For the Moral Relativists Among Us...

[Werewolf]

Justify this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27821172/

Caste System is alive and well in India and it's rules permit the murder of children. Barbaric, evil. But it is a culturaly accepted norm where the act took place. Under the philosophy of moral relativism the noted practice would be justified. But how can this kind of thing ever be justified? I am curious.

PATNA, India - A teenage Indian boy was thrashed, paraded through the streets with his head shaved and then thrown under a train for daring to write a love letter to a girl from a different caste, police said Thursday.

Manish Kumar, 15, was kidnapped by members of the rival caste on his way to school and was killed as his mother begged for mercy, police in the impoverished eastern state of Bihar said.

One man has been arrested and a policeman suspended.

Story continues below ↓
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
advertisement | your ad here

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The victim's mother, Lalit Devi, told police she had watched "helplessly" as the wheels of the train passed over her son.

"The accused persons killed the boy for writing a love letter to the girl of the same village," superintendent of police in Kaimur district, Rajesh Kumar, told Reuters by telephone.


  Click for related content
India church: 50,000 flee anti-Christian clashes
India's 'untouchables' last to be saved from floods


Police said the girl belonged to a washerman community, considered a lower caste, whereas the boy came from the slightly higher dairymen Yadav community.

Love across caste lines is often violently opposed, especially in rural northern India, and it is not uncommon for outraged families to kill to "save the family honor."

[BrokenPaw]

First, and for the record:  I don't support what was done to this boy.  Let's get that out of the way right up front.

That said, any society that executes any person for any reason is playing the moral-relativism game.  You cannot draw an objective line in the sand and say "people on this side of the line deserve to live, people on that side deserve to die.  Such a line must, by its very nature, be subjectively placed, not objectively.

There is no objective line that can be drawn other than "at no time is it acceptable for one person to take another person's life."  Actually, no, you can legitimately draw it at "the only time it is acceptable for one person to take another person's life is in self defense from life-threatening aggression".  Even that treads on the subjective ground of what is, and what is not, actually life-threatening.  In any event, death as a punishment, once a person has been caught and subdued, and is therefore no longer an immediate threat, is an entire other issue.

Once you have drawn a line any more subjective than "no death as punishment" (capital punishment for some kinds of homicide, for instance), you have willingly stepped into the realm of the subjective, and have no moral justification with which to look upon others as savages who have chosen to place their line in a different place in the sand. 

Where, in an objective sense, can we draw the line?  At what (objective) point is the taking of a life justifiable as an after-the-fact consequence for a crime?  Premeditated murder?  Rape?  Child molestation?  There are plenty of people in this society in favor of the death penalty for any or all of these, and plenty of others opposed to the death penalty for any or all of them.

As reprehensible as we find this situation, this boy broke the laws of his tribe (I use tribe in the broadest sense).  Here in the US, a murderer on death row is there because he, likewise, broke the laws of his tribe.

Do I find what was done to this boy repugnant?  Yes.  Do I feel it is necessary in some cases to execute criminals?  Yes.  Given that, do I have a right to judge another society as wrong because their line in the sand is different from mine?  Sure I do, because as a free thinking person I have the right to judge anything I see fit to judge.  Does that mean that, objectively, what they do is wrong and what we do in our tribe is right?  No. They may very well be wrong.  I believe they are.  We may very well be wrong.  I believe that we are not.  But:

A society that did not believe in the death penalty at all would see our practices of executing some criminals as barbaric; just as barbaric as we see the way those people treated that boy.

Are we free to judge what's happened?  Yes.  Does it matter a whit whether you or I or anyone else on this side of the line in the sand thinks?  No.  Because we're on the other side of someone else's line.

"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone", and all of that.

-BP

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

First, and for the record:  I don't support what was done to this boy.  Let's get that out of the way right up front.

That said, any society that executes any person for any reason is playing the moral-relativism game.  You cannot draw an objective line in the sand and say "people on this side of the line deserve to live, people on that side deserve to die.  Such a line must, by its very nature, be subjectively placed, not objectively.

So executing a truly evil man, a mass murderer who was given due process in a fair system of justice, is no different from murdering an innocent 15 year old boy because he dared to write a love letter to a girl?  Both are on the same side of that arbitrary line, aren't they?

