As for VC, you've already acknowledged that, save for the risk of creating a martyr, you fully support bloodshed as a means of silencing voices and spreading your ideas. That is more evil and hateful than anything Falwell ever did. Not much more we can debate.
No, I've acknowledge that I have no problem with people's ability to cause harm on a large scale being taken from them by death. You choose to interpret that in crazy ways that are grounded in drawing analogies between socioeconomic oppression and a children's board-game. Get off your high horse.
Do you really think that there's a shred of credibility in that? Two meth addicts rob and beat someone to death and later try to invoke "gay panic" as a lame defense (and fail), and you think that is because of Falwell?
I'm not supporting or defending any stance of Falwell on homosexuality. Misguided as it was, his stated stance generally seemed to be one of "show them love and help them convert back to holy straightness." He was nowhere near the skinhead you paint him to be.
I doubt I would agree with Falwell on many things. But you trying to heap responsibility for the Shepherd murder onto him is such a pitiful grasp that it only makes me think you must be doubting your own sincerity at this point.
As for VC, you've already acknowledged that, save for the risk of creating a martyr, you fully support bloodshed as a means of silencing voices and spreading your ideas. That is more evil and hateful than anything Falwell ever did. Not much more we can debate.
You know what, Yar? Fuck you. If you want to be a combative prick and misrepresent everything people say in a thread, knock yourself the fuck out.
I did not say Shepherd and Rudolph are his fault, like Falwell was found holding the weapon, but if you're going to actively dispute the fact that Jerry Falwell worked to create a culture of religious conservatism in this country that is openly hostile towards gays, minorities, and aggressively anti abortion, and that this culture is directly responsible for the increase in events like this taking place, you're a buffoon.
As for VC, you've already acknowledged that, save for the risk of creating a martyr, you fully support bloodshed as a means of silencing voices and spreading your ideas. That is more evil and hateful than anything Falwell ever did. Not much more we can debate.
No, him holding a view like that is not more evil and hateful than anything Falwell ever did. Falwell did way more evil stuff than that. A view doesn't cause actual harm, unlike Jerry Falwell.
And if he doesn't die, how do we get the good out of him? Some kind of drill, perhaps?
Harder, I think. It's the same as anything, find the truth in what they do and expose it. Good men bloom in the light of truth, bad men wither.
Falwell made a living of hiding in the light, stylizing what the light should be, and using it to convince people to follow what he said. Very iconic, it is hard to make good progressing counterpoint to someone who has thousands agreeing first and ask questions later.
Quillblade on
Owl cocked his head and asked,"What should I inquire about?"
Raven said, "Good start".
I did not say Shepherd and Rudolph are his fault, like Falwell was found holding the weapon, but if you're going to actively dispute the fact that Jerry Falwell worked to create a culture of religious conservatism in this country that is openly hostile towards gays, minorites, and aggressively anti abortion, and that this culture is directly responsible for the increase in events like this taking place, you're a buffoon.
They were meth addicts looking to rob someone. The details of the case make it pretty clear that homosexuality was an issue with these guys, but they were drug addicts robbing someone. I doubt they were doing it for religious reasons. Their lawyers tried to use "gay panic," and the judge, who I can only assume is also part of this openly hostile culture, threw that defense right the fuck out.
What Falwell "did" was he convinced religious people to vote for Republicans instead of staying out of politics as they had in the past. That is his great evil, and why so many here envision him as this raging demon, without being able to provide any reasonable evidence of why you think that.
I did not say Shepherd and Rudolph are his fault, like Falwell was found holding the weapon, but if you're going to actively dispute the fact that Jerry Falwell worked to create a culture of religious conservatism in this country that is openly hostile towards gays, minorites, and aggressively anti abortion, and that this culture is directly responsible for the increase in events like this taking place, you're a buffoon.
They were meth addicts looking to rob someone. The details of the case make it pretty clear that homosexuality was an issue with these guys, but they were drug addicts robbing someone. I doubt they were doing it for religious reasons. Their lawyers tried to use "gay panic," and the judge, who I can only assume is also part of this openly hostile culture, threw that defense right the fuck out.
I seem to remember posting about Falwell in that quote. Where was it?
