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.
Just out of curiosity, why shouldn't I have hostility towards someone BECAUSE of their actions? No one was pulling Falwells strings, he wasn't a robot or programmed to be a jerk. I can hate his actions and, by extension of those actions, hate him as a human being. If I see a bunch of Clansmen at a lynching I can hate what they do as much as I can hate who they are. People make their own choices in life, and those choices form the basis of who they are as people. Why can't those choices influence how we regard them as people?
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 out of curiosity, why shouldn't I have hostility towards someone BECAUSE of their actions? No one was pulling Falwells strings, he wasn't a robot or programmed to be a jerk. I can hate his actions and, by extension of those actions, hate him as a human being. If I see a bunch of Clansmen at a lynching I can hate what they do as much as I can hate who they are. People make their own choices in life, and those choices form the basis of who they are as people. Why can't those choices influence how we regard them as people?
Just out of curiosity, why shouldn't I have hostility towards someone BECAUSE of their actions? No one was pulling Falwells strings, he wasn't a robot or programmed to be a jerk. I can hate his actions and, by extension of those actions, hate him as a human being. If I see a bunch of Clansmen at a lynching I can hate what they do as much as I can hate who they are. People make their own choices in life, and those choices form the basis of who they are as people. Why can't those choices influence how we regard them as people?
Because the emotion undermines reason and debate.
Not to mention it undermines compromise and progress between two dissenting groups by creating the idea that the gulf of disagreement is so deep only fucking death can solve it.
Just out of curiosity, why shouldn't I have hostility towards someone BECAUSE of their actions? No one was pulling Falwells strings, he wasn't a robot or programmed to be a jerk. I can hate his actions and, by extension of those actions, hate him as a human being. If I see a bunch of Clansmen at a lynching I can hate what they do as much as I can hate who they are. People make their own choices in life, and those choices form the basis of who they are as people. Why can't those choices influence how we regard them as people?
Because the emotion undermines reason and debate.
Not to mention it undermines compromise and progress between two dissenting groups by creating the idea that the gulf of disagreement is so deep only fucking death can solve it.
The man is not the group he influences. He's merely a man who influences that group. His influence worked to undermine compromise and progress between the groups by creating the idea that the gulf of disagreement is so deep only fucking eternal damnation can solve it. Being happy he's dead doesn't conflict with the goal of reaching compromise.
I can't believe you used the "you're a hateful fucker" argument.
"Hateful fucker" were your words. I'm starting to think you're just trolling around, grasping for some sort of leverage, and not taking this discussion seriously.
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.
Yeah, I know, I get it. You think that changing people's minds through discourse is futile, that ideas can't beat ideas, and the solution to bad ideas is death.
Do you expect death will favor you and kill more of the people who disagree with you?
I know that death doesn't favor one idea over another unless someone with a gun makes it so. A since I don't plan to pick up a gun to make death favor my ideas, I must recognize that death isn't a good thing and isn't a solution.
When death silences a bad voice, that is a failure, not a triumph.
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.
Other than a technicality regarding a preposition at then end of a phrase, it is a perfectly fine sentence. I can diagram it for you if you'd like.
And this of course is sufficient cause to completely ignore all the rest of my arguments. Assuming it were true. If it is, then your sentence establishes a false dichotomy.
What other arguments? The repeated semantic crap about being happy he's gone but not happy he's gone? It's bullshit, and I've been saying why.
Someone being "gone" isn't a solution. Progression of ideas does not come from sending away the bad people. You are celebrating a failure. You are happy that he won't be around to talk anymore.
Like I said, death isn't going to favor your ideas unless you pick up a gun and make it so. So celebrating death as a solution necessarily means supporting killing bad ideas. You think death beats bad ideas. It doesn't. Better ideas beat bad ideas. If death gets to a bad idea first, the better idea LOSES.
What other arguments? The repeated semantic crap about being happy he's gone but not happy he's gone? It's bullshit, and I've been saying why.