Killing in self defense is OK, right?  How about killing in war, in defense of society as a whole, against foreign aggressors intent on doing us harm? 

How about killing known evil men, the worst possible criminals, in defense of society as a whole?

[BrokenPaw]

So executing a truly evil man, a mass murderer who was given due process in a fair system of justice, is no different from murdering an innocent 15 year old boy because he dared to write a love letter to a girl?  Both are on the same side of that arbitrary line, aren't they?

All I said was, once a society deems it valid to kill as a punishment for one crime, they have given up the moral high ground from which to cast aspersions upon another society for deeming it valid to kill as punishment for a different crime.

I did not say that what was done to the boy was right, and in fact I said in several places that I believe what was done to him was wrong.

But we, in our tribe, kill those who have crossed our threshold of "wrong".  So did those people, but they used a different threshold.

I defy anyone on this forum to come up with an objective threshold for capital punishment.  (You can leave out self defense; that's not a punishment, that's an act of self-preservation -- I am talking about real, after-the-fact, coldly-considered capital punishment).

Draw a line in the sand.  On one side of that line, capital punishment is objectively justified.  On the other side, it is not.

Go ahead, draw one.  Until you do, you're playing a moral relativism game and have no leg to stand on.

-BP

[cosine]

I already removed one less-then-polite comment from this thread that would only have served to add heat, not light, to the discussion. I don't want to see another one. Play nice.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

All I said was, once a society deems it valid to kill as a punishment for one crime, they have given up the moral high ground from which to cast aspersions upon another society for deeming it valid to kill as punishment for a different crime.

I did not say that what was done to the boy was right, and in fact I said in several places that I believe what was done to him was wrong.

But we, in our tribe, kill those who have crossed our threshold of "wrong".  So did those people, but they used a different threshold.

I defy anyone on this forum to come up with an objective threshold for capital punishment.  (You can leave out self defense; that's not a punishment, that's an act of self-preservation -- I am talking about real, after-the-fact, coldly-considered capital punishment).

Draw a line in the sand.  On one side of that line, capital punishment is objectively justified.  On the other side, it is not.

Go ahead, draw one.  Until you do, you're playing a moral relativism game and have no leg to stand on.

-BP

Well, by that reasoning, any form of punishment, any definition of "crime", is morally relative.  Anarchy, complete lawlessness is the only form of society that would be free from your understanding of moral relativism.  The results would be even more killing and suffering than if we had in place a sensible system of right and wrong that sought to punish only the wrong-doers.

Nope, that just doesn't work.  A line must be set.  A line will be set by any society that wishes to have some semblance of peace. 

Morality isn't the absence of any lines.  Quite the opposite.  Morality tells us that there should be lines, and it tells us where those lines should be.

Morality tells us that the line the Indians have drawn is wrong, because it led to the death of an innocent 15 year old boy.  Any morality system that doesn't see the inherent wrongness in that situation is useless. 

There is no justification for a morality system that fails people like this boy.  There is nothing relative about that.

[RaspberrySurprise]

All I said was, once a society deems it valid to kill as a punishment for one crime, they have given up the moral high ground from which to cast aspersions upon another society for deeming it valid to kill as punishment for a different crime.

Poppycock, executing a man for murder is not the same as executing him for breaking caste rules. Execution for murder is pretty objective. An equal exchange of life for life.

[BrokenPaw]

Nope, that just doesn't work.  A line must be set.  A line will be set by any society that wishes to have some semblance of peace.

Of course a line must be set.

I am not suggesting otherwise. 

I am suggesting that, once you set such a line, you are engaging in moral relativism, whether you believe you are or not.

Because yes, all punishments for all crimes must be set in a subjective manner.  There is no objective way to determine that this punishment is exactly right to fit this crime.  Is theft worse than assault?  Is it worse than battery?  Theft steals part of your life, because you spent that part of your life earning whatever it was that was eventually stolen.  Battery is painful, but in most cases the victim's body heals.  How big of a theft is equal to one broken finger?  Is a black eye better or worse than losing $20 in a mugging?

It's relative.  It's all relative, and therefore subjective.

If a woman is raped, something has been taken from her that can never be restored.  What objective punishment would you have in place for that?  What punishment equals that crime?

