No. I’m not. If you give a shit, reread the post where I explained why she’s getting on my nerves. But honestly, why do you give a shit?
I didn’t know about this Eat the Whales “campaign”. PETA is off my radar but this stupid stunt pisses me off. Not out of concern for marine life, which I have anyway. Whether those attention whores mean it seriously or not, I don’t give a fuck, this kind of reasoning is exactly one of the things I oppose. From the beginning I have been saying this death-meat equation was black and white thinking at its worst.
If you’re seeing it as a death-meat equation, you’re seeing something I’m not talking about. I’m talking about a death=death equation, treating the deliberately-caused death of the animal as the major ethical issue regarding whether it’s okay to kill the animal or not.
The campaign is 1 whale = 1000 pigs = x pounds of meat. 1 death is (air quotes) better than 1000 deaths. So eat whale (yuck yuck yuck). That’s what I’m seeing.
That’s what I’m seeing from PETA, you’re free to correct me on your point of course.
I’m missing your point. In what way is death not a major ethical issue?
Didn’t read the whole thread but if Ricky Gervais pointed out someone as part of his act who was already a public figure of some sort, appearing on television, I don’t see that as a problem. If it was just some hunter on facebook then yeah, that’s messed up.
In the case of the former, I would place the blame not on the comedian but the people ganging up on the person who shot and posed with the dead giraffe. Just because some comedian mocks or questions someone doesn’t mean you have to jump on the bandwagon hound the people.
I’ve now read the post several times. Not only have I read that post, I went back through the thread to see if I could see the offense in context. I couldn’t find it.
Your explanation was that she made a statement and you responded:
which really does sum up what happened. Responding in Pit fashion means to be insulting since that’s the nature of the Pit. So basically you’re saying that you ignored a point camille made that you thought was dumb and made an insult instead.
When camille accuses you of being insulting, you then say she (or he, sorry I don’t know the gender) is being passive-aggressive and condescending.
That could be seen as side-stepping the issues in favor of insulting the poster. Since that’s not generally my experience of your posts, I found it baffling.
I jumped out of the woodwork when I read this:
Your dislike of camille may be explicable and warranted to some people, but it isn’t to me.
I’m mindful that I may be missing some history. I obviously don’t know the poster. But from just this thread, I’m not seeing it.
I also jumped out of the woodwork to post because I mostly agree with camille’s position, although I’m not as versed with it. She’s done all of the heavy lifting already. I don’t want to reiterate anything, but I am interested in what the other side is espousing so vehemently. At this point, the rebuttal seems reduced to insults. I was hoping to see more substantive discussion since the points are already raised.
I do have to also note that I find it odd that people are so emotional and hostile when they’re arguing that other people should be less emotional and more rational on an issue related to the death of a living being.
Sigh. No. I called her point dumb because it was, and because it’s the pit and you’re allowed ot say such things, just like Pedro ahs called me a doofus. THat was fine. I had no problem with that exchange. If you don’t see her response as condescending and passive aggressive, I’m not going to spend more of my time convincing you otherwise.
A few final points re: your explanation:
You edited out the entire body of my posts you used as examples, to make it seem like I only replied with those brief remarks. Kind of misleading out of context. Your explanation also doesn’t account for your earlier insults and hostility towards me before this particular post of mine supposedly “got up your nose”.
You admitted you were ignoring my point, thought my point was dumb, and irrelevant, and my posting style gets on your nerves. Plus, the original post wasn’t even addressed to you. So why did you reply in the first place? What reason is left for me to assume but that you wanted to keep insulting me. My remarks directly addressed that. You’re reading way too much into it to see it as more than that.
You should consider that when you don’t like someone, it colors your perception; I don’t think you can see anything I write as positive, warranted, or even neutral. But your personal opinion is not a universal truth.
This is a sticking point for me: You accused me of “dishonestly” paraphrasing your post when I described to Miller what prompted me to post about hypocrisy/empathy.** I asked you twice to retract this error. This is not debatable. *It is physically impossible that your post prompted mine - you posted it two hours after my post. *Look at the time stamps of both posts. In fact, your post was a response to mine. Unless you are saying I read your post, and then went back in time to submit my post, there is no way you are not mistaken. **
But instead of easily checking it and retracting your claim when I mentioned it a second time, you replied:
If you truly can’t see how you’re mistaken, even about something this unequivocal, and you’re not lying, then your judgment is seriously impaired. It’s coming across like you need me to seem horrible in every way, in order to justify your negative reaction to my posting style.
If you don’t want me to “psychoanalyze” it, stop making it my problem. You’re not obligated to respond to every post you don’t agree with, or think is “dumb”.
n/m double post