For the record, RickJay, we’d prefer that people not publicly speculate on who a sock puppet ‘really’ is- it’s a no-win situation. Certainly, if you’re incorrectly accusing someone, then it’s a bad thing; and even if you’re correct in your assumptions, it’s not like the puppeteer is suddenly going to admit everything now that one person’s made the connection. Generally, it just isn’t constructive, and we prefer to keep things away from it.
Likewise, Fathomite has been banned; please don’t feel a need to insult him/her further- there’s nothing more to be said.
And finally, for the record, I drive a PT Cruiser, which means I should be worshipped or laughed at, depending upon your point of view.
Maybe because of the obvious parallel behind the fact that both involve tanned/cured skin? The way I see it, the issue was that people were having a hard time understanding why Opal would object to owning a leather-bound book, even if it were old. This lack of understanding seems to stem from the fact that most people don’t have a moral issue with using animal skin and just can’t relate. Pointing out a situation that pretty much everyone can agree is morally reprehensible simply establishes a common ground for the “passage of time doesn’t lessen the atrocity” point that Opal was trying to make.
I really don’t see how this all boils down to mean that Opal literally equates the two. To her, they’re both moral issues…one that people were having difficulty understanding, and one that no one has difficulty understanding. Using the extreme example to illustrate a lesser example in no way implies that they both hold the same gravity. It simply establishes the common language of “moral issues do not go away just because they happened X number of years ago.”
ya know Jadis if you’re trying to ‘help’ Opal’s claim that she merely was drawing lines between something offensive that happened long time ago and it’s still offensive today, and to detract from the whole ‘I’m not claiming that murdering humans is the same as the slaughter of animals’, then probably drawing attention to the link between ‘skin of dead person’ and ‘skin of dead animal’ is probably not your best choice.
and for those defending the analogy, please try and address the secondary issue then "if she didn’t intend offense w/the analogy then why not simply apologize when people obviously took offense, instead of increasing the attack to say that, in essence, ‘not only didn’t I mean that, if you thought I meant it, you’re obviously too dull to be able to understand such deep thoughts as mine’
A true misunderstanding should elicit an apology, not further attack.
OK, I’m not even going to pretend that my last entry was so compelling that it needed to be added 3 times. I will, however, only admit to submitting it twice, not three times. I got one time-out error, so I resubmitted. I have no idea what happened there. ::sigh::
I understand your point, Jadis, and it’s valid, except for the fact that Opalcat indeed owns leatherbound books and has no problem with it because, as she puts it,
That’s why I asked if she had any human skin lampshades as well. She can sputter and spew all she wants to about leather books and the atrocities behind them, but when the value changes in her mind, then she can ignore her own previously stated values. So, it’s all conditional, right?
Wring, though I’m not defending the analogy, I think that Opalcat responded how she did because she got jumped on so fiercely. People get defensive and fight back, whether or not they’re in the right.
I’m simply disgusted by Penthouse’s behavior, honestly. I didn’t see that issue, but I read it fairly often, and they usually have pretty high standards for accuracy, both in their pictures and their articles.
But then, Penthouse has been going downhill since they stopped runnign Ben Stein’s column.
Daniel and mature people, when they’ve been mistaken will say ‘oops, I’m sorry I didn’t mean that the way you’re taking it’ and not ‘I didn’t mean it that way and if you took it that way you’re an idiot’.
SHAYNA, you are one of my favorite posters, so I say this with all due respect –
If OPAL crossed a line in using the analogy she did, I think you crossed another one by bringing that old stuff up. Some things are just better left dead and buried, and no one likes to think that the lowest points of their life will be dug up and thrust back in their face the next time there’s an argument. Please consider asking to have your last post removed, and please accept this suggestion in the spirit of friendship in which it is offered.
JADIS, I owe you an apology. I’m sorry for my asperity in my last post to you. Not as an excuse but only as explanation: I confess my personal pet peeve is being treated (or thinking I’m being treated) as if I just don’t understand something simply because I don’t agree with it – as if, if I were smarter I would agree. I tend to jump a little to quickly if I see (or think I see) that, and I jumped too quickly (and too hard) on you.
I’m sorry, but pointing out an obvious parallel doesn’t negate the point that Opal was trying to make and acknowledging it still doesn’t make the two morally equivalent.
I can’t really say what Opal’s reasons are, but speaking for myself, if I posted something that elicited so many reactionary and seemingly deliberately obtuse reactions resulting in this sort of total dogpile, I wouldn’t apologize either. From where I sit, it seems as if a lot of people are finding it for more entertaining to be outraged over this than to actually try to understand Opal’s point, and that goes back to the OP which dissolved into a semantic argument over what exactly a Vegetarian was rather than discussing the question Opal raised.
Oh, really? I haven’t seen a single person here apologize to Opal for misunderstanding her statement. On the contrary, I see a continued dogpile.
Hey, it happened, it’s in the archives and it’s evidence that we have a very supportive group of posters who care a great deal about each other – not to mention evidence of the kindness shown to her by the very individual OpalCat’s now calling the “biggest jerk” on the boards. If a mod wants to remove it - fine - who am I to stop them. But unless they pull it from the archives, I assume it’s there for people to find/read/reference/link to.
But next time OpalCat wants to fling shit at people on this board, it might behoove her to stop and remember who, and how much, people have supported her.
But as to the OP, it seems that it was a tad insensitive to compare owning an old leather-bound book to owning an old human skin lampshade. Maybe to OpalCat the two scenarios are both unacceptable to her. Maybe it was just a bad analogy.
I think calling people for whom the remark was offensive idiots was a bit much. I’m not sure why Darwin’s Finch made Opal Cat’s iggy list, either.
I do know that vegetarians and vegans who vehemently oppose the slaughter of animals for any human use get, generally, a bad rap. Maybe when topics like this arise and OpalCat perceives she’s being mocked or challenged for her views, especially when she wasn’t asking for a debate, she gets a little, shall we say, passionate.
Of course this is all speculation on my part. I don’t know OpalCat personally and rarely interact with her on these boards. There does seem to be a bit of bad blood between OpalCat and Coldfire and, no matter how much they’d like it not to, it’s going to manifest itself in replies to posts.
And now for the obligatory self-deprecating remark: You may now go back to debating the finer points of mod bashing vs. home decorating with human skin because I already know no one likes me.
S’ok…what isn’t readily apparent as I’m re-reading my own posts is that even though I was replying to points you were bringing up, I was directing my “you” comments to the general audience reading the thread and not you specifically. My fault for not being more clear. I don’t think that the vast majority of people on the SDMB are stupid by any stretch of the imagination, but on this particular topic, there seems to be an overkill of reactionary “OMG, how could you even say such a thing” emotional response rather than a critical assessment of the point Opal was attempting to make.
You’re no more “stupid” for disagreeing with me than I am for disagreeing with you. I’m just trying to present how I see things as succinctly as I can, hoping that at least someone out there will take a few deep breaths and say “OK, I can see that…this isn’t the big hoorah people are making of it after all.” I can dream, right?
