Related To The School Shooting....

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
124,860
60,193
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
...perhaps.

Or.....perhaps..... to Evil.

While there is overwhelming evidence that the psychiatric drugs prescribed by school counselors and psychologists is a major cause of the ideation needed for these mass shootings, evil is a necessary component, as well.

Not all individuals are susceptible to hypnosis...., perhaps the same is true for committing evil acts.

And....is there ever an excuse for same?



1. In fact....that is the aim of 'evil,' to cause good folks to do evil. Whether one attributes that to the personification of evil, Lucifer/Satan, or simply call it a force, like gravity, that influences all of us at one time or another....it exists.
Problem is, much of the time...maybe all of the time....when people do evil things, they- and those attempting to explain the act- have the capacity to rationalize them as a mistake, an error, or no other choice.

Fact: the human mind cannot be relied on to be objective: we find a way to justify doing what we want to do, or what redounds to our benefit.



2. Some acts are so evil that there is no way to pretend otherwise.
But....for the majority of evil actions, we are often able to find some way to excuse the act, so it will not to weigh heavily on our conscience.
Such as this: "Guns cause mass shootings."

No they don't.
The lack of morality, of the sort of standards built into the Judeo-Christian faith at the heart of this nation's founding causes evil acts.
And there is one party, one perspective, that abhors religion, advances some subjective view of morality, that should be held responsible.




3. “I was a rifleman toward the end of the war, and my squad was moving out in advance of the American lines–in a no-man’s-land. We came to a small river, and we captured eight Germans there. They were little more than kids, 16 or 17 years old. We had a dilemma. We were very far from our lines. We couldn’t take them prisoner and bring them back to our own people. The country was too dangerous, and we had our assignment. And we could not let them go.

We made them turn their back and face the river. Then we went down the row and shot each of them in the back of the head… Funny, they were so obedient. Germans! They just stood there in the line and waited their turn to be shot.”
Lance Morrow, "Evil: An Investigation," p. 74-75




Assume arguendo, that the soldier was a decent person....how to get past that act of execution?

"....it doesn’t really bother me. We had seen so much. Our friends had died, we’d seen them blown up, dying in all sorts of horrible ways. This was something we had to do and we did it.”
Ibid.




4. In the film "The Fury," almost the same scene:







What was the choice? Was there an alternative? Is this one of those times when evil has to be excused?

Or.....what would you do?
 
Last edited:
Yes people do evil things, but there is no reason we need to have assault weapons, people only need to have pistols to defend oneself , so if you want to shoot an assault weapon join the military.

Also ask yourself why so many military vets have PTSD, they have done things and seen things that haunt them, those who go in wanting to fight, its like a high they get, re-enlist. So we have many different types of mass shooters, but they are usually white males that are citizens.
 
Yes people do evil things, but there is no reason we need to have assault weapons

Not your call, nor the government's.

And in any case certainly not a matter for discussion before you define "assault weapon"
 
Yes people do evil things, but there is no reason we need to have assault weapons, people only need to have pistols to defend oneself , so if you want to shoot an assault weapon join the military.

Also ask yourself why so many military vets have PTSD, they have done things and seen things that haunt them, those who go in wanting to fight, its like a high they get, re-enlist. So we have many different types of mass shooters, but they are usually white males that are citizens.


"Yes people do evil things,..."


OK.....the witness is dismissed.


You should read the rest of this thread....it may just teach you a great deal.
 
5. "No Choice" is the answer to the soldier's dilemma.


While American was created on the beliefs in individualism and religion ( contrary to Obama's lies, on the Judeo-Christian faith), the Progressive dogma has always been in opposition...e.g., for the collective where everyone is simply a cog in the wheel....

Fact is, that cog-in-the-wheel view is necessary for military victory.



The Left saw WWI as an opportunity to stamp out individualism.


a. “Once the war is on, the conviction spreads that individual thought is helpless, that the only way one can count is as a cog in the great wheel. There is no good holding back. We are told to dry our unnoticed and ineffective tears and plunge into the great work.” From a Randolph Bourne essay published in June 1917, “The War and the Intellectuals.”


b. Communist/Progressive John Dewey reveled in the thought that the war might force Americans to “give up much of our economic freedom…we shall have to lay by our good natured individualism and march in step.”
Taking liberties



c. "...in war's binary them-or-us, you do not operate as an individual....you cannot make narcissistically virtuous decisions."
Morrow, Op Cit.