How about if an 18-year-old sleeps with his (willing) below-age-of-consent girlfriend.  Statutory crime, based upon a subjective rule about when a young woman is able to decide whether to have sex.  Has he taken anything quantifiable from her?  Or was the crime committed by her parents, who raised her to value her body so little?  Where is the objective crime in all of that?

Anarchy, complete lawlessness is the only form of society that would be free from your understanding of moral relativism.

True.  And I am not suggesting that we should head toward such a thing.  I am simply showing that any and all forms of "justice" rely upon the subjective evaluations of people to decide what is wrong (and how wrong it is), and then further upon their subjective evaluations of what punishments are valid, and how severe those punishments should be to fit the crimes.

Well, by that reasoning, any form of punishment, any definition of "crime", is morally relative.

"Crime" is relatively easy to define:  Any act which harms the property or person of another, without that person's consent.  You can say "deliberately harms" in there if you like.

The part where it gets relative is in the evaluation of magnitude.  The part where it gets really relative is in the determination of what punishment is equitable.

Can we agree for the moment that the boy in the article broke the rules of his tribe (his, not ours)?  Yes?

So then what objective punishment would fit that crime?  A thump on the head?  A stern talking to?  Caning?  Exile?  Emasculation?  Death?

The line exists, surely, somewhere between "stern talking to" and "death".  Tell me where it is, between those two extremes.  Be objective and specific.

-BP

[BrokenPaw]

Poppycock, executing a man for murder is not the same as executing him for breaking caste rules. Execution for murder is pretty objective. An equal exchange of life for life.

Is that why we do it?  Then why don't we do it for all homicides?  Which homicides are bad enough to warrant death, and which ones are "only" bad enough to warrant life in prison without parole, and which are "only" bad enough for a life sentence that turns out to be a 7-year stay in the Graybar Hilton?

You make my point for me.  Even in our society's punishment for murder, we show our moral relativism, by deeming some sorts of murders worse than others.

A life has been taken.  Objectively, as you say, the only fitting punishment would be the life of the murderer, given in exchange. 

Capital punishment for all homicides, without exception.

Do you really believe we should have that?  If you do not, you're playing the moral relativism game.

-BP

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Of course a line must be set.

I am not suggesting otherwise. 

I am suggesting that, once you set such a line, you are engaging in moral relativism, whether you believe you are or not.

Because yes, all punishments for all crimes must be set in a subjective manner.  There is no objective way to determine that this punishment is exactly right to fit this crime.  Is theft worse than assault?  Is it worse than battery?  Theft steals part of your life, because you spent that part of your life earning whatever it was that was eventually stolen.  Battery is painful, but in most cases the victim's body heals.  How big of a theft is equal to one broken finger?  Is a black eye better or worse than losing $20 in a mugging?

It's relative.  It's all relative, and therefore subjective.

If a woman is raped, something has been taken from her that can never be restored.  What objective punishment would you have in place for that?  What punishment equals that crime?

How about if an 18-year-old sleeps with his (willing) below-age-of-consent girlfriend.  Statutory crime, based upon a subjective rule about when a young woman is able to decide whether to have sex.  Has he taken anything quantifiable from her?  Or was the crime committed by her parents, who raised her to value her body so little?  Where is the objective crime in all of that?

True.  And I am not suggesting that we should head toward such a thing.  I am simply showing that any and all forms of "justice" rely upon the subjective evaluations of people to decide what is wrong (and how wrong it is), and then further upon their subjective evaluations of what punishments are valid, and how severe those punishments should be to fit the crimes.
 

"Crime" is relatively easy to define:  Any act which harms the property or person of another, without that person's consent.  You can say "deliberately harms" in there if you like.

The part where it gets relative is in the evaluation of magnitude.  The part where it gets really relative is in the determination of what punishment is equitable.

Can we agree for the moment that the boy in the article broke the rules of his tribe (his, not ours)?  Yes?

So then what objective punishment would fit that crime?  A thump on the head?  A stern talking to?  Caning?  Exile?  Emasculation?  Death?

The line exists, surely, somewhere between "stern talking to" and "death".  Tell me where it is, between those two extremes.  Be objective and specific.

-BP

So it's a question of weighing the crime against the punishment, and coming up with something that equates the two?

What sort of morality system can equate writing a love letter with death?