Someone being "gone" isn't a solution. Progression of ideas does not come from sending away the bad people. You are celebrating a failure. You are happy that he won't be around to talk anymore.
Like I said, death isn't going to favor your ideas unless you pick up a gun and make it so. So celebrating death as a solution necessarily means supporting killing bad ideas. You think death beats bad ideas. It doesn't. Better ideas beat bad ideas. If death gets to a bad idea first, the better idea LOSES.
We're all going to die.
Perhaps you would be better able to respond to my arguments after reading them.
What other arguments? The repeated semantic crap about being happy he's gone but not happy he's gone? It's bullshit, and I've been saying why.
Someone being "gone" isn't a solution. Progression of ideas does not come from sending away the bad people. You are celebrating a failure. You are happy that he won't be around to talk anymore.
Like I said, death isn't going to favor your ideas unless you pick up a gun and make it so. So celebrating death as a solution necessarily means supporting killing bad ideas. You think death beats bad ideas. It doesn't. Better ideas beat bad ideas. If death gets to a bad idea first, the better idea LOSES.
We're all going to die.
Except, Yar- you can't kill an idea. A person spouting hateful, hurtful ideas can die, but those evil, malingering thoughts and ideas are still out there, being passed on to others. That's a legacy. You seem to think that we see some moral victory in this man's passing, and disregard the legacy of hate he has passed on.
Not true. We're merely marking the occasion. The fight to overturn the legacy goes on.
What other arguments? The repeated semantic crap about being happy he's gone but not happy he's gone? It's bullshit, and I've been saying why.
Someone being "gone" isn't a solution. Progression of ideas does not come from sending away the bad people. You are celebrating a failure. You are happy that he won't be around to talk anymore.
Like I said, death isn't going to favor your ideas unless you pick up a gun and make it so. So celebrating death as a solution necessarily means supporting killing bad ideas. You think death beats bad ideas. It doesn't. Better ideas beat bad ideas. If death gets to a bad idea first, the better idea LOSES.
Man that's idealistic.
Sometimes, better ideas don't influence bad ideas, because those bad ideas are so dogmatic, and so insistent that even thinking about whether they might possibly be wrong is a terrible transgression, that they inoculate their adherents against the influence of better ideas.
If someone does more damage every day he's alive, and we're trying the idea angle as hard as we can and it's not working (not resorting to violence because we believe it's wrong), then suddenly he dies and can't do any more damage, what are we supposed to feel?
Just out of curiosity, why shouldn't I have hostility towards someone BECAUSE of their actions? No one was pulling Falwells strings, he wasn't a robot or programmed to be a jerk. I can hate his actions and, by extension of those actions, hate him as a human being. If I see a bunch of Clansmen at a lynching I can hate what they do as much as I can hate who they are. People make their own choices in life, and those choices form the basis of who they are as people. Why can't those choices influence how we regard them as people?
Because the emotion undermines reason and debate.
But what if the person isn't open to reason or debate? I mean, one word that can never be applied to Jerry Falwell is "open-minded."
Frankly, a lot of this argument seems ridiculously idealistic, with Yar actually taking some kind of journey to another dimension where his nonsense makes sense.
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?'
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.
Yeah, I know, I get it. You think that changing people's minds through discourse is futile, that ideas can't beat ideas, and the solution to bad ideas is death.
Not what he fucking said, Yar. Quit being obtuse and quit trying to put words into peoples mouths.
Discourse is a tool. Like many other tools it can be used to help the problem or make it worse. Falwell used it to make things worse. He did so willingly and at best without reguard for the consequences and at worst in eager anticipation of the consequences of his actions. That he is gone is the only way he could be prevented from doing so and that he did so for the vast majority of his life is, at least to me, ample evidence of that.