The Left needs 'war' as an opportunity to stamp out individualism....and needs to keep war going throughout society.


One political party thrives on ‘war’ between groups. It gets its power by claiming that some groups are victims……’identity politics.’

It advances a ‘war footing’ in society.

Think about it.
 
Last edited:
Fact is, that cog-in-the-wheel view is necessary for military victory.

6. OK....but what if we are not in a war? What is the basis for decision-making by individuals in a civilized society?
fbe13e3921d1ea792d05ec0697344dc7.jpg





How does religion get to be the arbiter?


"The Bible is the wisdom of the West. It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed- systems, worked out over millennia, for dealing with inequality, with injustice, with greed, reducible to that which Christians call the Golden Rule, and the Jews had propounded as “That which is hateful to you, don not do to your neighbor.”

It is these rules and laws which form a framework which allows the individual foreknowledge of that which is permitted and that which is forbidden."
David Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge."



By driving religion out of our schools, the Left has made room for a very different perspective.



 
Fact is, that cog-in-the-wheel view is necessary for military victory.

6. OK....but what if we are not in a war? What is the basis for decision-making by individuals in a civilized society?
fbe13e3921d1ea792d05ec0697344dc7.jpg





How does religion get to be the arbiter?


"The Bible is the wisdom of the West. It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed- systems, worked out over millennia, for dealing with inequality, with injustice, with greed, reducible to that which Christians call the Golden Rule, and the Jews had propounded as “That which is hateful to you, don not do to your neighbor.”

It is these rules and laws which form a framework which allows the individual foreknowledge of that which is permitted and that which is forbidden."
David Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge."



By driving religion out of our schools, the Left has made room for a very different perspective.




Japan has no gun violence. I like wherever their wisdom came from.
 
Fact is, that cog-in-the-wheel view is necessary for military victory.

6. OK....but what if we are not in a war? What is the basis for decision-making by individuals in a civilized society?
fbe13e3921d1ea792d05ec0697344dc7.jpg





How does religion get to be the arbiter?


"The Bible is the wisdom of the West. It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed- systems, worked out over millennia, for dealing with inequality, with injustice, with greed, reducible to that which Christians call the Golden Rule, and the Jews had propounded as “That which is hateful to you, don not do to your neighbor.”

It is these rules and laws which form a framework which allows the individual foreknowledge of that which is permitted and that which is forbidden."
David Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge."



By driving religion out of our schools, the Left has made room for a very different perspective.




Japan has no gun violence. I like wherever their wisdom came from.



Drop a post card when you get settled in.......
 
7. When the Left, the most dynamic political force in society, decided that we could impose our own individual judgment for that which the Bible provides...which you can believe either as

a. God dictating to the writers of the Bible

or

b. as the wisdom of the species as determined by millennia of human interactions...


....totalitarian governance was birthed. And murder became acceptable.


"If the French revolution was the end of monarchy and aristocratic privilege and the emergence of the common man and democratic rights, it was also the beginnings of modern totalitarian government and large-scale executions of "enemies of the People" by impersonal government entities (Robespierre's "Committee of Public Safety").

This legacy would not reach its fullest bloom until the tragic arrival of the German Nazis and Soviet and Chinese communists of the 20th century."
French Revolution - Robespierre, and the Legacy of the Reign of Terror




Under the precepts of the French Revolution, any who did not agree with government….should be treated as a rabid beast.
And that easily morphs into ‘Anyone who doesn’t agree with me….can be murdered.’




Reason and science in place of fear of God and morality.
Reason is easily manipulated and corrupted.
Science can tell us what we can do, but not what we should do.
 
By driving religion out of our schools, the Left has made room for a very different perspective.

While I agree religion plays a part, we should also take a look at what else is different in our schools.