That's not a rhetorical question.  The answer is: a wrong system of morality.

Thus ends the moral relativism.  It is a binary, a this-or-that, a right or wrong.  This is wrong, period.  That's not relative.  

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

their country their rules

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Is that why we do it?  Then why don't we do it for all homicides?  Which homicides are bad enough to warrant death, and which ones are "only" bad enough to warrant life in prison without parole, and which are "only" bad enough for a life sentence that turns out to be a 7-year stay in the Graybar Hilton?

You make my point for me.  Even in our society's punishment for murder, we show our moral relativism, by deeming some sorts of murders worse than others.

A life has been taken.  Objectively, as you say, the only fitting punishment would be the life of the murderer, given in exchange. 

Capital punishment for all homicides, without exception.

Do you really believe we should have that?  If you do not, you're playing the moral relativism game.

-BP

Eh.  You can weigh different crimes against one another.  Is this murder more wrong than that murder?  Is theft more wrong than assault?  These are important judgments to make, to be sure.

But don't let any of that confuse you.  Whether theft is more wrong than assault doesn't change the act that both are, unquestionably, wrong.  

Killing a 15 year old boy for writing a love letter is also unquestionably wrong.  Is it more wrong relative to any other murder?  Maybe, maybe not.  For our purposes it doesn't matter.  What matters for us here is that it is wrong, period.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

As an aside, ponder this.  If a system of morality can twist and contort the notion of right vs wrong so thoroughly that killing this boy no longer seems wrong, can it be said to still be a system of morality?  Or has it instead become a system of immorality, for condoning and enabling the unthinkable?

Perhaps moral relativism cannot exist, only immoral relativism.

Anyway...

[BrokenPaw]

So it's a question of weighing the crime against the punishment, and coming up with something that equates the two?

What sort of morality system can equate writing a love letter with death?

That's not a rhetorical question.  The answer is: a wrong system of morality.

Thus ends the moral relativism.  It is a binary, a this-or-that, a right or wrong.  This is wrong, period.  That's not relative.  

Once again, I will repeat the very first thing I said in this thread:  I do not believe that what they did to that boy was right.

I was taking exception to Werewolf's attack on moral relativism by pointing out that all systems of crime and punishment inherently suffer from moral relativism.

Is that one in India all sorts of wrong?  Yeah.  Is ours right?  Objectively, you can't say that it is.  Our "justice" system does unjust things all the time.  Are they as bad as throwing a 15-year-old under a train?  Usually, probably not.  On occasion?  Probably so. (Exculpatory DNA evidence in a capital case, after the execution, comes to mind.  I don't have a cite, but I believe this has happened at least once).

Before anyone brings it up again:  I do not believe that what they did to that boy was right.  I do not believe that their system is right. 

I also do not believe that we, steeped in a system of moral relativism that leads to its own injustices, have a whole lot of stones to throw at another society because their system led to an injustice.

Killing a 15 year old boy for writing a love letter is also unquestionably wrong.  Is it more wrong relative to any other murder?  Maybe, maybe not.  For our purposes it doesn't matter.  What matters for us here is that it is wrong, period.

Stipulated and already agreed to.  However:  he broke the rules of his tribe, and he was punished for it.  I've asked you to agree for the sake of argument that he did, in fact, break the rules of his tribe, and (based upon that) to posit an objective punishment for having done so.

I am not arguing that these people are right, or good.  I am arguing that we are no better, and so casting aspersions at their system is a glass-house proposition at best.

-BP

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Perhaps my definition of moral relativism differs from yours, and we're discussing different concepts.  I just don't see how you can say judging the boys death as wrong is engaging in "moral relativism".  It is subjective, certainly, as in subject to the concept of right and wrong or to our judgments.  It's relative, too, in that you can relate it to other crimes, or to various punishments.  But that's not the same as engaging in moral relativism, as I understand the concept.

In my mind, moral relativism is the notion that what's right can vary from one person to the next, or from one circumstance to the next. 

Now, obviously moral codes can differ from person to person, place to place.  Clearly that's true of India, where their code differs from ours.

Moral relativism would say that their code is right for them, just as our code is right for us.  All codes are equally right and valid for the people that hold them.