There are in fact people in this world who can not be reasoned with. Who can not be convinced they are wrong. It's one of the problems with faith, and I don't mean in purely the religious sense. Faith in an idea is a dangerous thing because it can sometimes blind people. Now when that faith is in a virtuous idea, such as the one you hold that no one is beyond hope, it can be a great thing. However when faith resides in an idea that is fundamentally wrong, such as Falwells views on homosexuals, then it can be a horrible thing. You're not going to convince me that the world is not better off after someone who not only held ideals as foul as Falwells but that dedicated himself to teaching these horrible ideals to others is finally gone.
It is indeed possible to regret that he couldn't be made to see he was wrong while he was alive and be glad that he is dead and thus no longer able to spread his hate at the same time.
Just out of curiosity, why shouldn't I have hostility towards someone BECAUSE of their actions? No one was pulling Falwells strings, he wasn't a robot or programmed to be a jerk. I can hate his actions and, by extension of those actions, hate him as a human being. If I see a bunch of Clansmen at a lynching I can hate what they do as much as I can hate who they are. People make their own choices in life, and those choices form the basis of who they are as people. Why can't those choices influence how we regard them as people?
Because the emotion undermines reason and debate.
But what if the person isn't open to reason or debate? I mean, one word that can never be applied to Jerry Falwell is "open-minded."
Frankly, a lot of this argument seems ridiculously idealistic, with Yar actually taking some kind of journey to another dimension where his nonsense makes sense.
So your response is "nyeh -- he did it first"?
And yes it's an idealistic discussion. The reaction to a person's death is not directly tangible in any way, and rooted solely in the realm of ethics, semantics, and idealism. Some people care about these things. If you are participating, we expect that you care, too.
finding love in another mans hairy but and licking his bals, if that is OK with you then you are one sick fuker
this forum actually sucks ass
Dude, who has that literacy cat???
Literacy cat!!!!!!!!!
No but seriously, the fact that you find it gross doesn't mean it's wrong. Argument from appeal to emotion = doesn't fucking fly. Not here. Get over yourself or get the fuck out.
finding love in another mans hairy but and licking his bals, if that is OK with you then you are one sick fuker
this forum actually sucks ass
Well, then it looks like your prayers are going to be answered.
Celery- I know forums are a hard way to really get your point across, but I really don't think you got mine at all.
You can't hold a debate with someone who isn't debating. I mean, seriously, once you've outted a Teletubby you are beyond all sense or reason at that point. Unfortunately, when you have your own pulpit, or soapbox, or stage, whatever you have that you can continue to spew hate that is picked up by others, then turned into a tool to hurt or kill someone, then sorry... I refuse to mourn your passing and will celebrate you being gone. I would not actively kill him, and I'm sorry that death was the only way for his rehtoric to stop, but this was a man who was never going to engage in a reasonable debate, and many of his followers are not ones who subscribe to the marketplace of ideas anyway.
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?'
Celery- I know forums are a hard way to really get your point across, but I really don't think you got mine at all.
You can't hold a debate with someone who isn't debating. I mean, seriously, once you've outted a Teletubby you are beyond all sense or reason at that point. Unfortunately, when you have your own pulpit, or soapbox, or stage, whatever you have that you can continue to spew hate that is picked up by others, then turned into a tool to hurt or kill someone, then sorry... I refuse to mourn your passing and will celebrate you being gone. I would not actively kill him, and I'm sorry that death was the only way for his rehtoric to stop, but this was a man who was never going to engage in a reasonable debate, and many of his followers are not ones who subscribe to the marketplace of ideas anyway.
No, your reiteration of your point is exactly what I thought it was. You are basically saying that Falwell and his followers are unlike you because they are incapable of reasoning like you do. It is, in essence, dehumanizing them because you are defining them as distinctly and irreversibly Other. It is exactly this type of attitude that allows you to celebrate his death, because you are not making the human connection to the fact that any person dying is a bad thing, because in this case you don't particularly see Falwell as whole person like yourself.
