudes on the other that allow people to
commit heinous crimes without batting an eye.
When someone has a deep personal commitment to the idea that demons or
malevolent gods are the source of all evil, every ill in society is attributed
to them. When the zeal of a simple, single-source explanation for the way the
world works is focused on 'liberalism', then it's not the devil,
but the liberal that makes everything bad happen and explains every
disappointment. Neither model tells us anything meaningful about the
complexities of the real world.