|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Most Perpetrators of Violence Believe What They Are Doing Is Morally Justified
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
Why most perpetrators of violence believe what they are doing is morally justified.
I found this fascinating and possibly worthy of discussion.
quote:
We identified a pattern in violence that was both predictive and explanatory.The commonality was that the primary motivations were moral. The perpetrators of violence felt they are morally right. In fact, they perceived that not acting would be morally wrong. It wasn’t a breakdown in moral sensibilities, but that they viewed violence as the fundamentally right thing to do.
What motivates someone to be violent? This is a question many people are asking in the wake of the recent mass shootings in California. Most explanations tend to revolve around the core assumption that violence is wrong. If someone is violent, something must be broken in their moral psychology—they are intrinsically evil, they lack self-control, they are selfish, or they fail to understand the pain they cause. However, it turns out that this fundamental assumption is mistaken. It is not the breakdown of their morality at all, but rather the working of their moral psychology. Most violence in the world is motivated by moral sentiments.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I would argue you can't take that at face value, I think Matza's theory regarding techniques of neutralisation is well worth a look:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techniques_of_neutralization
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I have heard this moral arguement before. I am left wondering if the reasoning and morality are secondary, and the main issue is simply human nature containing the potential for instrumental violence ( aimed at some goal, like power or taking others' possessions). We then look at our behaviour after we do the violence - irrational and wrong when compared to morality - and then create explanations that justify it so we can feel good about ourselves. So I'm not arguing with the premise, but thinking that it is an after-the-fact idea. The Christian idea of confession and conversion seems to be the opposite.
I recall the (now rather dated it appears, it all changed with legalised birth control) debate about sex before marriage, and how young people would espouse clear right and wrong interpretations, but then they'd fall in love and start having sex, and bend their moral reasoning to allow for sex in the context of love.
The American torture justifications are more along the lines of what your OP suggests I think. But this is an institutional response, designed to justify things most of us think the lawyers and politicians fully knew were wrong and illegal in advance. I don't think they ever really believed torture was morally justified. Many politicians (and in many cases business people) don't really believe in morality except as a strategic tool it seems.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
I think the theory is on the right track.
In The Divine Conspiracy Dallas Willard suggests that we will innately shrink back from killing another human being-- from "one of us". And so, before killing (particularly mass killing) can happen, we must first de-humanize our victims-- to somehow come to think of them as less than human. He points out historically how genocides frequently begin with the kind of rhetoric that dehumanizes the targeted group-- the sort of language used about Jews in Germany, the constitution designation of Africans as "3/5 human" in the US, labeling Tutsi as "insects" in Rwanda...
Willard connects this to Matt. 5:21-24 where Jesus connects murder with contemptuous language, essentially calling us to stop murder where it begins-- in our hearts-- by eschewing dehumanizing labels.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
We (here in the US) think of Osama bin Laden as a monster. But I am certain that when he looked in the mirror he saw a heroic man, one whom God would approve.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
the gnome
Shipmate
# 14156
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
...the constitution designation of Africans as "3/5 human" in the US...
Um, not exactly.
The relevant passage in the original constitution didn't designate Africans as "3/5 human." It didn't even designate African slaves (note: not all the Africans in the US were slaves--some were free, and a few even owned slaves themselves) as 3/5 human. In fact, it explicitly identifies them as "persons":
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
I'm not arguing that the institution of slavery in the United States didn't brutalize African-Americans in countless ways--obviously it did. I'm not even saying that the 3/5 clause in the constitution doesn't imply a view of slaves as both inferior and "other." But it's a pretty big interpretive leap to assert that the constitution of 1787-1789 designated Africans as less than human.
[ 11. December 2015, 16:09: Message edited by: the gnome ]
Posts: 99 | From: New England, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
Many a prisoner blames his victim for being there.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the gnome:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
...the constitution designation of Africans as "3/5 human" in the US...
Um, not exactly.
The relevant passage in the original constitution didn't designate Africans as "3/5 human." It didn't even designate African slaves (note: not all the Africans in the US were slaves--some were free, and a few even owned slaves themselves) as 3/5 human. In fact, it explicitly identifies them as "persons":
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
I'm not arguing that the institution of slavery in the United States didn't brutalize African-Americans in countless ways--obviously it did. I'm not even saying that the 3/5 clause in the constitution doesn't imply a view of slaves as both inferior and "other." But it's a pretty big interpretive leap to assert that the constitution of 1787-1789 designated Africans as less than human.
