I wasn’t gloating that “someone” had brain cancer, I was gloating that a serial killer had brain cancer. What’s wrong with that? Seriously, why is it wrong to be glad that a serial killer has brain cancer?
You were gloating that she had brain cancer in front of your children. I’m trying to picture how that might go down:
“Sweetie, come here a sec. See this woman? She’s a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad, evil, evil, EVIL person. She has brain cancer. Isn’t that terrific? She’s likely to die a painful and confusing death if the state doesn’t kill her first. Now, I want you to really listen to Daddy here. This is a good thing. We celebrate when this happens to these people.”
You’re free to raise your kids however you like, of course.
Shodan
July 30, 2008, 1:40pm
142
I wasn’t gloating that “someone” had brain cancer, I was gloating that a serial killer had brain cancer. What’s wrong with that? Seriously, why is it wrong to be glad that a serial killer has brain cancer?
I’m sure there’s some difference between this, and what Phelps thinks, but I’m darned if I can see what it is.
Regards,
Phelps thinks that god hates gay people, Shodan . If you can’t actually see the difference, then I have to wonder how you aren’t being fed through a tube.
Shodan
July 30, 2008, 2:24pm
144
I honestly don’t believe you don’t see my point. If I am wrong and you really don’t, then explanations will do no good.
Regards,
I do see your point, but you have to file away a lot more than Fred Phelps’ serial numbers to make his feelings and Dio’s honestly comparable. It is probably possible to make a brute force comparison between anyone at his worst and Phelps. It does not make it illuminating or correct.
I just took the cheap shot because, I suppose, I am a hypocrite.
It doesn’t surprise me that you can’t see a difference between gay people and serial killers.
You were gloating that she had brain cancer in front of your children. I’m trying to picture how that might go down:
“Sweetie, come here a sec. See this woman? She’s a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad, evil, evil, EVIL person. She has brain cancer. Isn’t that terrific? She’s likely to die a painful and confusing death if the state doesn’t kill her first. Now, I want you to really listen to Daddy here. This is a good thing. We celebrate when this happens to these people.”
You’re free to raise your kids however you like, of course.
It wasn’t like that. I was watching some news show. They said Atkins wanted to get out. I said no way. They said she had brain cancer. I said “good.”
My kids have no idea who Susan Atkins is or even who Charles Manson is. All they heard is me say “good” to a news story.
Shodan
July 30, 2008, 3:26pm
148
I see a difference between gay people and serial killers. I see no difference between your attitude toward those you hate, and Phelps’.
Regards,
Yep. I hate serial killers. I’m just a hater.
Aren’t you for the death penalty, by the way? You actually want to kill them, don’t you?
Scylla:
No no no no. NO.
What I said you both have in common is the willingness to decide who “deserves it.” You have that in common.
What you don’t have in common (I think) is that she had the courage of her convictions and you don’t. Which, I guess, is a good thing for society, but reflects poorly on your character.
Yeah, Diogenes, the fact that you don’t kill people is a huge black mark against your character. Every time you refrain from killing someone, baby Jesus cries.
(there aren’t enough :rolleyes: )
Wow, and I didn’t think it was humanly possible for me to think any less of you than I did a couple minutes ago…
Oh well, live and learn.
Riiiggghhht. The thread has jumped the shark.
Yeah, but anybody who leaves can be accused of “running away”, so nobody wants to back down and it’ll go for eight pages, at least.
Scylla:
What you don’t have in common (I think) is that she had the courage of her convictions and you don’t. Which, I guess, is a good thing for society, but reflects poorly on your character.
Wait, are you saying what I think you’re saying, that Susan Atkins is to be admired for following through on her convictions and committing totally preplanned brutal murder?
Some convictions/inclinations are just wrong, and people are to be complimented for not implementing them.
Hey, don’t bump the thread after I predicted it would go on and on. It gave me irony cred.
Hang in there, Bryan. Just four more pages to go.
Orbifold:
Pardon the long post, it could no doubt benefit from editing, but this thought has been simmering in my head since last night and I wanted to put it into words before I went to work. Scylla’s more recent post provides perspective:
Hypocrisy is a term that has been defined down in modern usage. Not everyone is a hypocrite. To simply err is not hypocrisy. Holding a belief but failing to uphold that belief, due to momentary weakness or whatever reason, is not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is better defined as espousing a belief that you do not actually hold, i.e. pretending to adhere to a standard you do not adhere to, the better to demand adherence from others.
For example, let’s talk about that big ol’ bugaboo, civility. Suppose someone spends a considerable amount of time being rude to others, generally being a dick, and then turns around and begins sanctimoniously telling others how to behave and begins admonishing others for their rudeness. What are the possible reasons for this change of behaviour? There are at least two:
The person has had a genuine change of heart, i.e. has emerged from a period of weakness. Not hypocrisy.
The person has changed methods but not intent. In place of rudeness, the person has simply substituted a club with the word “civility” printed on the side, and is trying to metaphorically beat people over the head with it. That is hypocrisy: demanding that other people adhere to a standard of behaviour not out of belief in the behaviour but simply as a means to selfish ends.
This raises the question: how are we to judge which of the above motives is correct? Some evidence of contrition or remorse regarding past behaviour would push us towards the first explanation, but in the absense of such evidence we would be forced to make a judgement based on our experience with the person’s character. If we truly judge that the person has not fundamentally changed, then that would push us towards the second explanation.
And that is where the accusations of hypocrisy have their place. Not everyone is a hypocrite: the word has a specific meaning, which is more than “I was wrong once but I’m not now.” One can be wrong, one can recognize wrongness in oneself, and one can correct that without exhibiting hypocrisy. Telling people how to behave, without answering the questions “Why should I ascribe moral authority to you in this? Why should I believe in your sincerity, given your actions?”…well, there hypocrisy may lie and it may not. But if hypocrisy lies there, it should be called out.
That's very good and I thank you for taking the time to write it. Sorry to have such a delayed response but the boots required several scrapings en route.
Marley23:
That’s not the same as what you said in your OP. Or are you okay with the prohibition if they choose not to stop?
Exactly. And I’d rather we don’t try.
Yes it is; Life. And when you’ve had the experience of a loved one with the illness or misfortune you are mocking or having a giggle at now, you will be less likely to feel the same way about it in future. Unless you are a particularly warped individual. Hey, I’m not saying I’ve never done it myself, but I’m big enough to admit it is fucking childish!