1. Child labor laws. Students used to have to pick up and clean up their own classrooms. (Now it is done by adults who get paid for it.)
2. All students had to bring their own lunch. If they forgot their lunch, siblings and classmates helped them out. (Now it is done by entitlement programs, paid for by adults.)
3. All students had to get to school under their own power. (Now adults deliver them by car or bus.)
4. Students were given summers off, not for rest and recreation, but to work on family farms.

One school I work for at times has a special work training hour for special ed students. In the afternoon, the special ed kids go around sweeping and picking up trash that students let lie during lunch. I have mixed feelings about this. I am glad students are getting some work training cleaning skills. At the same time I harbor a terrible anger that students who do not suffer any of the afflictions of the special ed kids, students who are privileged and perfectly capable of picking up after themselves, simply leave their garbage--without a second thought--for someone else to take care. Ninety-five percent of them aren't even aware what the least of their fellow classmates are doing for them.

Not only do we need to teach our children good morals and philosophies--we need to teach them how to work and how to be responsible for themselves and their environments. From Kindergarten on, if each child was required to spend an hour cleaning up and mending school grounds, not only might we have more funds to use for education, children would be better educated as well--especially when it comes to group effort.
 
By driving religion out of our schools, the Left has made room for a very different perspective.

While I agree religion plays a part, we should also take a look at what else is different in our schools.

1. Child labor laws. Students used to have to pick up and clean up their own classrooms. (Now it is done by adults who get paid for it.)
2. All students had to bring their own lunch. If they forgot their lunch, siblings and classmates helped them out. (Now it is done by entitlement programs, paid for by adults.)
3. All students had to get to school under their own power. (Now adults deliver them by car or bus.)
4. Students were given summers off, not for rest and recreation, but to work on family farms.

One school I work for at times has a special work training hour for special ed students. In the afternoon, the special ed kids go around sweeping and picking up trash that students let lie during lunch. I have mixed feelings about this. I am glad students are getting some work training cleaning skills. At the same time I harbor a terrible anger that students who do not suffer any of the afflictions of the special ed kids, students who are privileged and perfectly capable of picking up after themselves, simply leave their garbage--without a second thought--for someone else to take care. Ninety-five percent of them aren't even aware what the least of their fellow classmates are doing for them.

Not only do we need to teach our children good morals and philosophies--we need to teach them how to work and how to be responsible for themselves and their environments. From Kindergarten on, if each child was required to spend an hour cleaning up and mending school grounds, not only might we have more funds to use for education, children would be better educated as well--especially when it comes to group effort.


That's an interesting post.

In many ways it supports the view that rather than the lessons distilled over millennia, most of which we find in the religious texts, the stronger Leftism....Liberalism becomes.....the less individuals have a sense of responsibility to others, and to their society.


I've always felt that the perq of being a Liberal is that you can formulate your own morality....Charles Murray writes about it:

'One change in societal attitude has been the “ecumenical niceness”…don’t fight, share toys, take turns….and never, ever be judgmental. As a result, the upper cultural class, which has stabilized by returning to more traditional ways, survives, yet these individuals will not criticize the behaviors which are destroying the lower cultural class.'
 
In many ways it supports the view that rather than the lessons distilled over millennia, most of which we find in the religious texts, the stronger Leftism....Liberalism becomes.....the less individuals have a sense of responsibility to others, and to their society.


I've always felt that the perq of being a Liberal is that you can formulate your own morality....Charles Murray writes about it:

'One change in societal attitude has been the “ecumenical niceness”…don’t fight, share toys, take turns….and never, ever be judgmental. As a result, the upper cultural class, which has stabilized by returning to more traditional ways, survives, yet these individuals will not criticize the behaviors which are destroying the lower cultural class.'

The main fault I have with liberalism is their expectation that agency should look after the poor and those in need. People need to look after people--and people need people--not a government agency--to care about them. People recognize and appreciate the energy spent by people lending them a hand. It appears all the feeling many get from an agency is that feeling of "entitlement." The other problem is that while many may draw the line at ripping off someone they know, they have no qualms about conning the government.
 
In many ways it supports the view that rather than the lessons distilled over millennia, most of which we find in the religious texts, the stronger Leftism....Liberalism becomes.....the less individuals have a sense of responsibility to others, and to their society.


