I’m just gonna quietly second what DanielWithrow had to say. He’s succinctly explained this catfight.
I am not one for dogpiles, but I have to say I think opening this thread was an invitation to one, so I will also weigh in:
OPAL, it may well be that in your ethical universe, murdering a human (or millions of humans) and then failing to treat their remains with respect – indeed, treating those remains in a way that is an absolute abomination to most people – is in fact analogous to killing an animal and using the animal’s various parts in ways that are of use to people.
But unless you are truly without a single clue in your head, you surely recognize that your ethical universe is NOT the one most people inhabit.
When you use an “analogy” you are by definition saying that one thing is “like” the other. When asking if a person who is or is not offended by Situation A would/would not be offended by Situation B, you are further saying the situations are analogous in type or degree. Now, that may not be what you meant to do, but I hope you can step back far enough to read the posts in this thread and the other one and realize that this is, in fact what you did. So for you to then say that everyone objecting to your analogy is “clueless” and “doesn’t get it” is delusional – they get it, all right. That’s the problem.
I have never had a problem with you; I think you’re a valuable poster. But IMO you were way out of line, and while I would not join in calling you a fucking idiot, I do think your comment showed a lack of thought or tact clearly in the realm of idiocy, “fucking” or not. I found it surpassingly offensive – probably one of the most offensive things I’ve ever read on this Board (which is saying a lot), though I do you the courtesy of assuming the offense was unintended. But the comment was in breathtaking bad taste (to say the least), and IMO you should withdraw it.
In short, I can’t say COLDIE was out of line to react as he did, and I hope you can set aside your anger or your understandable defensiveness long enough to step back and rationally consider what you said.
Well, that’s one less supportive, Godwin-esque email we need to worry about.
Yes, you’d just hate to have a BBQ pit.
Opal knows damn well what she’s doing. And she’s the one that started this thread, in order to have a go at Coldfire. And it ain’t the first time, neither.
Opal flies off the handle so fast you’d need an atomic clock to measure it.
pan
Damn, Jodi, snuck that one in on me! (mine was with regards to the Fathomite)
Adios! Thanks for stopping by! [stewardess voice]Bye, now. Buh-bye. Buh-bye now. Bye-bye. Buh-bye.[/stewardess voice]
Oh no! The fathom army is on their way.
Yup. A good old fashioned board war. That’s exactly what we need.
pan
You’ve all missed the point. Opal just opened this thread to find more people to put on her “ignore” list. We’re all DOOMED!
Sweetie darling, with your grand total of two posts – and what sparkling additions they’ve been! – you would hardly know what Coldfire is. Or isn’t. He and your Queen (and kudos for racing to her defense – so touchingly chivalous) do not like each other. But he is in fact one of the best respected posters around here – rational, funny, usually easy-going, and even-handed as a moderator. So the asshat’s still moderating because he is precisely the sort of asshat that the Powers That Be want doing the job.
Anyhoo, weren’t you leaving? You did promise. And we can’t miss you if you don’t go away, you know.
Am I the only person on the boards who didn’t find OpalCat’s analogy offensive, or am I just the only person who’s not afraid to admit it in the midst of this ridiculous free-for-all?
Did anyone actually even read Opal’s clarification, or did you all just decide that she was evil incarnate and decide to toss your $0.02 into the ring?
For those of you who couldn’t read through the red haze that dropped over your eyes at the mere mention of the Holocaust, here’s what she was trying to get at:
Point A: Opal is morally opposed to using animal products for food and clothing.
Point B: Just because a lengthy span of time has passed since the (in Opal’s opinion) morally questionable act took place does not negate the fact that it still took place.
Point C: Following from Point B, we can see that Opal does not feel that just because a leather-bound book is old and the morally-questionable (in her opinion) act took places many years ago, that she still has any right to purchase/own it, because it is still at odds with her views on the use of animal products.
Point D: As an illustration of why the passage of time does not negate the moral issue behind an act, she points out that just because the Holocaust happened 60 years ago, a reasonable person would still not want to own a lampshade made of human skin.
There is no point in the sequence of logic above where Opal compares Holocaust victims to cattle. Not once. Never. All comparisons are in the minds of those spouting every reactionary bit of nonsense I’ve seen in this thread.
Yeesh.
- Your analagy was shokingly ignorant and out of line.
- Starting this thread was foolish to say the least.
- Fuck off, Opal!
Haj
AFAIK, Fathom is patronized by rational people who generally use the brains God gave them. Frankly, I seriously doubt they’ll be charging over here en masse to defend Opal in this case. Because it’s not a very defensible thing to have said, is it?
“Now I’m sure a bunch of other brainless followers will come on to post the same thing 20 million times like that makees a difference.”
Of which this person was apparently the first.
More importantly:
When will Sampras’ 26 tournaments without a title come to an end?
And let me express some outrage too:
Those pictures WEREN’T Anna Kournikova? Bastards.
Jadis,
The point is, the first thing that popped into her head to compare leather bound books to is fucking HUMAN SKIN LAMPSHADES??? This also indicates to me that if she were to see a leather bound book in my home I would actually be on the same level as someone who slaughtered human beings out of fanatical hatred.
Compare them to old fur coats
Compare them to stuffed birds on your grandpa’s wall
Compare them to ANYTHING even remotely close in terms of disgustingness and people would have gotten her point, regardless of how stupid she thinks we all are.
People have slaughtered and used animals for food, shelter, weaponry and clothing for EONS. I don’t think it’s even in the same LEAGUE as the holocaust, something that ANY half way rational human being would be opposed to.
j
You really should get out more.
However, I’m curious to know how you can say that about a board whose members take each other in when we’re homeless, send money when in need, bestow baby gifts on people we’ve never met, etc.
Oh! Silly me! I assumed you actually read these boards before making a judgment about them. My fault.
I pretty much thought Coldfire had an unasailable posting and moderating reputation.
Then I learned he had Peugot, and now I don’t know what to believe anymore.
I guess that goes to show you can never be too sure of anybody.
JADIS –
Dunno. Ask around.
Yes, we read it. Did you actually read any of the responses, or did you just decide none of us read it and decide to toss your $0.20 into the ring?
And thereby she implicitly compares a leather-bound book to a lamp-shade made of human skin. Sorry if this escaped you in its blinding obviousness, but there it is. I’m fully willing to grant she did not mean to make such a comparison, but it is IMO beyond argument that she did.
No, she by analogy asserts (unintentionally, I assume) that the act of using leather to cover books is morally equivalent to using human skin to cover lampshades. That’s the problem.
I will not assume you are a moron to have missed it; kindly do not assume I ma a moron to have seen it.
He has a Peugot? Well, my comments are also retracted then.
[sub]ick[/sub]