That is the point that Shinto, as I understand it, has been trying to make -- that type of thinking is not positive, and should be avoided. Falwell, for all his flaws, is still a human being, and while it's absolutely kosher to disagree with his ideas, it is crossing the line when you wed your dislike of his ideas to his physical person, because to do so completely undermines -- as Shinto said -- reason and debate.
You are basically saying that Falwell and his followers are unlike you because they are incapable of reasoning like you do.
No. As I said earlier in this thread, Jerry Falwell is exactly like me, and like anyone else. He did what he thought was right, whoop-de-shit. What he thought was right hurt other people, so fuck him. Just like if what I do hurts other people, I would completely expect them to be glad for my passing.
Edit: And again, I say his actions are what make him who he is. I don't think they need to be seperated from the fact that he's still a human being. As I said at the beginning of this thread, I don't think being a human being makes you that special to begin with.
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?'
So, a person is not the sum of their thoughts and actions is the viewpoint here? A person's value is not determined by how they lived their life? They therefore cannot be judged by their fellow man?
In February 1999, an article in Falwell's National Liberty Journal suggested that a Teletubbies character, Tinky Winky, could be a hidden homosexual symbol, because the character was purple (which the article claimed was a color symbolic of homosexuality), had an inverted triangle on his head, and carried a handbag. (The pink triangle was used as a badge to denote homosexuals in Nazi concentration camps, and has since been adopted as an emblem by gay-rights movements.) Falwell denied any personal involvement with the original article, and made clear he never had any prior knowledge of, or concern with, the Teletubbies. Falwell's organization said the author of the article was simply repeating what others in the media were already saying about the nature of the character. In the months following this incident, Falwell received a number of Tinky Winky plush dolls in the mail, most of which he has given to his grandchildren.
You are basically saying that Falwell and his followers are unlike you because they are incapable of reasoning like you do.
No. As I said earlier in this thread, Jerry Falwell is exactly like me, and like anyone else. He did what he thought was right, whoop-de-shit. What he thought was right hurt other people, so fuck him. Just like if what I do hurts other people, I would completely expect them to be glad for my passing.
I was going to go up and snip out sections of what you wrote to point out more specifically what I was responding to, but then I said fuck it just re-read what you wrote if you can't understand where I'm getting this.
The point remains -- your tone in this thread makes it seem like you consider Falwell and his followers to be sub-human and unworthy of the respect that you feel you deserve -- in this instance, even the respect of one's life -- because of the rhetoric Falwell has created. You are basically saying he doesn't deserve to live because of his ideas. This really isn't stretching or strawmanning, it's what is implied in your posts that has been picked up on by a few different posters in this thread. This attitude -- that one's ideas can render them somehow sub-human -- is poisonous to debate.
So, a person is not the sum of their thoughts and actions is the viewpoint here? A person's value is not determined by how they lived their life? They therefore cannot be judged by their fellow man?
It's been clarified god knows how many times in here. There is a difference between disagreeing with someone and celebrating someone's death.
"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians ... the A.C.L.U., People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen."
In February 1999, an article in Falwell's National Liberty Journal suggested that a Teletubbies character, Tinky Winky, could be a hidden homosexual symbol, because the character was purple (which the article claimed was a color symbolic of homosexuality), had an inverted triangle on his head, and carried a handbag. (The pink triangle was used as a badge to denote homosexuals in Nazi concentration camps, and has since been adopted as an emblem by gay-rights movements.) Falwell denied any personal involvement with the original article, and made clear he never had any prior knowledge of, or concern with, the Teletubbies. Falwell's organization said the author of the article was simply repeating what others in the media were already saying about the nature of the character. In the months following this incident, Falwell received a number of Tinky Winky plush dolls in the mail, most of which he has given to his grandchildren.
Dur.. uh... hey Yar...
Falwell justified his outing in his publication by claiming that Tinky Winky has the voice of a boy but carries a purse. "He is purple -- the gay-pride color; and his antenna is shaped like a triangle -- the gay-pride symbol."
