• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Gee...classy

Egg said:
not mourning = celebrating?
Click to expand...

that depends how one choses to avoid mourning. ;)

The point is that there is a distinction between being glad that someone is dead and calling for their death.
 
brodski said:
that depends how one choses to avoid mourning. ;)

The point is that there is a distinction between being glad that someone is dead and calling for their death.
Click to expand...

Surely, if you're is glad that someone is dead, you must have wanted them to die? As far as I see it, the distinction is only in how vocal you are about it.
 
I would not be sad if W died, and took Cheney with him (*emphasis on the "and", I don't want dick running the country for the next few months).

That does not mean I WANT either of them to die...

Subtle difference, but there is certainly a difference...
 
Yeah, 'godless athiest' is more than redundant. It's like saying 'you deity fearing Christians.'
 
Egg said:
Surely, if you're is glad that someone is dead, you must have wanted them to die? As far as I see it, the distinction is only in how vocal you are about it.
Click to expand...

you do not see a distinction between being glad that someone is dead and calling for their death? You cannot see how someone can find a situation to either their personal benefit or to their personal liking without asking for that situation to be realised or working towards that realisation?

The fact is that everybody dies, some people do some god awful things when they are alive, and the fact that they are no longer doing those god awful things can be a reason to be cheerful. That is a damned sight different from calling for the deaths of those people.
 
brodski said:
you do not see a distinction between being glad that someone is dead and calling for their death? You cannot see how someone can find a situation to either their personal benefit or to their personal liking without asking for that situation to be realised or working towards that realisation?

The fact is that everybody dies, some people do some god awful things when they are alive, and the fact that they are no longer doing those god awful things can be a reason to be cheerful. That is a damned sight different from calling for the deaths of those people.
Click to expand...

But how is it different from hoping for the deaths of those people?
 
Rodibidably said:
I would not be sad if W died, and took Cheney with him (*emphasis on the "and", I don't want dick running the country for the next few months).

That does not mean I WANT either of them to die...

Subtle difference, but there is certainly a difference...
Click to expand...
I've made this argument in the past. I'm not so sure anymore. I think the notion that there is a "subtle" difference is a conclusion we come to in an attempt to resolve moral dissonance. They feel differently but are they? You don't have a problem with someone not existing you just don't wish for that non-existence. Meh~
 
Egg said:
Surely, if you're is glad that someone is dead, you must have wanted them to die? As far as I see it, the distinction is only in how vocal you are about it.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. You choose to frame it that way to suit your needs.

My preference would have been for Falwell to repent.
 
skeptigirl said:
Nonsense. You choose to frame it that way to suit your needs.

My preference would have been for Falwell to repent.
Click to expand...

If that's your preference then wouldn't you sad that he died because now he can't repent?
 
skeptigirl said:
Tell me Egg, how's your tolerance of child rapists? Where do you draw the line?
Click to expand...
You're comparing someone exercising freedom of speech with some causing physical harm? That's not a terribly difficult line to draw. Personally, I'd still prefer to see such a person locked up than dead.
 
Egg said:
If that's your preference then wouldn't you sad that he died because now he can't repent?
Click to expand...
One deals with the course of events as they come. If he were alive, I would wish for him to recognize the error of his ways. I don't have to wish harm on him. Once he is dead, I can readjust my view and be glad he is no longer spewing hate.
 
Egg said:
You're comparing someone exercising freedom of speech with some causing physical harm? That's not a terribly difficult line to draw. Personally, I'd still prefer to see such a person locked up than dead.
Click to expand...
You seem to have no idea of the extent of the harm Falwell and his Moral Majority movement imposed upon our society. It's like saying Hitler wasn't the bad guy, his minions were.
 
I can understand certain situations where you can be glad someone is dead. Perhaps a loved one suffering great pain with a terminal illness or a soldier on a mission being glad a sniper is dead and therefore not threatening his life. Perhaps in the case of someone preaching messages of hate there is a difference between wanting them dead and being glad they're dead, but there's also a difference between being glad someone is dead and celebrating their death, which is the word that I reacted to - particularly over an accusation of intolerance.

Anyway, David's Wong's first point has been pretty successfully debunked. It's not something we all agree on.
 
greymatters said:
(I do like the specific reference to "godless" atheists. This is supposed to . . . what? Distinguish them from some other kind of atheists?)
Click to expand...


"Godless" is an insult where Goddy types come from and, as such, it is just thrown in gratuitously for the mental comfort of the Goddy.

The Goddies actually control much of the discourse by being able to define the context in religious terms in the first place - take the very word "atheist" as an example.

A far more sensible approach is to redefine some of this vocabulary.

For example, if "Godless" is taken to mean "not a Goddy", it would be far more sensible to use the term "Goddiless".

Alternatively, if the intended meaning is "not encumbered by an imaginary relationship to a God", how about "God-Free".

Yours, etc.

The Goddiless and God-Free Henners.
 
"even from you godless athiests"
Click to expand...

Technical point of order, please.

We're all godless, whether you acknowledge it or not.
 
By the way, is it allowed for me to pray to God that God take someone up into Heaven?

I could do a counter-prayer, and whatever happens, happens. I mean, it's still God's fault the guy continued to suffer horribly for months, then died, right? And not because that's what I prayed, to God, to happen, right?


Alternatively, I could simply not pray at all, and if the bad thing happens anyway, it's still God's fault, and not mine because I didn't pray, right? Right?
 
It's like all my friends are with me on the beach, looking out at the ocean. Half of them look at the water and say:
"This is Oceanis, the living Blue God! He is sacred!"
While the other half say,
"Here is a convenient place to dump our sewage."
The truth has to be somewhere in between.
Right?
Click to expand...

Cuddles said:
No, wrong. Horribly, horribly wrong. Just because you have two possibilities does not mean they are both equally likely or that the truth is somewhere in between. A lot of the time it simply means one of the possibilities is just plain wrong.
Click to expand...


I think that in context, the truth does have to be in between for that particular example. I don't think he was making a general assertion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom