Yar, you believe in lower taxes. Why aren't you plotting to overthrow the government?
^^That is right about the level of retardation your argument is at.
If the government were overthrown, I would not rejoice. Your post was not well thought out. Try harder, I know you're capable.
But if taxes were lowered, you would. Which means that you're okay with someone overthrowing the government in order to lower taxes. It also means that you should be working towards overthrowing the government.
If someone murders him, that person committed a crime and will go to prison. If you gave me a magical button that I could push, killing Pat Robertson with zero risk to myself, I wouldn't do it.
These two ideas are not mutually exclusive.
The only thing I can glean from this is that you don't want to personally be responsible for Robertson's death because you don't want to have to deal with the guilt, but if someone else did your dirty work for you you'd be all rainbows and blowjobs.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Would there still have been ignorance and hatred without him? Of course there would have.
But if you have a few cavities in your mouth you don't view the repair of one of them as a bad or even neutral thing just because those other cavities are still there exacerbating the pain.
This analogy only begins to make sense if you have, like, 100,000 teeth. And if that's the case, getting rid of the biggest cavity still leaves tens of thousands of little sources of pain.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
If someone murders him, that person committed a crime and will go to prison. If you gave me a magical button that I could push, killing Pat Robertson with zero risk to myself, I wouldn't do it.
These two ideas are not mutually exclusive.
The only thing I can glean from this is that you don't want to personally be responsible for Robertson's death because you don't want to have to deal with the guilt, but if someone else did your dirty work for you you'd be all rainbows and blowjobs.
No he's saying he wishes the man would drop dead of natural causes. That's the intention. He's saying he's a person annoying enough that he will not mourn his passing, but that he respects the right to his own life of - meaning not him nor anyone else should take his life.
In many ways its a snappy way of saying you wish that person would change their views because they suck, but also that the chances of that happening are far less then the chances of him dying long before he does, if ever.
But if taxes were lowered, you would. Which means that you're okay with someone overthrowing the government in order to lower taxes. It also means that you should be working towards overthrowing the government.
I'm not sure why you persist with this hopeless abortion of an argument. If government were overthrown, resulting in lower taxes, no I absolutely would not rejoice and call for parties. Your analogy supports my side of this argument, not yours. Our current taxation levels in no way justify revolutionary overthrow. They justify working through the system to reform them. Revolutionary overthrow would be a bad thing, regardless if it resulted in lower taxes. Simlarly, ideas that you disagree with do not justify death. They justify debate and discourse. Death is a bad thing.
Rejoicing in death as a solution to ideas you didn't like is a de facto acceptance of your resignation that you could not combat the ideas themselves on their own merits, and instead mark your victories in the death of those who give voice to the ideas.
It's not like Falwell was a great leader. Had he jumped up and said "gay marriage ftw!," he would have faded into obscurity and another would take his place. He gave voice to a well-populated sentiment. I'm sure you wish them all dead. Good show. Unfortunately death isn't a solution unless death is already part of the problem.
I'd have been just as happy if he had given up politics and spent the rest of his days fishing peaceably in the woods. More happy in fact.
Yes, it is unfortunate that he died before he could find a more moral purpose in life than the one he was on. Unfortunate. Partying about it, or even just accepting some semantic quibble about its relative goodness, is celebrating death as the solution to wrong ideas.
Yar on
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
What is the equivalent of saying you are really glad someone is dead? It is to say you wished they would be murdered.
Absolutely not true.
I'm not defending celebrating someone's death. I'm just saying there's a huge difference between the two. Huge.
no there isn't. This is the point I was trying to make earlier and then everyone went off on what wishing meant or whatever.
if you wish for something, you want it. if you want someone dead, you'd be happy if they were murdered.
You cannot be serious. And if you are, you seriously need to grow up.
Pretty much that. There are a lot of people I wish were dead. But many would be effectively martyred if they were murdered, which would defeat the whole fucking purpose of removing them from human civilization. Specificity may not be important when most people think about what they want, but those people clearly haven't seen enough adolescent-oriented faux-horror media ending with "be careful what you wish for".
you JUST said... I wish they were dead, but if they died that would be bad.
so if people could stop saying I'm wrong and instead realize they aren't saying what they mean, things would be a lot better.