Falwell argues the "subtle depictions" are intentional and issued a statement Tuesday that said, "As a Christian I feel that role modeling the gay lifestyle is damaging to the moral lives of children."
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 are basically saying that Falwell and his followers are unlike you because they are incapable of reasoning like you do.
No. As I said earlier in this thread, Jerry Falwell is exactly like me, and like anyone else. He did what he thought was right, whoop-de-shit. What he thought was right hurt other people, so fuck him. Just like if what I do hurts other people, I would completely expect them to be glad for my passing.
I was going to go up and snip out sections of what you wrote to point out more specifically what I was responding to, but then I said fuck it just re-read what you wrote if you can't understand where I'm getting this.
The point remains -- your tone in this thread makes it seem like you consider Falwell and his followers to be sub-human and unworthy of the respect that you feel you deserve -- in this instance, even the respect of one's life -- because of the rhetoric Falwell has created. You are basically saying he doesn't deserve to live because of his ideas. This really isn't stretching or strawmanning, it's what is implied in your posts that has been picked up on by a few different posters in this thread. This attitude -- that one's ideas can render them somehow sub-human -- is poisonous to debate.
Well, why don't you please go back and point out where I said he doesn't deserve to live. I honestly don't see how you can so easily make the jump from my not being sorry he's gone to my saying he never deserved to live.
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?'
"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians ... the A.C.L.U., People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen."
Falwell justified his outing in his publication by claiming that Tinky Winky has the voice of a boy but carries a purse. "He is purple -- the gay-pride color; and his antenna is shaped like a triangle -- the gay-pride symbol."
Falwell argues the "subtle depictions" are intentional and issued a statement Tuesday that said, "As a Christian I feel that role modeling the gay lifestyle is damaging to the moral lives of children."
Yes, those are quotes from the article he denounced and never wrote to begin with. You are going backwards.
Also, articles about Tinky Winky's homosexuality had been written at least two years prior to Falwell's magazine publishing anything about it.
Well, why don't you please go back and point out where I said he doesn't deserve to live. I honestly don't see how you can so easily make the jump from my not being sorry he's gone to my saying he never deserved to live.
You can't hold a debate with someone who isn't debating. I mean, seriously, once you've outted a Teletubby you are beyond all sense or reason at that point*. Unfortunately, when you have your own pulpit, or soapbox, or stage, whatever you have that you can continue to spew hate that is picked up by others, then turned into a tool to hurt or kill someone, then sorry... I refuse to mourn your passing and will celebrate you being gone**.
*defining him as irreversibly unlike you
**saying you're glad his life is extinguished because of it
The point remains -- your tone in this thread makes it seem like you consider Falwell and his followers to be sub-human and unworthy of the respect that you feel you deserve -- in this instance, even the respect of one's life -- because of the rhetoric Falwell has created.
I operate under the assumption that people are what they repeatedly do.
I also operate under the assumption that respect must be earned, and isn't necessarily a given because of one's biological condition (being born Human).
And, frankly, this whole sub-human argument is for the birds. Falwell was both human and unworthy of respect.
This attitude -- that one's ideas can render them somehow sub-human -- is poisonous to debate.
If that were true, we would never remove the rights of convicted murderers by imprisoning them.
Ones ideas (expressed via speech, action, etc. etc.) are EXACTLY the things that can render them unworthy of respect. Our legal system hinges upon this idea, in fact.
Nothing can render people sub-human, but that hardly matters, and is kind of a semantic hand-waving trick anyway. Being rendered sub-human isn't in and of itself the problem, the loss of respect that comes with said change in status is. And sometimes that loss of respect is more than justified.
WorLord on
...privately black.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians ... the A.C.L.U., People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen."
I remember that speech. I'm not going to miss him.
If that were true, we would never remove the rights of convicted murderers by imprisoning them.
