At least you’re honest enough to say so, and kindhearted enough not to wish death or pain on those you hate.
Otto’s claiming that he doesn’t hate Knight. He’s just glad he’s dead. That’s intellectually dishonest.
Ah. So any time someone wishes that someone else is punished for doing bad things, that means the someone hates the someone else.
Well, sorry to burst your little bubble but that ain’t how it works for me.
But if it brings you some measure of comfort in your life to falsely believe that I hate Pete Knight, who am I to deny you?
I see you’re not answering my response, Otto.
If you don’t hate Pete Knight, what was the motivation behing the rejoycing in his death? What was the motivation in creating this thread at all?
If you wanted to share the news of his death or debate Knight’s views, you could have chosen to post this thread elsewhere. Instead, you’re pitting a dead man.
I don’t want to play gotcha games here. But I do think you’re being a bit disingenuous.
Deny an entire segment of the population equal rights by enacting state-wide legislation?
Esprix
Doesn’t meet the standards of active harm, in my eyes, since it was in essence a preservation of the status quo.
Doesn’t mean I necessarily support it. But let’s keep “active harm” in perspective here. Pete Knight took no rights away from gay people. He was just resisting the expansion of the marital franchise to include them.
And George Wallace took no rights away from gay people. He was just resisiting the expansion of the voting franchise to include them. Was that not active harm?
Dang, thsat should read, “And George Wallace took no rights away from black people. He was just resisting the expansion of the voting franchise to include them. Was that not active harm?”
Speaking of George Wallace—didn’t he redeem himself and turn a completely new leaf? Wasn’t it better that way? (I know you’d agree with this.)
So, getting back to the original message of the OP, isn’t it a sad thing that this man died before he could do what George Wallce did? I find that sad. I am not sad that he can’t keep doing harmful things ('cause he’s dead and all), but I find it very sad the he died in the state that he did—without trying to redeem himself a la Wallace. So, for that reason, his death is sad indeed and certainly nothing to be rejoiced.
No, it wasn’t, gobear. At least not in my opinion.
Distinctions need to be drawn. A Southern politician who resisted integration wasn’t doing active harm. Passive harm, surely, and that can be a greater sin in many circumstances.
A Southern sheriff who was cracking heads without cause was doing active harm.
Because it wasn’t active harm, and because George Wallace was no Bull Connor, he was able to repent later in his life, and do some real good in bringing the races together.
Not exactly. More like “any time someone wishes that someone else suffers a painful death and then burns in hell means the someone hates the someone else”.
And is being dishonest if he denies it.
It is being, in other words, the exact moral equivalent of Fred Phelps. There is really no difference at all. And most people understand that, and feel the same distaste towards the behavior.
Both Phelps and his corresponding opposites have found the dark addiction of hate. They have found a group who it is OK to hate, and all the repressed venoms of the hater’s life come spewing out like vomit.
And, like vomiting, it is a sign that there is something wrong inside. And it is not very pleasant to watch.
Regards,
Shodan
Actually, I was in the thick of civil rights demonstrations, including participating in a fairly publicized sit-in in the colored section of a local restaurant. But that was a pretty dumb question anyway, seeing as how Indians still don’t have civil rights.
Then by all means, get them, including burning down the BIA.
The word “good” is “rejoycing [sic]”? In what universe?
Please copy and paste from any post I have ever made to this board the exact words by which I “wishe[d]…a painful death” on Knight or anyone else. Saying “good” to the news of his death isn’t wishing for his death. If you’re going to lamely attempt to pillory me, please do so using what was actually said. As opposed to, you know, lying some more.
The two of you are inventing emotional states for me and attributing them to me falsely, then blasting me for holding emotional states that you made up. That is the intellectual dishonesty in this thread.
As far as the concept of “active harm” is concerned, the idea that simply maintaining the status quo is not engaging in active harm is also intellectually dishonest. When one has the power to change the status quo to benefit people and chooses not to exercise that power, then one is complicit to a degree in that harm. But Knight didn’t simply fail to act to prevent harm. Knight, in the face of no threat of a change to marriage in California, wrote and spearheaded the campaign to pass Prop 22. Knight, in the face of no threat of a change to marriage in California, sued to attempt to block implementation of California’s domestic partnership law. And he lied in his motivation for doing it. If he were truly concerned only with reserving “marriage” to male-female couples, then why try to block a non-marital DP law? It didn’t confer marital status on anyone; it conferred upon couples under certain strictly prescribed circumstances a handful of the rights, protections and responsibilities that had previously been contingent upon marital status. In opposing it, Knight sought to actively harm people. These were things he did, not things that were done in his name or things he sat back and allowed to happen. Claiming that he was not seeking to actively harm people is bullshit.
Blacks sitting in the back of the bus was the status quo, too. Was that harmful or not?
Esprix
No, thanks. Timothy McVeigh tactics aren’t our style. The rumor that we all are savages is not true.
Sweetie, that “we” includes me. Half Choctaw, remember? The difference is that you are culturally and personally identified with that heritage, and I’m not. My dad’s folks wanted nothing to do with my mother and us kids after my father died, so that part of me is just. . . blank.
Then may I assume that you’re taking back, “I take it you guys would have opposed civil rights for blacks because that was an affront to the status quo?”?
A. I was addressing Mr. Moto, not you. Go back and look.
B. I was talking about the white establishment that was responsible for segregation. Do you honestly think I was talking to you or about Indians? Even if that had been addressed to you, WTF makes you think that Indians were responsible for maintaining the white power hegemony of the 1950s?
Dude, think before you post.
Physician, heal thyself.
Maybe you should think before you weasel.
You guys=white people.
Don’t call me a weasel, asshole.