I did not say Shepherd and Rudolph are his fault, like Falwell was found holding the weapon, but if you're going to actively dispute the fact that Jerry Falwell worked to create a culture of religious conservatism in this country that is openly hostile towards gays, minorites, and aggressively anti abortion, and that this culture is directly responsible for the increase in events like this taking place, you're a buffoon.
What Falwell "did" was he convinced religious people to vote for Republicans instead of staying out of politics as they had in the past. That is his great evil, and why so many here envision him as this raging demon, without being able to provide any reasonable evidence of why you think that.
Let's assume for the moment that you are correct, that that is the only complaint we have against Falwell.
Can you say that that was in any way, shape, or form a good thing?
Thanatos on
0
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
You know what, Yar? Fuck you. If you want to be a combative prick and misrepresent everything people say in a thread, knock yourself the fuck out.
I did not say Shepherd and Rudolph are his fault, like Falwell was found holding the weapon, but if you're going to actively dispute the fact that Jerry Falwell worked to create a culture of religious conservatism in this country that is openly hostile towards gays, minorities, and aggressively anti abortion, and that this culture is directly responsible for the increase in events like this taking place, you're a buffoon.
Somebody give me a fucking yellow card.
I thought recent statistics from the DoJ had violence on the way down, not up.
My perspective is simply, those who are celebrating the death of Falwell had better not have been critical of the muslims who danced when the World Trade Center fell. I see no difference in sentiment.
Let's assume for the moment that you are correct, that that is the only complaint we have against Falwell.
Can you say that that was in any way, shape, or form a good thing?
If by "good thing" you mean "well, I won't dance on his grave when he dies," then sure, it's a good thing. Otherwise, I'm confused as to where you're trying to take this. Falwell isn't my hero, either.
I thought recent statistics from the DoJ had violence on the way down, not up.
Agreed, and the "buffoon" is the one who doesn't recognize a steady trend towards mainstream acceptance and even celebration of homosexuality in this country. The idea that Falwell as led this country towards a violent war on gays is just so far removed from my perspective of reality.
Yar on
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I did not say Shepherd and Rudolph are his fault, like Falwell was found holding the weapon, but if you're going to actively dispute the fact that Jerry Falwell worked to create a culture of religious conservatism in this country that is openly hostile towards gays, minorites, and aggressively anti abortion, and that this culture is directly responsible for the increase in events like this taking place, you're a buffoon.
They were meth addicts looking to rob someone. The details of the case make it pretty clear that homosexuality was an issue with these guys, but they were drug addicts robbing someone. I doubt they were doing it for religious reasons. Their lawyers tried to use "gay panic," and the judge, who I can only assume is also part of this openly hostile culture, threw that defense right the fuck out.
.
They also killed the guy by beating him to death and tying him to a fence and leaving him there. They also weren't high. They also changed their story at least 3 times and broke their plea agreement thing. That speaks of a little bit more than just meth heads to me.
You know what, Yar? Fuck you. If you want to be a combative prick and misrepresent everything people say in a thread, knock yourself the fuck out.
I did not say Shepherd and Rudolph are his fault, like Falwell was found holding the weapon, but if you're going to actively dispute the fact that Jerry Falwell worked to create a culture of religious conservatism in this country that is openly hostile towards gays, minorities, and aggressively anti abortion, and that this culture is directly responsible for the increase in events like this taking place, you're a buffoon.
Somebody give me a fucking yellow card.
I thought recent statistics from the DoJ had violence on the way down, not up.
My perspective is simply, those who are celebrating the death of Falwell had better not have been critical of the muslims who danced when the World Trade Center fell. I see no difference in sentiment.
I'm pretty sure that sort of thing's a logical fallacy. Has a Latin name and everything.
I can do something and dislike other people doing a similar thing. You can't stop me.
Let's assume for the moment that you are correct, that that is the only complaint we have against Falwell.
Can you say that that was in any way, shape, or form a good thing?
If by "good thing" you mean "well, I won't dance on his grave when he dies," then sure, it's a good thing. Otherwise, I'm confused as to where you're trying to take this. Falwell isn't my hero, either.
I would say that he has done horrible things. I suspect most of them were in the name of personal gain. Getting Christians involved in politics has caused this country to go down the shitter, politically. And yeah, I'd hold him responsible for doing it deliberately.