Perhaps. I'm certainly not unique in interpreting the clause that way (I can't recall offhand whether Willard makes that claim or not). Whether or not that was the reasoning behind the authors, who knows. As you're no doubt aware, the designation itself was a compromise carved out because of the competing Southern interest in both increasing their population (for representative purposes) and justifying slavery, so, yeah, to the forgers of the documents there's all sorts of mixed motives behind it, mostly political.
But when it comes to how Americans in general interpreted the clause, I suspect a large segment of the slave-owning or slavery-condoning population understood it as implicitly designating Africans as 3/5 human-- which, to Willard's point, helps make that mental conversion that allows you to condone if not participate in the brutalization of other human beings. Of course, there were Americans who did not view Africans that way-- but those were the ones arguing for abolition.
[ 11. December 2015, 16:39: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Basically, Willard is talking more of the symbolic and subconscious role that language plays in shaping our attitudes and later actions. If you asked one of the murderous Huti in Rwanda if Tutsi were human beings or bugs, I'm sure they understood that Tutsi are human beings. Even Nazis would have understood that about Jews. But when you use language like "insects" or "3/5" it creates a mental map that allows for a multi-step process Willard describes in his book that ends in the mental dehumanization that makes murder possible.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
I think a hole in the reasoning is the assumption that all perpetrators of violence are thinking about these issues at all. Does it occur to the school bully to consider whether his actions are justified?
By the way, does this refer only to physical violence, or also to emotional violence?
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
The one/s dishing out the violence will always justify it one way or another. Whether it climbs to the dizzy heights of morality in saying violence had to be used for the *greater good* . Or whether it plumbs the depths of immorality in the committing of violence was for personal enjoyment. A feeling that violence is wrong will be in there somewhere, but won't normally figure large.
On the other hand the one/s on the receiving end of violence will most times feel it to be wrong, yet might still seek an explanation as to why the violence against them was committed. So it does seem that on virtually all levels violence, one to another, and justification (or explanation) are indeed inseparable soulmates.
I suppose when violence falls out of the sky randomly, say in the form or a volcano, asteroid or whatever, our ancestors were likely to believe it had been done as a divine punishment. Whereas these days we expect science to come up with a perfectly rational explanation.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
quote:
I suppose when violence falls out of the sky randomly, say in the form or a volcano, asteroid or whatever, our ancestors were likely to believe it had been done as a divine punishment. Whereas these days we expect science to come up with a perfectly rational explanation. [/QB]
It is said that the great earthquake in Lisbon in 1755 kicked off an enormous crisis of faith. No one could understand why God would do such a thing.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
George, this is hardly profound. Don't most of us try to convince ourselves that whatever we are doing is morally right, whether violence, theft, adultery or whatever?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
George, this is hardly profound. Don't most of us try to convince ourselves that whatever we are doing is morally right, whether violence, theft, adultery or whatever?
Not sure that telling ourselves something like adultery is 'morally right' is quite the same as justifying it in another way. We're inclined to know things are wrong but come up with other parameters to make it less wrong. Going with the adultery example there's the 'Oh well, he/she wouldn't have succumbed had they been happy where they were'.
I think violence has similar indulgence characteristics and we're equally inclined to seek strong legitimisers in order to OK it with our consciences .
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
One can be happy as Larry with ones lot, ones partner, ones love, ones sex life and STILL be helplessly overwhelmed with lust for another.
Apparently ...
And that is an analogy for violence.
[ 11. December 2015, 23:03: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But when it comes to how Americans in general interpreted the clause, I suspect a large segment of the slave-owning or slavery-condoning population understood it as implicitly designating Africans as 3/5 human--
That seems pretty unlikely to me - it suggests that the preferred position of Southern states (full counting of slaves for purposes of congressional representation) corresponded to designating them as 100% human. I don't think they believed the 3/5 necessarily implied any recognition of their humanity at all.
I agree that the 3/5 clause is used today as a shorthand reference to the institutionalization of slavery in US founding documents but this usage, as shameful as it sounds, still amounts to flattery; had each slave been treated as three fifths of a person and given three fifths of a vote, it would have been an improvement over their actual condition.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
You're missing my point-- again, I'm talking about the subconscious shaping that language does to our attitudes and potentially willingness to do violence. I have said explicitly that no one thought Africans were literally only 3/5 human.
