Since this camp was started, that camp has amended its camp statement which will impact on this camp's statement since it refers to that camp statement.
So this camp is likely, when that amended camp statement gets approved, to become moot, at which point Brannock will support that root camp and remove support from this camp.
See.... that's an indication that the system works as intended.... a consensus evolved out of spoken disagreement with an articulation of that disagreement.
So... the stuff below will be rendered moot.
It challenges that camp, as a false and indefensible attempt at arbitrarily redefining the term evil to conform to the camp's narrow and insular views of certain particular things that the supporters believe to be evil.
The criticism, "insular" seems to apply given the reality that their re-definition of "evil" as they have redefined it, disrespectfully tramples on other views of the applicability of the term, and the contextual legitimacy of those other uses of the term for the other cultures that have other values which they base their assessment of "evil" on.
Evil is not what they (the other camp) have attempted to re-define it to be. Evil is simply a subjective term used by many people to brand something to be inconsistent on certain levels and in certain way, usually involving extremes, with their own subjective standards of "good".
Supporters of this counterpoint camp may well agree that some of what the other camp refers to as "evil" in their camp statement is appropriately called evil by a shared value assessment. However, to flip the object of a discussion of evil into being the definition of the concept, is fundamentally flawed and constitutes unacceptable obfuscation of the concept of evil, which, by the reckoning of at least one individual (I bet you can guess who) is, itself (obfuscation) one of the greatest evils on earth. (a friendly smile)
That view, notwithstanding, even for those who may share it, absolutely does not justify flipping the view into becoming the definition of the term evil, which presumes or rules out other broader and more culturally sensitive and accepting views of the term "evil".
Something that is viewed as "evil" by some, does not by that view become the definition of evil. Such is.... well.... if I were to say such is "absurd". .... , by some value systems that would be an "evil" thing to say, because it is arbitrarily judgmental in a negative way. So, I wont. (another friendly smile)
Courtesy Counterpoint Link