I've always felt that the perq of being a Liberal is that you can formulate your own morality....Charles Murray writes about it:

'One change in societal attitude has been the “ecumenical niceness”…don’t fight, share toys, take turns….and never, ever be judgmental. As a result, the upper cultural class, which has stabilized by returning to more traditional ways, survives, yet these individuals will not criticize the behaviors which are destroying the lower cultural class.'

The main fault I have with liberalism is their expectation that agency should look after the poor and those in need. People need to look after people--and people need people--not a government agency--to care about them. People recognize and appreciate the energy spent by people lending them a hand. It appears all the feeling many get from an agency is that feeling of "entitlement." The other problem is that while many may draw the line at ripping off someone they know, they have no qualms about conning the government.



As it was from the start of this nation.

a.Noted in the minutes of the Fairfield, Connecticut town council meeting: "April 16, 1673, Seriant Squire and Sam moorhouse [agreed] to Take care of Roger knaps family in this time of their great weaknes...." "Heritage of American Social Work: Readings in Its Philosophical and Institutional Development," by Ralph Pumphrey and W. Muriel Pumphrey, p.22.

b. November, 1753, from the Chelmsford, Massachusetts town meeting: "payment to Mr. W. Parker for takng one Joanna Cory, a poor child of John Cory, deceased, and to take caree of her while [until] 18 years old."
See The Social Service Review XI (September 1937), p. 452.

c. The Scots' Charitable Society, organized in 1684, "open[ed] the bowells of our compassion" to widows like Mrs. Stewart, who had "lost the use of her left arm" and whose husband was "Wash'd Overboard in a Storm."
Pumphrey, Op.Cit., p. 29.

d. And here is the major difference between current efforts and the earlier: charity was not handed out indiscriminately- "no prophane or diselut person, or openly scandelous shall have any pairt or portione herein."

e.The able-bodied were expected to find work, and if they chose not to, well....it was considered perfectly appropriate to press them to change their mind.
Olasky, "The Tragedy of American Compassion," chapter one.





Of course, today's welfare plan is merely the purchase of votes.
 
In many ways it supports the view that rather than the lessons distilled over millennia, most of which we find in the religious texts, the stronger Leftism....Liberalism becomes.....the less individuals have a sense of responsibility to others, and to their society.


I've always felt that the perq of being a Liberal is that you can formulate your own morality....Charles Murray writes about it:

'One change in societal attitude has been the “ecumenical niceness”…don’t fight, share toys, take turns….and never, ever be judgmental. As a result, the upper cultural class, which has stabilized by returning to more traditional ways, survives, yet these individuals will not criticize the behaviors which are destroying the lower cultural class.'

The main fault I have with liberalism is their expectation that agency should look after the poor and those in need. People need to look after people--and people need people--not a government agency--to care about them. People recognize and appreciate the energy spent by people lending them a hand. It appears all the feeling many get from an agency is that feeling of "entitlement." The other problem is that while many may draw the line at ripping off someone they know, they have no qualms about conning the government.
I thought god and jesus looked after poor people.
 
In many ways it supports the view that rather than the lessons distilled over millennia, most of which we find in the religious texts, the stronger Leftism....Liberalism becomes.....the less individuals have a sense of responsibility to others, and to their society.


I've always felt that the perq of being a Liberal is that you can formulate your own morality....Charles Murray writes about it:

'One change in societal attitude has been the “ecumenical niceness”…don’t fight, share toys, take turns….and never, ever be judgmental. As a result, the upper cultural class, which has stabilized by returning to more traditional ways, survives, yet these individuals will not criticize the behaviors which are destroying the lower cultural class.'

The main fault I have with liberalism is their expectation that agency should look after the poor and those in need. People need to look after people--and people need people--not a government agency--to care about them. People recognize and appreciate the energy spent by people lending them a hand. It appears all the feeling many get from an agency is that feeling of "entitlement." The other problem is that while many may draw the line at ripping off someone they know, they have no qualms about conning the government.
I thought god and jesus looked after poor people.



Why would you think that????


...tithe was not given to able-bodied men and women who were capable of working. For able-bodied people, God’s welfare system is—work. How different from modern social welfare programs!

In fact, the Bible is clear that people should be rewarded by what they contribute to society.