Let's assume for the moment that you are correct, that that is the only complaint we have against Falwell.
Can you say that that was in any way, shape, or form a good thing?
If by "good thing" you mean "well, I won't dance on his grave when he dies," then sure, it's a good thing. Otherwise, I'm confused as to where you're trying to take this. Falwell isn't my hero, either.
My perspective is simply, those who are celebrating the death of Falwell had better not have been critical of the muslims who danced when the World Trade Center fell. I see no difference in sentiment.
A religious nut who spreads intolerance and hatred dies, rational people everywhere celebrate.
Religious nuts, blinded by intolerance and hatred, kill a whole bunch of innocent people. Other religious nuts celebrate.
I suppose you're right. Except, of course, that people like Jerry Falwell are the reason the pool of intolerant religious nuts continues to grow.
Vrtra Theory on
Are you a Software Engineer living in Seattle? HBO is hiring, message me.
0
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
My perspective is simply, those who are celebrating the death of Falwell had better not have been critical of the muslims who danced when the World Trade Center fell. I see no difference in sentiment.
A religious nut who spreads intolerance and hatred dies, rational people everywhere celebrate.
Religious nuts, blinded by intolerance and hatred, kill a whole bunch of innocent people. Other religious nuts celebrate.
I suppose you're right. Except, of course, that people like Jerry Falwell are the reason the pool of intolerant religious nuts continues to grow.
Yeah. Innocent people. Because only fundamentalists have ever done anything wrong.
Take out the specifics and it becomes: People celebrating because death has furthered their chosen cause. I don't see the difference.
My perspective is simply, those who are celebrating the death of Falwell had better not have been critical of the muslims who danced when the World Trade Center fell. I see no difference in sentiment.
A religious nut who spreads intolerance and hatred dies, rational people everywhere celebrate.
Religious nuts, blinded by intolerance and hatred, kill a whole bunch of innocent people. Other religious nuts celebrate.
I suppose you're right. Except, of course, that people like Jerry Falwell are the reason the pool of intolerant religious nuts continues to grow.
Yeah. Innocent people. Because only fundamentalists have ever done anything wrong.
Take out the specifics and it becomes: People celebrating because death has furthered their chosen cause. I don't see the difference.
Yeah, if you remove any context or details from the situation to the point of absurdity it's not very different.
Similarly, the American Revolutionary War and the Iraq War are the same, because when you take out the specifics they become people using violence to resolve problems. Therefore it is unthinkable to be anti-Iraq War if you'd have supported the Revolutionary War.
My perspective is simply, those who are celebrating the death of Falwell had better not have been critical of the muslims who danced when the World Trade Center fell. I see no difference in sentiment.
A religious nut who spreads intolerance and hatred dies, rational people everywhere celebrate.
Religious nuts, blinded by intolerance and hatred, kill a whole bunch of innocent people. Other religious nuts celebrate.
I suppose you're right. Except, of course, that people like Jerry Falwell are the reason the pool of intolerant religious nuts continues to grow.
Yeah. Innocent people. Because only fundamentalists have ever done anything wrong.
Take out the specifics and it becomes: People celebrating because death has furthered their chosen cause. I don't see the difference.
Yeah, if you remove any context or details from the situation to the point of absurdity it's not very different.
Similarly, the Revolutionary War and the Iraq War are the same, because when you take out the specifics they become people using violence to establish a representative democracy. Therefore it is unthinkable to be anti-Iraq War if you'd have supported the Revolutionary War.
Adding that detail back in strengthens the analogy.
ViolentChemistry on
0
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Yeah, if you remove any context or details from the situation to the point of absurdity it's not very different.
Similarly, the American Revolutionary War and the Iraq War are the same, because when you take out the specifics they become people using violence to resolve problems. Therefore it is unthinkable to be anti-Iraq War if you'd have supported the Revolutionary War.
Well, if you believe civil war is a good thing, then sure.
Here's the thing. You can support the cause without supporting the action. There are many examples of nations gaining independence and abolishing slavery without civil war. So supporting the Revolutionary War itself means you think war is a perfectly acceptable solution to problems, therefore, you agree it's okay to use violence to solve problems.
Take out the specifics and it becomes: People celebrating because death has furthered their chosen cause. I don't see the difference.