Ones ideas (expressed via speech, action, etc. etc.) are EXACTLY the things that can render them unworthy of respect. Our legal system hinges upon this idea, in fact.
Nothing can render people sub-human, but that hardly matters, and is kind of a semantic hand-waving trick anyway. Being rendered sub-human isn't in and of itself the problem, the loss of respect that comes with said change in status is. And sometimes that loss of respect is more than justified.
Equating hate-speech to murder is ridiculous, so really this whole thing I quoted is silly.
And yes -- there are many people I don't respect, I still wouldn't celebrate their death.
Well, why don't you please go back and point out where I said he doesn't deserve to live. I honestly don't see how you can so easily make the jump from my not being sorry he's gone to my saying he never deserved to live.
You can't hold a debate with someone who isn't debating. I mean, seriously, once you've outted a Teletubby you are beyond all sense or reason at that point*. Unfortunately, when you have your own pulpit, or soapbox, or stage, whatever you have that you can continue to spew hate that is picked up by others, then turned into a tool to hurt or kill someone, then sorry... I refuse to mourn your passing and will celebrate you being gone**.
*defining him as irreversibly unlike you
**saying you're glad his life is extinguished because of it
lol... okay, whatever. I'm with Tach at this point. I'm glad he's gone. I'm not going to dance on his grave, but whatever. Think whatever you want of me.
(oh, and in this I'm just like Falwell now, so, as I said earlier, we are all alike).
It is good to know though that if I ever burn down your home, you won't hate me, just the fact that I burned down your home.
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?'
Ok so he said liberal groups were repsonsible for 9/11, and then he apologized directly. And before that someone on his staff wrote an article about Tinky Winky being gay, which was not an original idea, and he denounced the article and had a good sense of humor about it.
What else do you guys have that defines him as a hateful bigot who spat bile, or whatever else we'recalling him here? More to the point, do the two examples above sentence him to death?
"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians ... the A.C.L.U., People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen."
I would never blame any human being except the terrorists, and if I left that impression with gays or lesbians or anyone else, I apologize.
Dude, did you just, like, skip the part where he says "oh no the gays and feminists didn't actually crash the planes, they're just responsible for making the attacks possible, sorry for the confusion."?
Ok so he said liberal groups were repsonsible for 9/11, and then he apologized directly. And before that someone on his staff wrote an article about Tinky Winky being gay, which was not an original idea, and he denounced the article and had a good sense of humor about it.
What else do you guys have that defines him as a hateful bigot who spat bile, or whatever else we'recalling him here? More to the point, do the two examples above sentence him to death?
No... he wrote an article calling Tinky Winky gay, then once the backlash hit he tried a week later to defend that position, then blamed a staff member for it. Go ahead, see if you can find the original article they were referring to.
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?'
Posts
Just out of curiosity, why shouldn't I have hostility towards someone BECAUSE of their actions? No one was pulling Falwells strings, he wasn't a robot or programmed to be a jerk. I can hate his actions and, by extension of those actions, hate him as a human being. If I see a bunch of Clansmen at a lynching I can hate what they do as much as I can hate who they are. People make their own choices in life, and those choices form the basis of who they are as people. Why can't those choices influence how we regard them as people?
Because the emotion undermines reason and debate.
The man is not the group he influences. He's merely a man who influences that group. His influence worked to undermine compromise and progress between the groups by creating the idea that the gulf of disagreement is so deep only fucking eternal damnation can solve it. Being happy he's dead doesn't conflict with the goal of reaching compromise.
Yeah, I know, I get it. You think that changing people's minds through discourse is futile, that ideas can't beat ideas, and the solution to bad ideas is death.
Do you expect death will favor you and kill more of the people who disagree with you?
I know that death doesn't favor one idea over another unless someone with a gun makes it so. A since I don't plan to pick up a gun to make death favor my ideas, I must recognize that death isn't a good thing and isn't a solution.
When death silences a bad voice, that is a failure, not a triumph.