The Bible is specific about what God expects of able-bodied members of society. In 2 Thessalonians 3:10, Paul said, “If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat”
 
In many ways it supports the view that rather than the lessons distilled over millennia, most of which we find in the religious texts, the stronger Leftism....Liberalism becomes.....the less individuals have a sense of responsibility to others, and to their society.


I've always felt that the perq of being a Liberal is that you can formulate your own morality....Charles Murray writes about it:

'One change in societal attitude has been the “ecumenical niceness”…don’t fight, share toys, take turns….and never, ever be judgmental. As a result, the upper cultural class, which has stabilized by returning to more traditional ways, survives, yet these individuals will not criticize the behaviors which are destroying the lower cultural class.'

The main fault I have with liberalism is their expectation that agency should look after the poor and those in need. People need to look after people--and people need people--not a government agency--to care about them. People recognize and appreciate the energy spent by people lending them a hand. It appears all the feeling many get from an agency is that feeling of "entitlement." The other problem is that while many may draw the line at ripping off someone they know, they have no qualms about conning the government.
I thought god and jesus looked after poor people.



The Bible is filled with many such admonitions to work and provide for your family.“But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel” (1 Timothy 5:8)



There is only one explanation for the welfare scheme today.....to accrue votes.

You know that....don't you?
 
Marvin Olasky, in "The Tragedy of American Compassion," explains that human needs were taken care of by other human beings- not by bureaucracies. The important difference was that the latter may take care of food and shelter...but the former also dealt with the human spirit and behavior.
Welfare programs today, are Liberal….conservatives don’t look for material solutions, but understand that changing values is what solves the problem of poverty..
 
In many ways it supports the view that rather than the lessons distilled over millennia, most of which we find in the religious texts, the stronger Leftism....Liberalism becomes.....the less individuals have a sense of responsibility to others, and to their society.


I've always felt that the perq of being a Liberal is that you can formulate your own morality....Charles Murray writes about it:

'One change in societal attitude has been the “ecumenical niceness”…don’t fight, share toys, take turns….and never, ever be judgmental. As a result, the upper cultural class, which has stabilized by returning to more traditional ways, survives, yet these individuals will not criticize the behaviors which are destroying the lower cultural class.'

The main fault I have with liberalism is their expectation that agency should look after the poor and those in need. People need to look after people--and people need people--not a government agency--to care about them. People recognize and appreciate the energy spent by people lending them a hand. It appears all the feeling many get from an agency is that feeling of "entitlement." The other problem is that while many may draw the line at ripping off someone they know, they have no qualms about conning the government.
I thought god and jesus looked after poor people.



Why would you think that????


...tithe was not given to able-bodied men and women who were capable of working. For able-bodied people, God’s welfare system is—work. How different from modern social welfare programs!

In fact, the Bible is clear that people should be rewarded by what they contribute to society.

The Bible is specific about what God expects of able-bodied members of society. In 2 Thessalonians 3:10, Paul said, “If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat”
Then what's the collection plate for? Blow?
 
In many ways it supports the view that rather than the lessons distilled over millennia, most of which we find in the religious texts, the stronger Leftism....Liberalism becomes.....the less individuals have a sense of responsibility to others, and to their society.


I've always felt that the perq of being a Liberal is that you can formulate your own morality....Charles Murray writes about it:

'One change in societal attitude has been the “ecumenical niceness”…don’t fight, share toys, take turns….and never, ever be judgmental. As a result, the upper cultural class, which has stabilized by returning to more traditional ways, survives, yet these individuals will not criticize the behaviors which are destroying the lower cultural class.'

The main fault I have with liberalism is their expectation that agency should look after the poor and those in need. People need to look after people--and people need people--not a government agency--to care about them. People recognize and appreciate the energy spent by people lending them a hand. It appears all the feeling many get from an agency is that feeling of "entitlement." The other problem is that while many may draw the line at ripping off someone they know, they have no qualms about conning the government.
I thought god and jesus looked after poor people.



The Bible is filled with many such admonitions to work and provide for your family.“But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel” (1 Timothy 5:8)



There is only one explanation for the welfare scheme today.....to accrue votes.

You know that....don't you?
Yes, I agree. Let poor people starve on the street corner and see if I care.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top