Yes, it is unfortunate that he died before he could find a more moral purpose in life than the one he was on. Unfortunate. Partying about it, or even just accepting some semantic quibble about its relative goodness, is celebrating death as the solution to wrong ideas.
I disagree. You seem to be making no distinction between death by natural causes and death by violence.
Let me put it this way: let's say that I come up with some strategy for lowering the number of Christians in America. My strategy is to (through media campaigns) discourage parents from teaching their children only one religion, enforce exposure to various religions through school legislature, and then hope that future generations are less likely to inherit their parents' religious beliefs.
My basic tenet is that people entrenched in their religion can't be convinced it's wrong, but their children can be. My strategy relies on older generations dying off. That doesn't mean I throw a party every time an elderly church-goer dies.
Vrtra Theory on
Are you a Software Engineer living in Seattle? HBO is hiring, message me.
What is the equivalent of saying you are really glad someone is dead? It is to say you wished they would be murdered.
Absolutely not true.
I'm not defending celebrating someone's death. I'm just saying there's a huge difference between the two. Huge.
no there isn't. This is the point I was trying to make earlier and then everyone went off on what wishing meant or whatever.
if you wish for something, you want it. if you want someone dead, you'd be happy if they were murdered.
You cannot be serious. And if you are, you seriously need to grow up.
Pretty much that. There are a lot of people I wish were dead. But many would be effectively martyred if they were murdered, which would defeat the whole fucking purpose of removing them from human civilization. Specificity may not be important when most people think about what they want, but those people clearly haven't seen enough adolescent-oriented faux-horror media ending with "be careful what you wish for".
you JUST said... I wish they were dead, but if they died that would be bad.
so if people could stop saying I'm wrong and instead realize they aren't saying what they mean, things would be a lot better.
Maybe if you and others in this thread stopped engaging in a semantics pissing contest, none of this would be an issue.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
0
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
Maybe if you and others in this thread stopped engaging in a semantics pissing contest, none of this would be an issue.
But then the thread would be pretty much over.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
But if taxes were lowered, you would. Which means that you're okay with someone overthrowing the government in order to lower taxes. It also means that you should be working towards overthrowing the government.
I'm not sure why you persist with this hopeless abortion of an argument. If government were overthrown, resulting in lower taxes, no I absolutely would not rejoice and call for parties. Your analogy supports my side of this argument, not yours. Our current taxation levels in no way justify revolutionary overthrow. They justify working through the system to reform them. Revolutionary overthrow would be a bad thing, regardless if it resulted in lower taxes. Simlarly, ideas that you disagree with do not justify death. They justify debate and discourse. Death is a bad thing.
No, they don't justify death. I wouldn't have wished death on him. But am I happy that he's not around to preach hate anymore? Hell yes. Does that mean I'm celebrating his death? I think so. Shinto seems not to.
Rejoicing in death as a solution to ideas you didn't like is a de facto acceptance of your resignation that you could not combat the ideas themselves on their own merits, and instead mark your victories in the death of those who give voice to the ideas.
Yeah, like with World War II, right? We knew we couldn't fight Naziism on its merits, so we just had to kill Nazis. Oh, wait, it is like, that, where a large group of people have embraced a completely irrational, incredibly harmful ideology.
I'd have been just as happy if he had given up politics and spent the rest of his days fishing peaceably in the woods. More happy in fact.
Yes, it is unfortunate that he died before he could find a more moral purpose in life than the one he was on. Unfortunate. Partying about it, or even just accepting some semantic quibble about its relative goodness, is celebrating death as the solution to wrong ideas.
I think he could have lived for a thousand years, and he still would have been the same hateful fucker he was.
Would there still have been ignorance and hatred without him? Of course there would have.
But if you have a few cavities in your mouth you don't view the repair of one of them as a bad or even neutral thing just because those other cavities are still there exacerbating the pain.
This analogy only begins to make sense if you have, like, 100,000 teeth. And if that's the case, getting rid of the biggest cavity still leaves tens of thousands of little sources of pain.
Eh, it was an attempt to use the analogy without implying that JF was either a form of cancer or virus but fine,
But if you have a few clusters of malignent cells in your body you don't view the destruction or removal of one of them as a bad or even neutral thing just because those other tumors are still there exacerbating the pain.