Other than a technicality regarding a preposition at then end of a phrase, it is a perfectly fine sentence. I can diagram it for you if you'd like.
And this of course is sufficient cause to completely ignore all the rest of my arguments. Assuming it were true. If it is, then your sentence establishes a false dichotomy.
Someone being "gone" isn't a solution. Progression of ideas does not come from sending away the bad people. You are celebrating a failure. You are happy that he won't be around to talk anymore.
Like I said, death isn't going to favor your ideas unless you pick up a gun and make it so. So celebrating death as a solution necessarily means supporting killing bad ideas. You think death beats bad ideas. It doesn't. Better ideas beat bad ideas. If death gets to a bad idea first, the better idea LOSES.
We're all going to die.
Perhaps you would be better able to respond to my arguments after reading them.
Except, Yar- you can't kill an idea. A person spouting hateful, hurtful ideas can die, but those evil, malingering thoughts and ideas are still out there, being passed on to others. That's a legacy. You seem to think that we see some moral victory in this man's passing, and disregard the legacy of hate he has passed on.
Not true. We're merely marking the occasion. The fight to overturn the legacy goes on.
Man that's idealistic.
Sometimes, better ideas don't influence bad ideas, because those bad ideas are so dogmatic, and so insistent that even thinking about whether they might possibly be wrong is a terrible transgression, that they inoculate their adherents against the influence of better ideas.
If someone does more damage every day he's alive, and we're trying the idea angle as hard as we can and it's not working (not resorting to violence because we believe it's wrong), then suddenly he dies and can't do any more damage, what are we supposed to feel?
But what if the person isn't open to reason or debate? I mean, one word that can never be applied to Jerry Falwell is "open-minded."
Frankly, a lot of this argument seems ridiculously idealistic, with Yar actually taking some kind of journey to another dimension where his nonsense makes sense.
Not what he fucking said, Yar. Quit being obtuse and quit trying to put words into peoples mouths.
Discourse is a tool. Like many other tools it can be used to help the problem or make it worse. Falwell used it to make things worse. He did so willingly and at best without reguard for the consequences and at worst in eager anticipation of the consequences of his actions. That he is gone is the only way he could be prevented from doing so and that he did so for the vast majority of his life is, at least to me, ample evidence of that.
There are in fact people in this world who can not be reasoned with. Who can not be convinced they are wrong. It's one of the problems with faith, and I don't mean in purely the religious sense. Faith in an idea is a dangerous thing because it can sometimes blind people. Now when that faith is in a virtuous idea, such as the one you hold that no one is beyond hope, it can be a great thing. However when faith resides in an idea that is fundamentally wrong, such as Falwells views on homosexuals, then it can be a horrible thing. You're not going to convince me that the world is not better off after someone who not only held ideals as foul as Falwells but that dedicated himself to teaching these horrible ideals to others is finally gone.
It is indeed possible to regret that he couldn't be made to see he was wrong while he was alive and be glad that he is dead and thus no longer able to spread his hate at the same time.
And yes it's an idealistic discussion. The reaction to a person's death is not directly tangible in any way, and rooted solely in the realm of ethics, semantics, and idealism. Some people care about these things. If you are participating, we expect that you care, too.
this forum actually sucks ass
What can change the nature of a man?
Sorry. Carry on.
Dude, who has that literacy cat???
Literacy cat!!!!!!!!!
No but seriously, the fact that you find it gross doesn't mean it's wrong. Argument from appeal to emotion = doesn't fucking fly. Not here. Get over yourself or get the fuck out.
Edit: and way off-topic to boot. wtf.
Well, then it looks like your prayers are going to be answered.
Celery- I know forums are a hard way to really get your point across, but I really don't think you got mine at all.