That notion contradicts your belief that throwing the boy under the train was wrong.  Under moral relativism, them throwing the boy under the train was right for them.  For you to now say that it was wrong, despite their code condoning it, is to deny moral relativism.

[GigaBuist]

What sort of morality system can equate writing a love letter with death?

One that considers the caste system to be essential to the functioning of their society?  They probably believe that if the system ever broke down it would result in deaths.  Pure conjecture on my part, as I'm not familiar with the culture in this particular reason.

[Brad Johnson]

their country their rules

Yep.  Another way of saying it is "I'm okay with what they do as long as they do it my way." 

It may be reprehensible, but it's their country and their system.  If you don't like it, head on over and start trying to change it.  Other than that, stop wasting time griping about something you can't, or won't, take the time to change.

Brad

[BrokenPaw]

Thank you for clarifying.  It seems we have been ships passing in the night.

Perhaps my definition of moral relativism differs from yours, and we're discussing different concepts.  I just don't see how you can say judging the boys death as wrong is morally relative. 

I wasn't saying that judging his death as wrong was morally relative, I was saying that all justice systems, ours and their included, are examples of moral relativism (or, rather, subjective moralism) to some greater or lesser extent, and that it was therefore specious for the OP to call "moral relativists" out onto the carpet to explain an injustice, while he was sitting nestled in a system that is just as subjective and capable of injustice. 

I was also saying that no person can make an objective evaluation about which system is intrinsically better.  Subjective ones, sure.  Objective ones, not so much.

In my mind, moral relativism is the notion that what's right can vary from one person to the next, or from one circumstance to the next.

To some extent, it can.  It's the whole malum prohibitum versus malum in se thing.  There is unquestionably a gray area for things that are deemed "morally wrong" simply because they are deemed "morally wrong".  Things which impinge upon the person or property of another (such as the case with this boy) are far more clearly cut.

Moral relativism would say that their code is right for them, just as our code is right for us.  All codes are equally right and valid for the people that hold them.

Their code is right in their minds.  Ours is right in ours.  Whether those codes are valid is something else entirely.  I don't believe their code is valid.  But then, there are people who hold that our code is invalid.

The main argument I have been putting forth in this entire thread is that there is not, and cannot be, an objective justice system, and so to paint a particular system as "barbaric and evil", as the OP did, simply because an injustice was committed under that system, was to miss the point.

That notion contradicts your belief that throwing the boy under the train was wrong.  Under moral relativism, them throwing the boy under the train was right for them.  For you to now say that it was wrong, despite their code condoning it, is to deny moral relativism.

I am somewhere in the middle.  I believe that there are some things which are unequivocally right and wrong.  I also believe that there are other things that people treat as unequivocally right or wrong, which are not so.  Whether that makes me a moral relativist, or only half of one, is open to interpretation.

As a point of interest, how do you feel about the Texas law that makes it legal to use deadly force to stop even property crimes, during the night.  One could argue that stealing a stereo out of Bubba's pickup (while more severe than writing a love letter to the wrong girl) is certainly not wrong enough to equate to a death sentence.  Yet it's legal, within a system that was implied by the OP to be better than the one in India.

-BP

[FTA84]

I think the point of much of the discussion is as follows:

1) Choosing wrong/right or appropriate/inappropriate has to be derived from some set of a axioms. Generally, the axioms used are religious/cultural norms. For example. based from the ten commandments.

2) The feeling that there is an absolute right/wrong is you assuming this as one of the axioms of your system of logic.  However, since each society gets to assume their own axioms, you can only complain that they have not chosen axioms correctly (which is just the arguement that you have chosen different axioms).  It does not mean that any conclusions they draw from those axioms are incorrect within their system of logic.

3) This is why philosophy is a waste of a subject.  No one has any ability to come up with absolute axioms which are not contradictory, and even if they did, then there will always be questions of morality which can never be judged right or wrong. (No logic system can be both consitent (no contradictions) and complete (every statement true/false (or right/wrong)).

So I think this is the statement people are making behind moral relativity:
Moral relativity is the fact that different people may accept different axioms (put different lines if you will) based on their own cultural norms.  They may use these axioms to logically infer the death of a 15 year old boy is required.  However, in our set of axioms, the death of the 15 year old boy is atrocious.