Wait, what? Of course if you take out the specifics, you can't see a difference. There is no difference.
Let's say your daughter was gay, and you found out she was being verbally abused / harassed / singled out at her job, because the manager is a bigoted asshole. The next day, he dies in a freak accident.
You "celebrating" (to use the word very loosely) because of his death is not the same thing as that manager celebrating whenever he reads about some gay couple dying in the newspaper. Unless, you know, you "take out the specifics".
Vrtra Theory on
Are you a Software Engineer living in Seattle? HBO is hiring, message me.
0
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Take out the specifics and it becomes: People celebrating because death has furthered their chosen cause. I don't see the difference.
Wait, what? Of course if you take out the specifics, you can't see a difference. There is no difference.
Let's say your daughter was gay, and you found out she was being verbally abused / harassed / singled out at her job, because the manager is a bigoted asshole. The next day, he dies in a freak accident.
You "celebrating" (to use the word very loosely) because of his death is not the same thing as that manager celebrating whenever he reads about some gay couple dying in the newspaper. Unless, you know, you "take out the specifics".
Whoa, what? I wouldn't celebrate someone's death just because they were an asshole. I mean, it may make my daughter's life easier, but fuck me if that isn't schadenfreude.
Im a conservative southern baptist. Im also no big fan of Falwell. People like him give a lot of Christians a bad name, speaking out of hate and condemnation instead of love. I'm still not going to call up people and be like, "Woo! Falwells dead!"
Not out of respect for the guy, but out of the idea that we are all horrible people when compared to God. None of us are deserving of any sort of forgiveness. Yet a sovereign and perfect God has forgiven us, and it'd be hypocritical for any of us to condemn another.
Yeah, if you remove any context or details from the situation to the point of absurdity it's not very different.
Similarly, the American Revolutionary War and the Iraq War are the same, because when you take out the specifics they become people using violence to resolve problems. Therefore it is unthinkable to be anti-Iraq War if you'd have supported the Revolutionary War.
Well, if you believe civil war is a good thing, then sure.
Here's the thing. You can support the cause without supporting the action. There are many examples of nations gaining independence and abolishing slavery without civil war. So supporting the Revolutionary War itself means you think war is a perfectly acceptable solution to problems, therefore, you agree it's okay to use violence to solve problems.
I do think it's okay to use violence to solve problems, in some cases, while in others I would condemn the use of violence. Similar to how I don't look down on people for celebrating Falwell's death, but look down on Islam extremists who cheered on 9/11. My point was that deciding whether an action is contemptible or not depends on the details of the situation in many cases.
When you're angry at freaking Falwell for being too tolerant there is something seriously wrong with you.
And if this were Phelps death we were talking about, I'd still feel mostly the same, but I'd be much more content to hold my tongue while people vent and dance on his grave. Particularly since Phelps made his mark dancing on graves himself.
The level of hatred for Falwell is bordering on the absurd. He was holding fast to "homosexuality is wrong," but meeting with homosexuals in an attempt to help stop violence against them, including agreeing to tone down his own speech where it might be thought to incite such things. He invited a contingent of openly gay Christians to his church, and not under the guise of converting them. I'm not going to give him a medal for it, but, I mean, that's pretty freakin' tolerant when it comes to mainstream Christianity in this country.
Im a conservative southern baptist. Im also no big fan of Falwell. People like him give a lot of Christians a bad name, speaking out of hate and condemnation instead of love. I'm still not going to call up people and be like, "Woo! Falwells dead!"
Not out of respect for the guy, but out of the idea that we are all horrible people when compared to God. None of us are deserving of any sort of forgiveness. Yet a sovereign and perfect God has forgiven us, and it'd be hypocritical for any of us to condemn another.
And if you didn't believe in God, would it still be wrong to be glad he's gone?
ViolentChemistry on
0
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
I do think it's okay to use violence to solve problems, in some cases, while in others I would condemn the use of violence. Similar to how I don't look down on people for celebrating Falwell's death, but look down on Islam extremists who cheered on 9/11. My point was that deciding whether an action is contemptible or not depends on the details of the situation in many cases.
Seems to me you only think someone's actions can be contemptible if their philosophy or beliefs do not agree with yours.