Okay, how about this. Since Jerry Falwell believed he would be going up to Gods glorious kingdom of heaven due to all the good work he did down here, can I celebrate his death because A) He's gone and his sphere of influence is gone with him, and if he was right, then he's in a much better place?
For that matter, why aren't all religious people celebrating his death, knowing it means he gets to go play checkers with god in heaven?
Is it because we down here will be deprived of his illustrious presence? And, if that is the case... doesn't mourning his loss because he won't have any influence or presence down here mean that, conversely, if you suffered because of that presence you have the right to rejoice when it's gone?
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Yeah, like with World War II, right? We knew we couldn't fight Naziism on its merits, so we just had to kill Nazis. Oh, wait, it is like, that, where a large group of people have embraced a completely irrational, incredibly harmful ideology.
It's not very attractive when you pull out old points I've already addressed.
The Nazis brought death into the picture. They waged their ideas with death. Death was what they wrought. And hence, by their own ideology, death is an unfortunate but valid solution. If you pick up a gun and shoot people to spread your ideas, then that fundamentally changes what your own death represents in the battle over those ideas.
you JUST said... I wish they were dead, but if they died that would be bad.
so if people could stop saying I'm wrong and instead realize they aren't saying what they mean, things would be a lot better.
Maybe if you and others in this thread stopped engaging in a semantics pissing contest, none of this would be an issue.
Edit: Goddamn wireless.
So, what I said was that I wished they were dead, but that it would be bad if someone killed them. The distinction between simply dying and actively being killed is pretty much what the example hinges upon.
irt SithDrummer;
I agree that I should respond to your arguments before mocking your dismissive one-click posting.
Oh yeah, Than is right up with Jerry Falwell... I've never seen such a hate monger before... :roll:
Let's just take a look at some of Jerry Falwell's greatest hits, shall we?
1. Christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions.
2. AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals
3. Textbooks are Soviet propaganda (my personal favorite)
4. Homosexuality is Satan's diabolical attack upon the family that will not only have a corrupting influence upon our next generation, but it will also bring down the wrath of God upon America.
5. God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve
Just a few tidbits of wisdom from the guy everyone here is rushing to protect from any negative press now that he's dead. Well, being dead is no more a shield then being Christian is. I'm glad he's gone. If there is anything I'm sorry about it's that he lived his life in such a way as to let hate override reason. But that doesn't excuse it.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Just a few tidbits of wisdom from the guy everyone here is rushing to protect from any negative press now that he's dead.
This sentence shows how thoroughly you have missed the point.
Sorry, my understanding was the his being dead somehow prevents us from talking about how much of a colossial fuckstick he was. Ah, right... I'm sorry, you're okay with that, you just aren't okay with us "celebrating" his death. If you want to articulate the difference, I think this thread could benefit from that.
Edit: Because from here, once again, it sounds like semantic bullshit.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
you JUST said... I wish they were dead, but if they died that would be bad.
so if people could stop saying I'm wrong and instead realize they aren't saying what they mean, things would be a lot better.
Maybe if you and others in this thread stopped engaging in a semantics pissing contest, none of this would be an issue.
Edit: Goddamn wireless.
So, what I said was that I wished they were dead, but that it would be bad if someone killed them. The distinction between simply dying and actively being killed is pretty much what the example hinges upon.
How is that different from a Falwell saying something along the lines of he wouldn't murder a homosexual, but he hopes they die from AIDS? How is it alright just because Falwell's not actively killing them?
you JUST said... I wish they were dead, but if they died that would be bad.
so if people could stop saying I'm wrong and instead realize they aren't saying what they mean, things would be a lot better.
Maybe if you and others in this thread stopped engaging in a semantics pissing contest, none of this would be an issue.
Edit: Goddamn wireless.
So, what I said was that I wished they were dead, but that it would be bad if someone killed them. The distinction between simply dying and actively being killed is pretty much what the example hinges upon.
How is that different from a Falwell saying something along the lines of he wouldn't murder a homosexual, but he hopes they die from AIDS? How is it alright just because Falwell's not actively killing them?