But it's a tangent at this point of little consequence to the central discussion...
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I think the theory is on the right track.
In The Divine Conspiracy Dallas Willard suggests that we will innately shrink back from killing another human being-- from "one of us". And so, before killing (particularly mass killing) can happen, we must first de-humanize our victims-- to somehow come to think of them as less than human. He points out historically how genocides frequently begin with the kind of rhetoric that dehumanizes the targeted group-- the sort of language used about Jews in Germany, the constitution designation of Africans as "3/5 human" in the US, labeling Tutsi as "insects" in Rwanda...
Willard connects this to Matt. 5:21-24 where Jesus connects murder with contemptuous language, essentially calling us to stop murder where it begins-- in our hearts-- by eschewing dehumanizing labels.
One point of dehumanization I learned is that from original sin and from theories of psychoanalysis (Freud and Jung), each of us humans must deal with the dark side/the shadow side of our experience. This shadow side arises I think from our awareness of our brokenness and we are worried/anxious that if we reveal ourselves as we truly are that we are rejected, by God, by others, etc.
If we don't deal healthily with that shadow side, we project that onto others, and thus find ways to justify our violence towards others.
My understanding of Christian grace is that we learn that God loves us as we are. 1) Once we accept that our naked and true selves, as flawed and broken as they are, are loved by God, 2) then we learn to understand that others, also flawed and broken, are also loved by God and of infinite value.
I think some forms of Christianity fail to go from step 1 to step 2. All Christians I believe, accept that God loves Christians. However the challenge is to realize that God loves others just as well.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You're missing my point-- again, I'm talking about the subconscious shaping that language does to our attitudes and potentially willingness to do violence. I have said explicitly that no one thought Africans were literally only 3/5 human.
But it's a tangent at this point of little consequence to the central discussion...
I believe I understand your point - I just think this particular case (the 3/5 clause) is, in fact, a bad example of extreme "rhetoric that dehumanizes the group" because when the founders were debating that number, they weren't thinking of slaves as proper humans at all. No one at the time would have considered this inflammatory rhetoric that could have coarsened slave-owners' sensibilities or lowered their inhibitions against committing violence against slaves. It was just a grubby political stitch-up between two groups who would never have seriously considered treating slaves as even 3/5 human.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
The problem is all to do with the heart being closed - if the heart is open we cannot deny what is there but we see that through love and so we are aware of the other as if it is ourself. This also leads us to see the good in what we see be cause we see a reflection of the love inside us.
It's possible to fake that - in that we can adopt a "humanitarian" mindset and frame of reference. Or we can define "human" to be general and not just "those people who I associate with"
And yes - once it's a cognitive decision (so then people can default simply by not considering as much as by choosing to not consider), we need laws (to remind people that there is an expectation of a certain level of behaviour), and a lot of shit happens. This is the level at which moral justification occurs, because, frankly, I can justify pretty well anything If I have no compassionate frame of reference. However, "Believe" they are justified is probably correct, in that a belief can bypass all critical examination if it not also listening to the wisdom that comes from heart.
I'm not saying that I personally live in that state of loving for much of the time - I get it occasionally - I know some people who are in it most of the time. It's the state we were meant to be in when we were created, and any decision made out of this state is as likely to have harmful consequences as good ones. When describing slavery (or the fact that Aboriginies were not considered to be human beings until 1973) - or violence (as in the Paris bombings, or a lot of what is happening in Syria), all one can say is that it is a lack of love. More love does not come about through returning the violence.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
If someone is violent, something must be broken in their moral psychology—they are intrinsically evil, they lack self-control, they are selfish, or they fail to understand the pain they cause. However, it turns out that this fundamental assumption is mistaken. It is not the breakdown of their morality at all, but rather the working of their moral psychology. Most violence in the world is motivated by moral sentiments.
Are these actually alternatives?
Just because someone's violence is motivated by moral sentiments doesn't mean that they're understanding the pain that they cause. Normal moral psychology is quite good at finding justifications for selfishness, and at playing down other people's pain.
Does the fact that people come up with moral justifications for what they're doing automatically mean that psychopathy, narcissism, et al aren't real things? (They may be not real things for other reasons.) If there are psychopaths and narcissists then they can still come up with moral justifications.