When you're angry at freaking Falwell for being too tolerant there is something seriously wrong with you.
And if this were Phelps death we were talking about, I'd still feel mostly the same, but I'd be much more content to hold my tongue while people vent and dance on his grave. Particularly since Phelps made his mark dancing on graves himself.
The level of hatred for Falwell is bordering on the absurd. I mean, he was holding fast to "homosexuality is wrong," but meeting with homosexuals in an attempt to help stop violence against them, including agreeing to tone down his own speech where it might be thought to incite such things. He invited a contingent of openly gay Christians to his church, and not under the guise of converting them. I'm not going to give him a medal for it, but, I mean, that's pretty freakin' tolerant when it comes to mainstream Christianity in this country.
I think it was vaguely clever of him, but it doesn't suggest any actual tolerance at all. He met with them to try to stop violence against Christians. Who are horribly oppressed and beaten to death for their beliefs on a regular basis by the long-extinct ancient Roman empire.
I think it was vaguely clever of him, but it doesn't suggest any actual tolerance at all. He met with them to try to stop violence against Christians. Who are horribly oppressed and beaten to death for their beliefs on a regular basis by the long-extinct ancient Roman empire.
You aren't making sense. The meeting was to stop violence against gays. Including Christian gays.
You "celebrating" (to use the word very loosely) because of his death is not the same thing as that manager celebrating whenever he reads about some gay couple dying in the newspaper. Unless, you know, you "take out the specifics".
Whoa, what? I wouldn't celebrate someone's death just because they were an asshole. I mean, it may make my daughter's life easier, but fuck me if that isn't schadenfreude.
Well, I think "celebrate" is the wrong word anyway. I'm not going to crash his funeral and tell his widow "he sucked anyway, good thing he's dead", but I certainly wouldn't be sorry that he died.
That is my problem with Yar's "well, it's too bad he didn't live long enough to realize his mistakes and become a friendly guy we all love". I just can't imagine anyone thinking that way. (I might say that, but I wouldn't think it.)
Vrtra Theory on
Are you a Software Engineer living in Seattle? HBO is hiring, message me.
0
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
You "celebrating" (to use the word very loosely) because of his death is not the same thing as that manager celebrating whenever he reads about some gay couple dying in the newspaper. Unless, you know, you "take out the specifics".
Whoa, what? I wouldn't celebrate someone's death just because they were an asshole. I mean, it may make my daughter's life easier, but fuck me if that isn't schadenfreude.
Well, I think "celebrate" is the wrong word anyway. I'm not going to crash his funeral and tell his widow "he sucked anyway, good thing he's dead", but I certainly wouldn't be sorry that he died.
That is my problem with Yar's "well, it's too bad he didn't live long enough to realize his mistakes and become a friendly guy we all love". I just can't imagine anyone thinking that way. (I might say that, but I wouldn't think it.)
Then that's something you'll have to deal with, but to project your own feelings onto everyone isn't, well, good.
I think it was vaguely clever of him, but it doesn't suggest any actual tolerance at all. He met with them to try to stop violence against Christians. Who are horribly oppressed and beaten to death for their beliefs on a regular basis by the long-extinct ancient Roman empire.
You aren't making sense. The meeting was to stop violence against gays. Including Christian gays.
The meeting was a purely political move. It wasn't about stopping violence, it was about shielding his bigots from accusations of bigotry.
I do think it's okay to use violence to solve problems, in some cases, while in others I would condemn the use of violence. Similar to how I don't look down on people for celebrating Falwell's death, but look down on Islam extremists who cheered on 9/11. My point was that deciding whether an action is contemptible or not depends on the details of the situation in many cases.
Seems to me you only think someone's actions can be contemptible if their philosophy or beliefs do not agree with yours.
What in my post makes it seem like I think that way? An action being contemptible depends on a lot of things, not on the philosophical beliefs of the person behind it. I don't condemn those who cheer for deaths in terrorist attacks because I disagree with their religious beliefs, I condemn them because they're cheering for the deaths of countless innocent people. And I don't look down on people for celebrating the death of someone who made it his business to make the world a shittier place, whether they agree with my beliefs in other areas or not.
