Wow, so now you’re accusing people of knowing the political affiliation of the shooter and defending him based on that?
How much lower can you go?
:shrug: OK.
At least you agree he was a person and not a beast.
I’m not sure I presented, or need to support, “my view of the events,” but ok. You’re more than welcome to consider me hypocritical.
Just did, remember?
Relevance please?
No so low as to be offended that one might call a murderer a bad name.
That’s a massive straw man.
You’re playing alot of games today. That stuff doesn’t work on me.
In the past, without being prompted? If so please cite.
I’m testing your sincerity.
Aw, you say the sweetest things.
Again, I am not offended by anyone’s use of language. Nor am I offended at calling Pierson “bad names.” And I absolutely agree with you when you say
I just find the use of the term “monster” to describe him to be entirely wrong-headed and reactionary.
The “search” button is right on your screen. Knock yourself out.
(Spoiler: I have never said anything here about Mr. Zimmerman, positive or negative, prior to today. But have fun searching.)
Yes, calling criminals “monsters” is a cop-out. It makes them less responsible for their crimes - monsters don’t have self-control or know right from wrong, after all - and makes us less able to understand how they were able to commit their crimes so we can prevent them. Let alone how to respond when they do.
You don’t need to support anything you say. But don’t be surprised when it carries little to no weight.
Done and done. Glad we could resolve that.
I thought not.
Honestly, I’m not sure what I’m supposed to be supporting. My assertion that Pierson is not a monster? My belief that he was not acting in a rational manner? My belief that his actions alone are sufficient evidence to call him “damaged?”
The first should be evident. The latter two are my opinions. You disagree, that’s cool.
Horseapples. You were hoping I’d condemned Zimmerman. Without that, you’re waving around the fact that I didn’t race to “defend” him as evidence for…what? My librul hypocrisy?
I’ll let you in on a little secret, just between us girls: I wasn’t posting here during the Zimmerman arrest, trial, or subsequent brouhaha.
If you have no problem not offering any kind of support or rationale for your opinion, that’s fine too. I will now know how much weight and credence to give your opinion.
I just get a bit tired of the old "this person did something bad, so he must be “terribly damaged” or is still a “child” canard that gets trotted out when bad things happen. It’s simplistic thinking and has little to no basis in a world where rational people do evil things all the time.
(underline and bold added for clarity)
That’s not the case. It sounds like your perception is a personal misconception. If you believe that there is nothing “fixable” about the person, so be it, but it’s your perception.
I understand that. “Only A Lad” is still a hell of a song. Obviously I’ve not made it clear that I do not excuse or condone Pierson’s actions in any way. So, to be clear: I do not excuse or condone Pierson’s actions in any way.
But…I’m not sure how “a human being who did monstrous things” is more simplistic than “evil.”
I agree. But it’s equally simplistic to say “this guy is an evil monster! He knew what he was doing, he knew right from wrong, he wasn’t crazy!”
The correct answer is that we don’t know until we learn more about him.
And that would be… ?
I’m sure you know who you are referring to but I didn’t and still don’t. Please try again.
Andros, in Post 80, the one I responded to.
But that’s not the only thing you said. You concluded that, by doing a monstrous thing, he must have been “terribly damaged” and a “child”. That’s what is simplistic, not concluding that he was a human being, which was kinda a given.