Not that I have time for this shit, but I hear David Kelley and Leonard Piekoff (I hope I spelled that right) are at odds. One thing led to another, and I came across this article on wetheliving.com. David Kelley defends himself on certain issues.

Truth and falsity, not good or evil, are the primary evaluative concepts that apply to ideas as such. It is true that the horrors of this century were made possible by irrationalist and collectivist ideas. Bad ideas can be dangerous; that's one reason we shouldn't endorse them.

But they are dangerous because people use them to perpetrate evil. ..... It is a gross non-sequitur to infer that because an idea is false, its adherents are evil for holding it.

The failure to draw these distinctions has a pernicious effect. If we approach ideas with the question: true or false?, we stand ready to combat bad ideas by the only means appropriate to intellectual issues: open, rational discussion and debate. But if we approach ideas with the question: good or evil?, we will avoid debate for fear of sanctioning evil-doers. We will substitute condemnation for argument, and adopt a non-intellectual, intolerant attitude toward any disagreement with our views.

Whenever I hear someone touting 'good vs evil', I always think about how easy it is for someone to convince others to disregard an entire point of view simply by declaring one aspect as 'evil'. It has often seemed to me to be childish, but it happens all the time. It is one reason I don't like talking to, or even reading any 'argument' by, people that adhere to a theistic viewpoint. They too easily fall back to, "that is evil, so I won't even validate it with a response." To me THAT is evil, pasting a label on something in an effort to eliminate it as a valid argument.