Kaputa on
0
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
What in my post makes it seem like I think that way? An action being contemptible depends on a lot of things, not on the philosophical beliefs of the person behind it. I don't condemn those who cheer for deaths in terrorist attacks because I disagree with their religious beliefs, I condemn them because they're cheering for the deaths of countless innocent people. And I don't look down on people for celebrating the death of someone who made it his business to make the world a shittier place, whether they agree with my beliefs in other areas or not.
You look down on the muslims because you disagree with their cause. You don't look down on those celebrating Falwell's death because you DO agree with their cause.
The meeting was a purely political move. It wasn't about stopping violence, it was about shielding his bigots from accusations of bigotry.
You have no evidence whatsoever for this. Regardless, even if true, to what end?! Shielding them from what, exactly? So, you're saying that he makes a very public and influential statement about ending violence towards gays, just so that no one will suspect his true cause of subconsciously convincing his followers to beat up gays while he tells them not to beat up gays? I can't make sense of that.
What in my post makes it seem like I think that way? An action being contemptible depends on a lot of things, not on the philosophical beliefs of the person behind it. I don't condemn those who cheer for deaths in terrorist attacks because I disagree with their religious beliefs, I condemn them because they're cheering for the deaths of countless innocent people. And I don't look down on people for celebrating the death of someone who made it his business to make the world a shittier place, whether they agree with my beliefs in other areas or not.
You look down on the muslims because you disagree with their cause. You don't look down on those celebrating Falwell's death because you DO agree with their cause.
The cause for the terrorists is to kill people, which is why I look down on them. The people celebrating Falwell's death don't really have a unified "cause," so I can't really say I agree or disagree with it. So I guess you're half right.
I don't see what's wrong with looking down on people's actions because of a disagreement with their cause, though. I look down on, say, neo-Nazis for that reason, and don't look down on Martin Luther King Jr. because I agree with his cause. I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who thinks I'm wrong in doing this (except for a neo-nazi, of course).
The meeting was a purely political move. It wasn't about stopping violence, it was about shielding his bigots from accusations of bigotry.
You have no evidence whatsoever for this. Regardless, even if true, to what end?! Shielding them from what, exactly? So, you're saying that he makes a very public and influential statement about ending violence towards gays, just so that no one will suspect his true cause of subconsciously convincing his followers to beat up gays while he tells them not to beat up gays? I can't make sense of that.
I'm trying to make sense of how you parsed what I wrote as that nonsense. You've already decided the issue is digital, and I'm arguing a position between zero and one. Do you not see how this isn't going to go anywhere until you consider the possibility that things are not black and white?
I think it was vaguely clever of him, but it doesn't suggest any actual tolerance at all. He met with them to try to stop violence against Christians. Who are horribly oppressed and beaten to death for their beliefs on a regular basis by the long-extinct ancient Roman empire.
You aren't making sense. The meeting was to stop violence against gays. Including Christian gays.
The meeting was a purely political move. It wasn't about stopping violence, it was about shielding his bigots from accusations of bigotry.
The rules and laws set forth by God exist rather you believe in him or not.
But I see what you're trying to ask. Certainly there is one less person who inspired hate in the world, and thats something to be glad for, right? But hes still human, and thats worth something too, I'd think. Im not sure there really is a black and white answer to this.
Religion aside, I personally think that literally celebrating his death isn't the hottest thing to do. I can understand how people would be frustrated with him, and be relieved he's gone. I can't say I wouldnt have a bit of a smirk on my face when Fred Phelps dies.
CangoFett on
0
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
The cause for the terrorists is to kill people, which is why I look down on them. The people celebrating Falwell's death don't really have a unified "cause," so I can't really say I agree or disagree with it. So I guess you're half right.
I don't see what's wrong with looking down on people's actions because of a disagreement with their cause, though. I look down on, say, neo-Nazis for that reason, and don't look down on Martin Luther King Jr. because I agree with his cause. I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who thinks I'm wrong in doing this (except for a neo-nazi, of course).
Soooo......you're not listening (reading) then?
Because I have no problem with disagreeing with someone's cause. I have a problem with people who disagree with an action solely because of their disagreement with a cause. In other words, the ends justify the means, any means at all.
And if you didn't believe in God, would it still be wrong to be glad he's gone?
Yes.