[ 12. December 2015, 09:15: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
This sounds a bit like Kierkegaard and Abraham's struggles in Fear and Trembling.
It seems fairly obvious to most that sacrificing a child on a pyre to a deity is disgusting and unthinkable. So assuming that someone is not a kind of freak from a community that thinks that is acceptable, how do they get to the point where they do it?
K (or at least one of his pseudonyms) talks about this term the Teleological Suspension of the Ethical where the deity (in the case of Abraham) persuades him to override his normal codes of conduct and obey his offensive requirements.
The pseudonym, apparently approvingly, describes such a person as a Knight of faith.
Which is all very well, but (assuming at least some of those who engage in violence are not mentally unhinged) are not mass shooters and terrorists not also "Knights of faith"? Haven't they also somehow cast off the standards of normal ethical behaviour and resolved for themselves that their abnormal, unethical, abhorrent behaviour is right/necessary/true?
It might give one comfort to believe that the uncomfortable feelings one experiences in making choices which seem abhorrent to the rest of our society, but surely that doesn't really help when people honestly believe that they're being led to do such things against us.
Of course, that could also be what Kierkegaard intends the reader to get to in reading Fear and Trembling. The mind-bendingly awkward bastard.
[ 12. December 2015, 09:45: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
We (as a nation) have reached a point where we are willing to burn children to death to make a diplomatic point, provided we don't have to see it.
Is it then so hard to imagine how a society might do this for a God ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It means that morality, like religion, is an excuse not to be kind. It's ALL self justification.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You're missing my point-- again, I'm talking about the subconscious shaping that language does to our attitudes and potentially willingness to do violence. I have said explicitly that no one thought Africans were literally only 3/5 human.
But it's a tangent at this point of little consequence to the central discussion...
I believe I understand your point - I just think this particular case (the 3/5 clause) is, in fact, a bad example of extreme "rhetoric that dehumanizes the group" because when the founders were debating that number, they weren't thinking of slaves as proper humans at all. No one at the time would have considered this inflammatory rhetoric that could have coarsened slave-owners' sensibilities or lowered their inhibitions against committing violence against slaves. It was just a grubby political stitch-up between two groups who would never have seriously considered treating slaves as even 3/5 human.
Didn't disagree with any of that, said most of that. So yeah, you're still missing the point, but it's really not that important. Let's move on.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
My first though when i read the OP was,"Isn't justification something you do when there is a moral question?"
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
So yeah, you're still missing the point, but it's really not that important. Let's move on.
Very well - you may have the last word.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It means that morality, like religion, is an excuse not to be kind. It's ALL self justification.
Can you have self-justification if you don't believe that is what you are doing?
If someone truly believes (for example) that a deity is telling him to commit some despicable act, that isn't self-justification because presumably the individual knows that one can only justify it with reference to the commands of the deity.
It only becomes self-justification if someone from the outside looks at it from the perspective of not believing (in) that deity. From the perspective of the individual, he may indeed not be trying to justify himself, but honestly believing he is being obedient.
[ 12. December 2015, 16:40: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It means that morality, like religion, is an excuse not to be kind. It's ALL self justification.
There are elements of religion and morality that are not about self-justification.
Though you're right that self-justification - finding reasons why what we've done or what we want to do is OK - is certainly widespread amongst us humans.
But I think that what these researchers are saying is something else. That much (probably not all) violence comes from the desire to punish. We make war on other groups or nations primarily to punish them for the wrong that they have done in our eyes, to try to make the point to the world in general that these wrongs are unacceptable and intolerable. That sort of violence-as-punishment is indeed tied up with our sense of morality.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Aye Russ, and that's where we're ... I wrote a six letter word there, still where we were when The Monolith imparted 'sapience' to us.
The LIE of redemptive violence that most here, even the good guys, justify, that NO Christian 'leader' speaks against.
Not one.
That paradigm is SO broken.
[ 12. December 2015, 21:19: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Violence as punishment occurs an awful lot in the Bible, which probably explains Christendom's appalling record for brutality, violence, retribution and the accompanying justification thereof.
Bit of a cross over with the bad religion thread I should imagine.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Aye rolyn. Our plant germinated and thrived in blood. We refuse to redeem our violence. We're lazy. And we LOVE it.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