It's different because he's a powerful voice spreading a fucktonne of hate, while homosexuals are for the most part just normal people, whom are hated for no legitimate reason by a huge portion of the population. And it's not alright just because he's not actively killing them. As I've said already on this page, words are weapons.
Rejoicing in death as a solution to ideas you didn't like is a de facto acceptance of your resignation that you could not combat the ideas themselves on their own merits, and instead mark your victories in the death of those who give voice to the ideas.
Yeah, like with World War II, right? We knew we couldn't fight Naziism on its merits, so we just had to kill Nazis. Oh, wait, it is like, that, where a large group of people have embraced a completely irrational, incredibly harmful ideology.
I believe your Godwin is an appropriate Godwin, sir. :^:
you JUST said... I wish they were dead, but if they died that would be bad.
so if people could stop saying I'm wrong and instead realize they aren't saying what they mean, things would be a lot better.
Maybe if you and others in this thread stopped engaging in a semantics pissing contest, none of this would be an issue.
Edit: Goddamn wireless.
So, what I said was that I wished they were dead, but that it would be bad if someone killed them. The distinction between simply dying and actively being killed is pretty much what the example hinges upon.
How is that different from a Falwell saying something along the lines of he wouldn't murder a homosexual, but he hopes they die from AIDS? How is it alright just because Falwell's not actively killing them?
It's different because he's a powerful voice spreading a fucktonne of hate, while homosexuals are for the most part just normal people, whom are hated for no legitimate reason by a huge portion of the population. And it's not alright just because he's not actively killing them. As I've said already on this page, words are weapons.
Thank you for not making me articulate that. I'm tired.
Yeah, like with World War II, right? We knew we couldn't fight Naziism on its merits, so we just had to kill Nazis. Oh, wait, it is like, that, where a large group of people have embraced a completely irrational, incredibly harmful ideology.
It's not very attractive when you pull out old points I've already addressed.
The Nazis brought death into the picture. They waged their ideas with death. Death was what they wrought. And hence, by their own ideology, death is an unfortunate but valid solution. If you pick up a gun and shoot people to spread your ideas, then that fundamentally changes what your own death represents in the battle over those ideas.
Sorry, my understanding was the his being dead somehow prevents us from talking about how much of a colossial fuckstick he was.
And your understanding was wrong.
Being dead is not a cause for us to talk about it, either. And it certainly isn't a cause for celebration.
Sorry, but until you can tell me the difference between talking about someone's life and celebrating his death, you can just stay on your moral high horse.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Being dead is not a cause for us to talk about it, either. And it certainly isn't a cause for celebration.
Unless you think he was a powerful voice for the forces of evil. I mean I suppose I could be sad that he didn't suddenly change his mind and decide to convert all his followers to the forces of good but at that point I might as well start cutting myself over the fact that a meteor containing a fully functional giant-robot hasn't crashed in my living room yet.
I mean I suppose I could be sad that he didn't suddenly change his mind and decide to convert all his followers to the forces of good but at that point I might as well start cutting myself over the fact that a meteor containing a fully functional giant-robot hasn't crashed in my living room yet.
I'd always hope for anyone to live on and possibly gain greater wisdom than to assume they never would and revel in their death.
Yes, I'm sure if Falwell had just two more days he would have realized the error of his ways. He was just getting to the part of the bible that says Love thy Neighbor too...
suck.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Just a few tidbits of wisdom from the guy everyone here is rushing to protect from any negative press now that he's dead.
This sentence shows how thoroughly you have missed the point.
Sorry, my understanding was the his being dead somehow prevents us from talking about how much of a colossial fuckstick he was. Ah, right... I'm sorry, you're okay with that, you just aren't okay with us "celebrating" his death. If you want to articulate the difference, I think this thread could benefit from that.
Edit: Because from here, once again, it sounds like semantic bullshit.
Really? Because to me it seems like when either through ignorance or hostility you strawman what I'm saying into "we shouldn't say what a dick Falwell was" that is the semantic bullshit.
See if you can see the difference between these two statements. Like sesame street. One of these things is not like the other.
1. Man, I am so glad Jerry Falwell is dead. I hate that fucking shithead so much he deserves it, I hope the heart attack hurt him like hell before he died.