Yes, I already know what you think about it, that's why I asked CangoFett and not you. He's a big boy who can answer for himself, I assure you.
The rules and laws set forth by God exist rather you believe in him or not.
But I see what you're trying to ask. Certainly there is one less person who inspired hate in the world, and thats something to be glad for, right? But hes still human, and thats worth something too, I'd think. Im not sure there really is a black and white answer to this.
Religion aside, I personally think that literally celebrating his death isn't the hottest thing to do. I can understand how people would be frustrated with him, and be relieved he's gone. I can't say I wouldnt have a bit of a smirk on my face when Fred Phelps dies.
Only my rules exist, and they do so whether you believe in my righteous awesomitude or not.
I think being human is worth something. I think it's worth an exemption from "just a dumb animal living the way instinct prescribes"-based excuses. Basically, it means I hold him to a higher standard than, say, an actual wasp.
Posts
No, I've acknowledge that I have no problem with people's ability to cause harm on a large scale being taken from them by death. You choose to interpret that in crazy ways that are grounded in drawing analogies between socioeconomic oppression and a children's board-game. Get off your high horse.
You know what, Yar? Fuck you. If you want to be a combative prick and misrepresent everything people say in a thread, knock yourself the fuck out.
I did not say Shepherd and Rudolph are his fault, like Falwell was found holding the weapon, but if you're going to actively dispute the fact that Jerry Falwell worked to create a culture of religious conservatism in this country that is openly hostile towards gays, minorities, and aggressively anti abortion, and that this culture is directly responsible for the increase in events like this taking place, you're a buffoon.
Somebody give me a fucking yellow card.
Harder, I think. It's the same as anything, find the truth in what they do and expose it. Good men bloom in the light of truth, bad men wither.
Falwell made a living of hiding in the light, stylizing what the light should be, and using it to convince people to follow what he said. Very iconic, it is hard to make good progressing counterpoint to someone who has thousands agreeing first and ask questions later.
Raven said, "Good start".
What Falwell "did" was he convinced religious people to vote for Republicans instead of staying out of politics as they had in the past. That is his great evil, and why so many here envision him as this raging demon, without being able to provide any reasonable evidence of why you think that.
I seem to remember posting about Falwell in that quote. Where was it?
Oh, there it is.
Let's address that.
*edit* Oh, we're editing posts now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority
Can you say that that was in any way, shape, or form a good thing?
I thought recent statistics from the DoJ had violence on the way down, not up.
My perspective is simply, those who are celebrating the death of Falwell had better not have been critical of the muslims who danced when the World Trade Center fell. I see no difference in sentiment.
Agreed, and the "buffoon" is the one who doesn't recognize a steady trend towards mainstream acceptance and even celebration of homosexuality in this country. The idea that Falwell as led this country towards a violent war on gays is just so far removed from my perspective of reality.
They also killed the guy by beating him to death and tying him to a fence and leaving him there. They also weren't high. They also changed their story at least 3 times and broke their plea agreement thing. That speaks of a little bit more than just meth heads to me.
I'm pretty sure that sort of thing's a logical fallacy. Has a Latin name and everything.
I can do something and dislike other people doing a similar thing. You can't stop me.
Er. Carry on some more. This is good stuff.
Um... Who said that?
The dancing on his grave bit I mean.
A religious nut who spreads intolerance and hatred dies, rational people everywhere celebrate.
Religious nuts, blinded by intolerance and hatred, kill a whole bunch of innocent people. Other religious nuts celebrate.
I suppose you're right. Except, of course, that people like Jerry Falwell are the reason the pool of intolerant religious nuts continues to grow.
Yeah. Innocent people. Because only fundamentalists have ever done anything wrong.
Take out the specifics and it becomes: People celebrating because death has furthered their chosen cause. I don't see the difference.
Interesting read.
Similarly, the American Revolutionary War and the Iraq War are the same, because when you take out the specifics they become people using violence to resolve problems. Therefore it is unthinkable to be anti-Iraq War if you'd have supported the Revolutionary War.
Adding that detail back in strengthens the analogy.
Well, if you believe civil war is a good thing, then sure.