[RevDisk]

One that considers the caste system to be essential to the functioning of their society?  They probably believe that if the system ever broke down it would result in deaths.  Pure conjecture on my part, as I'm not familiar with the culture in this particular reason.

There no universally accepted theory regarding the origins of the caste system.  The primary religious justification of the caste system in the Hindu belief system (codified in the Bhagavad Gita) is you are assigned a caste by birth as a reward or punishment for actions (karma) and temperment/tendencies (guna) in your previous lives.  There's, of course, infinite more depth to it if you're philosophical.  If you want to be put asleep, ask a Hindu religious scholar to explain the varna system to you.

Of other interest in the Bhagavad Gita, is it's description of a battle totalling 3,936,600 combatants, with only 11 survivors.  Interesting read, I recommend it.

[Hawkmoon]

There is no objective line that can be drawn other than "at no time is it acceptable for one person to take another person's life."  Actually, no, you can legitimately draw it at "the only time it is acceptable for one person to take another person's life is in self defense from life-threatening aggression".  Even that treads on the subjective ground of what is, and what is not, actually life-threatening.  In any event, death as a punishment, once a person has been caught and subdued, and is therefore no longer an immediate threat, is an entire other issue.

You are still deep in moral relativism. Back in the 60's, I discussed with my (Protestant) pastor the prospect of registering with the draft board as a conscientious objector. He asked me if a guy jumped me in an alley and threatened to kill me for my wallet, if I would be willing to kill the assailant in self-defense. I said "Of course." And he said then I wasn't fully opposed to the taking of human life, and therefore I couldn't qualify as a conscientious objector.

Turns out he was definitely wrong, in legal terms -- I would have qualified -- and according to a great many other Protestant pastors I've had occasion to talk with he was wrong on moral terms, as well. But that was one Christian pastor's understanding of "Thou shalt not kill."

[De Selby]

What sort of morality system can equate writing a love letter with death?

That's not a rhetorical question.  The answer is: a wrong system of morality.

Interesting question in philosophy these days: the problem is that the answer of "it's wrong" doesn't get anymore deep.  Like FT84 noted, you're stuck just calling it sick and having no real rational basis for defeating these kinds of moral systems that demand human sacrifice (basically what this is, when you're punishing that sort of activity).

I've always marveled at the way Indian culture has advertised itself in America as all about peace, yoga, and vegetarian living so that you don't harm animals.  This element is very real, and very ugly, yet mostly ignored in America at the new age conventions where Indian philosophy is of most interest.  I think it could benefit the place to have some more real, critical examination from its western partners.

With this particular case, I think it's important to note that 15 years old is a grown man for all practical purposes in that part of the world.  Writing love notes is not puppy love or teenage fun; that kid was likely set to be married himself, or interfering in a marriage dealing with the parents. 

The widespread outrage makes more sense when you consider that due to this scandal, that girl he wrote letters to might end up never getting married, touching a man, or having a family of her own for the rest of her life.

The act is barbaric, but there's more driving it than simple "you write love letter, you die!" ethics.  These folks would rightly believe that this kid may have permanently destroyed that young girl's hope of ever having a decent life, and may also have risked igniting intra-caste tensions that could result in dozens of murders, beatings, and perhaps larger riots.

Because of the reality of the damage a simple love letter can do, I think the moral analysis has to go beyond the execution of one poor soul for a letter.  He was executed for the very real damage his act could have inflicted-but why does that society suffer such damages from a love letter? There's the real debate, imho.

[grampster]

The OP argument is incorrectly described as an argument about cultural moral relativism.  It is more properly about cultural moral equivilence.  All cultures are not the same.  Some are better than others when compared in the history of evolving civilization.  To describe a murder that is acceptable in a tribal cast system today, with civilized society governed by laws such as in Western civilization is like comparing apples to chinaberry;  they are both fruit, but vastly different.  One is tasty and other poison.

To lend moral equivilence to a torturous, humiliating death over a "crime" of writing a letter to a girl, or to be killed because you are female and have been raped by a relative, with the death penalty after a trial for cold blooded murder is not comparable.  To say the one is acceptable because it is the custom of the tribe and thus on the same level as punishment for an outrageous crime in a peaceful society, is perhaps why civilization is being shoved backwards by those demanding tolerance of things that the evolution of man has proven wrong.

[roo_ster]

grampster FTW