2. Man, I'm glad Jerry Falwell won't be spreading hate anymore.
You have to distinguish between an intense hostility for someone personally and hostility toward their actions. Not making that distiction is an emotionally retarded approach to life and poisonous to civil debate in a democratic society.
I mean I suppose I could be sad that he didn't suddenly change his mind and decide to convert all his followers to the forces of good but at that point I might as well start cutting myself over the fact that a meteor containing a fully functional giant-robot hasn't crashed in my living room yet.
I'd always hope for anyone to live on and possibly gain greater wisdom than to assume they never would and revel in their death.
A) I didn't say I wanted to fight ideas with death. That doesn't mean I can't be happy that death has seen fit to intervene, though. You are once again conflating the ideas of being glad someone is dead with wanting to kill them. And you never responded to my arguments against doing so.
This isn't a proper sentence, to the point where I'm not sure enough of what you're saying to be able to properly respond to it.
Posts
I don't know - "I wish you would stop your hate filled activities" seems fairly different than "I wish you would die." to me.
The only thing I can glean from this is that you don't want to personally be responsible for Robertson's death because you don't want to have to deal with the guilt, but if someone else did your dirty work for you you'd be all rainbows and blowjobs.
Would it help to say that if they just shut up forever I would be just as happy?
This analogy only begins to make sense if you have, like, 100,000 teeth. And if that's the case, getting rid of the biggest cavity still leaves tens of thousands of little sources of pain.
In many ways its a snappy way of saying you wish that person would change their views because they suck, but also that the chances of that happening are far less then the chances of him dying long before he does, if ever.
I'd have been just as happy if he had given up politics and spent the rest of his days fishing peaceably in the woods. More happy in fact.
Certainly you can appreciate that a single event can have different facets.
Rejoicing in death as a solution to ideas you didn't like is a de facto acceptance of your resignation that you could not combat the ideas themselves on their own merits, and instead mark your victories in the death of those who give voice to the ideas.
It's not like Falwell was a great leader. Had he jumped up and said "gay marriage ftw!," he would have faded into obscurity and another would take his place. He gave voice to a well-populated sentiment. I'm sure you wish them all dead. Good show. Unfortunately death isn't a solution unless death is already part of the problem.
Yes, it is unfortunate that he died before he could find a more moral purpose in life than the one he was on. Unfortunate. Partying about it, or even just accepting some semantic quibble about its relative goodness, is celebrating death as the solution to wrong ideas.
you JUST said... I wish they were dead, but if they died that would be bad.
so if people could stop saying I'm wrong and instead realize they aren't saying what they mean, things would be a lot better.
I disagree. You seem to be making no distinction between death by natural causes and death by violence.
Let me put it this way: let's say that I come up with some strategy for lowering the number of Christians in America. My strategy is to (through media campaigns) discourage parents from teaching their children only one religion, enforce exposure to various religions through school legislature, and then hope that future generations are less likely to inherit their parents' religious beliefs.
My basic tenet is that people entrenched in their religion can't be convinced it's wrong, but their children can be. My strategy relies on older generations dying off. That doesn't mean I throw a party every time an elderly church-goer dies.
Maybe if you and others in this thread stopped engaging in a semantics pissing contest, none of this would be an issue.
But then the thread would be pretty much over.
Yeah, like with World War II, right? We knew we couldn't fight Naziism on its merits, so we just had to kill Nazis. Oh, wait, it is like, that, where a large group of people have embraced a completely irrational, incredibly harmful ideology.
I think he could have lived for a thousand years, and he still would have been the same hateful fucker he was.
Eh, it was an attempt to use the analogy without implying that JF was either a form of cancer or virus but fine,
But if you have a few clusters of malignent cells in your body you don't view the destruction or removal of one of them as a bad or even neutral thing just because those other tumors are still there exacerbating the pain.
For that matter, why aren't all religious people celebrating his death, knowing it means he gets to go play checkers with god in heaven?
Is it because we down here will be deprived of his illustrious presence? And, if that is the case... doesn't mourning his loss because he won't have any influence or presence down here mean that, conversely, if you suffered because of that presence you have the right to rejoice when it's gone?
http://www.missdynamite.com/fanart/spgm/gal/gallery2006/gal0166.jpg
The Nazis brought death into the picture. They waged their ideas with death. Death was what they wrought. And hence, by their own ideology, death is an unfortunate but valid solution. If you pick up a gun and shoot people to spread your ideas, then that fundamentally changes what your own death represents in the battle over those ideas.