Here's the thing. You can support the cause without supporting the action. There are many examples of nations gaining independence and abolishing slavery without civil war. So supporting the Revolutionary War itself means you think war is a perfectly acceptable solution to problems, therefore, you agree it's okay to use violence to solve problems.
When you're angry at freaking Falwell for being too tolerant there is something seriously wrong with you.
Wait, what? Of course if you take out the specifics, you can't see a difference. There is no difference.
Let's say your daughter was gay, and you found out she was being verbally abused / harassed / singled out at her job, because the manager is a bigoted asshole. The next day, he dies in a freak accident.
You "celebrating" (to use the word very loosely) because of his death is not the same thing as that manager celebrating whenever he reads about some gay couple dying in the newspaper. Unless, you know, you "take out the specifics".
Whoa, what? I wouldn't celebrate someone's death just because they were an asshole. I mean, it may make my daughter's life easier, but fuck me if that isn't schadenfreude.
Not out of respect for the guy, but out of the idea that we are all horrible people when compared to God. None of us are deserving of any sort of forgiveness. Yet a sovereign and perfect God has forgiven us, and it'd be hypocritical for any of us to condemn another.
The level of hatred for Falwell is bordering on the absurd. He was holding fast to "homosexuality is wrong," but meeting with homosexuals in an attempt to help stop violence against them, including agreeing to tone down his own speech where it might be thought to incite such things. He invited a contingent of openly gay Christians to his church, and not under the guise of converting them. I'm not going to give him a medal for it, but, I mean, that's pretty freakin' tolerant when it comes to mainstream Christianity in this country.
And if you didn't believe in God, would it still be wrong to be glad he's gone?
Seems to me you only think someone's actions can be contemptible if their philosophy or beliefs do not agree with yours.
I think it was vaguely clever of him, but it doesn't suggest any actual tolerance at all. He met with them to try to stop violence against Christians. Who are horribly oppressed and beaten to death for their beliefs on a regular basis by the long-extinct ancient Roman empire.
You aren't making sense. The meeting was to stop violence against gays. Including Christian gays.
Well, I think "celebrate" is the wrong word anyway. I'm not going to crash his funeral and tell his widow "he sucked anyway, good thing he's dead", but I certainly wouldn't be sorry that he died.
That is my problem with Yar's "well, it's too bad he didn't live long enough to realize his mistakes and become a friendly guy we all love". I just can't imagine anyone thinking that way. (I might say that, but I wouldn't think it.)
Then that's something you'll have to deal with, but to project your own feelings onto everyone isn't, well, good.
Yes, I already know what you think about it, that's why I asked CangoFett and not you. He's a big boy who can answer for himself, I assure you.
The meeting was a purely political move. It wasn't about stopping violence, it was about shielding his bigots from accusations of bigotry.
You look down on the muslims because you disagree with their cause. You don't look down on those celebrating Falwell's death because you DO agree with their cause.
I don't see what's wrong with looking down on people's actions because of a disagreement with their cause, though. I look down on, say, neo-Nazis for that reason, and don't look down on Martin Luther King Jr. because I agree with his cause. I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who thinks I'm wrong in doing this (except for a neo-nazi, of course).
I'm trying to make sense of how you parsed what I wrote as that nonsense. You've already decided the issue is digital, and I'm arguing a position between zero and one. Do you not see how this isn't going to go anywhere until you consider the possibility that things are not black and white?
The rules and laws set forth by God exist rather you believe in him or not.
But I see what you're trying to ask. Certainly there is one less person who inspired hate in the world, and thats something to be glad for, right? But hes still human, and thats worth something too, I'd think. Im not sure there really is a black and white answer to this.
Religion aside, I personally think that literally celebrating his death isn't the hottest thing to do. I can understand how people would be frustrated with him, and be relieved he's gone. I can't say I wouldnt have a bit of a smirk on my face when Fred Phelps dies.
Soooo......you're not listening (reading) then?
Because I have no problem with disagreeing with someone's cause. I have a problem with people who disagree with an action solely because of their disagreement with a cause. In other words, the ends justify the means, any means at all.
Only my rules exist, and they do so whether you believe in my righteous awesomitude or not.
I think being human is worth something. I think it's worth an exemption from "just a dumb animal living the way instinct prescribes"-based excuses. Basically, it means I hold him to a higher standard than, say, an actual wasp.