You can't hold a debate with someone who isn't debating. I mean, seriously, once you've outted a Teletubby you are beyond all sense or reason at that point. Unfortunately, when you have your own pulpit, or soapbox, or stage, whatever you have that you can continue to spew hate that is picked up by others, then turned into a tool to hurt or kill someone, then sorry... I refuse to mourn your passing and will celebrate you being gone. I would not actively kill him, and I'm sorry that death was the only way for his rehtoric to stop, but this was a man who was never going to engage in a reasonable debate, and many of his followers are not ones who subscribe to the marketplace of ideas anyway.
That is the point that Shinto, as I understand it, has been trying to make -- that type of thinking is not positive, and should be avoided. Falwell, for all his flaws, is still a human being, and while it's absolutely kosher to disagree with his ideas, it is crossing the line when you wed your dislike of his ideas to his physical person, because to do so completely undermines -- as Shinto said -- reason and debate.
No. As I said earlier in this thread, Jerry Falwell is exactly like me, and like anyone else. He did what he thought was right, whoop-de-shit. What he thought was right hurt other people, so fuck him. Just like if what I do hurts other people, I would completely expect them to be glad for my passing.
Edit: And again, I say his actions are what make him who he is. I don't think they need to be seperated from the fact that he's still a human being. As I said at the beginning of this thread, I don't think being a human being makes you that special to begin with.
The point remains -- your tone in this thread makes it seem like you consider Falwell and his followers to be sub-human and unworthy of the respect that you feel you deserve -- in this instance, even the respect of one's life -- because of the rhetoric Falwell has created. You are basically saying he doesn't deserve to live because of his ideas. This really isn't stretching or strawmanning, it's what is implied in your posts that has been picked up on by a few different posters in this thread. This attitude -- that one's ideas can render them somehow sub-human -- is poisonous to debate.
Dur.. uh... hey Yar...
Well, why don't you please go back and point out where I said he doesn't deserve to live. I honestly don't see how you can so easily make the jump from my not being sorry he's gone to my saying he never deserved to live.
Also, articles about Tinky Winky's homosexuality had been written at least two years prior to Falwell's magazine publishing anything about it.
**saying you're glad his life is extinguished because of it
Fact remains. He was a bigoted son of a bitch. He spat bile and hatred at others, and I'm glad he can't do it anymore.
You can think less of me for that, but I really don't give a fuck.
I operate under the assumption that people are what they repeatedly do.
I also operate under the assumption that respect must be earned, and isn't necessarily a given because of one's biological condition (being born Human).
And, frankly, this whole sub-human argument is for the birds. Falwell was both human and unworthy of respect.
If that were true, we would never remove the rights of convicted murderers by imprisoning them.
Ones ideas (expressed via speech, action, etc. etc.) are EXACTLY the things that can render them unworthy of respect. Our legal system hinges upon this idea, in fact.
Nothing can render people sub-human, but that hardly matters, and is kind of a semantic hand-waving trick anyway. Being rendered sub-human isn't in and of itself the problem, the loss of respect that comes with said change in status is. And sometimes that loss of respect is more than justified.
Yes you do. Don't lie!
Except you ege. You da man.
And yes -- there are many people I don't respect, I still wouldn't celebrate their death.
lol... okay, whatever. I'm with Tach at this point. I'm glad he's gone. I'm not going to dance on his grave, but whatever. Think whatever you want of me.
(oh, and in this I'm just like Falwell now, so, as I said earlier, we are all alike).
It is good to know though that if I ever burn down your home, you won't hate me, just the fact that I burned down your home.
What else do you guys have that defines him as a hateful bigot who spat bile, or whatever else we'recalling him here? More to the point, do the two examples above sentence him to death?
Dude, did you just, like, skip the part where he says "oh no the gays and feminists didn't actually crash the planes, they're just responsible for making the attacks possible, sorry for the confusion."?
If you say you're better than Falwell, you should really act better than Falwell.
No... he wrote an article calling Tinky Winky gay, then once the backlash hit he tried a week later to defend that position, then blamed a staff member for it. Go ahead, see if you can find the original article they were referring to.