And OMG GODWHENZ LAWL.
And that's exactly why you are a hateful fucker.
Edit: Goddamn wireless.
So, what I said was that I wished they were dead, but that it would be bad if someone killed them. The distinction between simply dying and actively being killed is pretty much what the example hinges upon.
irt SithDrummer;
I agree that I should respond to your arguments before mocking your dismissive one-click posting.
Let's just take a look at some of Jerry Falwell's greatest hits, shall we?
1. Christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions.
2. AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals
3. Textbooks are Soviet propaganda (my personal favorite)
4. Homosexuality is Satan's diabolical attack upon the family that will not only have a corrupting influence upon our next generation, but it will also bring down the wrath of God upon America.
5. God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve
Just a few tidbits of wisdom from the guy everyone here is rushing to protect from any negative press now that he's dead. Well, being dead is no more a shield then being Christian is. I'm glad he's gone. If there is anything I'm sorry about it's that he lived his life in such a way as to let hate override reason. But that doesn't excuse it.
This sentence shows how thoroughly you have missed the point.
Sorry, my understanding was the his being dead somehow prevents us from talking about how much of a colossial fuckstick he was. Ah, right... I'm sorry, you're okay with that, you just aren't okay with us "celebrating" his death. If you want to articulate the difference, I think this thread could benefit from that.
Edit: Because from here, once again, it sounds like semantic bullshit.
How is that different from a Falwell saying something along the lines of he wouldn't murder a homosexual, but he hopes they die from AIDS? How is it alright just because Falwell's not actively killing them?
It's different because he's a powerful voice spreading a fucktonne of hate, while homosexuals are for the most part just normal people, whom are hated for no legitimate reason by a huge portion of the population. And it's not alright just because he's not actively killing them. As I've said already on this page, words are weapons.
I believe your Godwin is an appropriate Godwin, sir. :^:
Thank you for not making me articulate that. I'm tired.
There are worse things than killing people.
Yeah, ok, I'm a "truthist" lol I win.
And your understanding was wrong.
Being dead is not a cause for us to talk about it, either. And it certainly isn't a cause for celebration.
I figure I'd answer it with something on the same level.
Sorry, but until you can tell me the difference between talking about someone's life and celebrating his death, you can just stay on your moral high horse.
So when are we allowed to talk about his influence?
Unless you think he was a powerful voice for the forces of evil. I mean I suppose I could be sad that he didn't suddenly change his mind and decide to convert all his followers to the forces of good but at that point I might as well start cutting myself over the fact that a meteor containing a fully functional giant-robot hasn't crashed in my living room yet.
Zombie Falwell.
Duh.
Fred Phelps is making plans to picket Falwell's funeral. (Link goes to the press release as issued by Phelps, so NSFW if your boss is going to ask about 'godhatesfags.com'.)
I'm having two warring thoughts here: "Oh geez, not him again" and "This is... strangely karmic, in a way."
Like I said, you want to fight a voice with death. Do you think you really understand evil?
I'd always hope for anyone to live on and possibly gain greater wisdom than to assume they never would and revel in their death.
suck.
Really? Because to me it seems like when either through ignorance or hostility you strawman what I'm saying into "we shouldn't say what a dick Falwell was" that is the semantic bullshit.
See if you can see the difference between these two statements. Like sesame street. One of these things is not like the other.
1. Man, I am so glad Jerry Falwell is dead. I hate that fucking shithead so much he deserves it, I hope the heart attack hurt him like hell before he died.
2. Man, I'm glad Jerry Falwell won't be spreading hate anymore.
You have to distinguish between an intense hostility for someone personally and hostility toward their actions. Not making that distiction is an emotionally retarded approach to life and poisonous to civil debate in a democratic society.
A) I didn't say I wanted to fight ideas with death. That doesn't mean I can't be happy that death has seen fit to intervene, though. You are once again conflating the ideas of being glad someone is dead with wanting to kill them. And you never responded to my arguments against doing so.