I have to wonder…did you read the same decision I did? because I did not see the page where SCOTUS took the European court’s decision as binding or even persuasive. What I saw was a citation of the European decision to put the lie to the holding, in Bowers, that sodomy laws were justified based on the long historical and social history of them. In Bowers SCOTUS said (paraphrasing) “there’s no fundamental right to privacy for homosexuals because, look, sodomy’s been illegal for a long time under common law and statute.” In Garner SCOTUS said (paraphrasing) “Bowers relied on the idea of common law and statute to uphold these laws. Not only was that reliance wrong, but look, other countries with common law traditions, indeed entire other continents, disagree.” SCOTUS did not rely solely on the European decisions and your seeming insistence on saying that it did is bizarre.
Neither am I. Where did I weep for his loss?
I don’t give a shit that the man has died. I don’t care about him, and I probably wouldn’t stop to give him the time of day when he was alive.
Now he’s just worm food, as far as I’m concerned.
And you know, I’ve always been on your side. I was just brought up not to cheer when someone dies. That’s all.
Good god, you’re vile.
Don’t ever, EVER, EVER, use the word “ballsac” in a thread about Strom Thurmond. shudders
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go and scrub out my brain with a wire brush.
Cool! I squicked Guin! 
I don’t feel good about feeling this way. It’s just very hard, when you’re one of the kind of people the man did everything in his power to dehumanize and ostracize and outlaw, to separate the joy that he’s no longer capable of doing so and the fact that he’s dead.
I’m seriously tempted to paraphrase the apocryphal Bette Davis quote on the occasion of Joan Crawford’s passing.
On second thought, I will.
“I was taught to speak only good of the dead. Strom Thurmond is dead. Good!”
Senior citizens are always getting fucked over.
Apologies to the RHPS cast who I stole that from
Dodging the question. Is there a cutoff point ANYWHERE? If there is, it seems your dispute is not a matter of pricinple, but merely a personal judgement of degree.
Man (to woman): Would you have sex with me for $1 million?
Woman: A million dollars?! Yes!
Man: Would you have sex with me for $5?
Woman: Five dollars!! What kind of woman do you think I am?!
Man: We’ve already established that, ma’am. Now we’re just dickering over the price.
Suuuuuuuure. There was no implicit equivelance in that comparison. Riiiiiiiight. **
Six months ago I would have been relieved at Saddam’s death because it would have removed the boot from the neck of millions of innocent Iraqis without the need to sacrifice the lives of US servicemen and servicewomen.
Today I would actually be saddened by his assasination because it would foreclose the possibility of his trial for crimes against humanity.
In neither event would I be doing the Snoopy dance.
The mere existence of an exception does not make a general principle any less valid. The notion that soldiers may kill in wartime does not render “thou shalt not kill” suspect as a moral maxim.
So yes, I’ll happily carve out an exception: those who have suffered at the hands of murderous dictators, who have been on the business end of crimes against humanity, who have seen their friends, their families, their freedoms taken away at the point of a gun – for them, I’ll give a pass. I won’t think any less of them for dancing in jubilation when their tormentors no longer walk the earth.
If you want to suggest you’ve suffered at Thurmond’s hands in the same way that, say, Romanians suffered at the hands of Nicholai Ceausescu, then I think you’re nuts. That kind of oppression isn’t just a matter of degree – it’s of an entirely different character. It takes a decidedly addled worldview to see things otherwise.
Listen, my good man, I know a dead bigot when I see one, and I’m looking at one right now! He’s passed on! This bigot is no more! He has ceased to be! He’s expired and gone to meet his maker! He’s a stiff! Bereft of life, he rests in peace! He’s kicked the bucket, he’s shuffled off his mortal coil, rung down the curtain and joined the Choir Invisibile!!
This is an EX-bigot!
Best. Use. Of. A. Monty. Python. Quote. Evar!
He’s just pining for the hoods.
Bravo, Tuckerfan. ROTFLMAO!
Personally, I’m not the type to dance for joy at anybody’s death. But I’m not going to begrudge anyone their glee at Thurmond’s death.
We all know about the lynchings of innocent black people under Jim Crow. We all know about the murders of civil rights workers, attacks on peaceful protestors with dogs, bombing of churches, etc. etc.
Thurmond took a stand in support of the system that allowed and even championed such brutal racial intolerance. He may not have held the noose himself, but he was a political leader who held himself up as a defender of that system.
In my mind, that is evil. Thurmond’s actions then were evil. If I felt he truly repented for them, I would forgive and forget. But given that he kept defending those actions as right, I see no reason to change my viewpoint.
I will agree that Saddam is more evil than Thurmond. But in my mind, Thurmond was an evil man until the day he died.
Then on what principle is your pass or rejection of anyone’s jubilation at the death of another person based? It’s just sort of: you decide when it’s okay, then?
Do tell us what the decision DID do.
Obviously your acumen exceeds ours.
Shine your light upon us.
You quoted Apos post under MY name. Please pay attention when you’re spewing your hypocrisy. And yes, it’s hypocritical to judge a person for being happy about the death of someone when one is willing to pardon another person for doing the same thing.
You might have had a leg to stand on had you stuck to your principle. Look at Scylla. I respect him much more because he’s at least intellectually consistant. You, on the other hand, lose credibility by the post. You have consistently tried to put words in the mouth of people who wish to test the depth of your moral stance and tried to paint them as drawing parallels between Hussein & Thurmond when it is clear that isn’t what they are doing. Way to shift attention. That’s what a lot of people do when discrepencies in their moral code are pointed out. “But…blah, blah, blah.”
I think that, outside of the narrow exception I outlined above, as a general principle it is both petty and unseemly to dance on someone’s grave. I also think that it is wrong to kill someone, even though I make exceptions for soldiers in wartime, self-defense, and the like. Like I said, I don’t think the mere existence of an exception destroys the validity of a general principle.
Beyond that, I’m not sure what you’re asking. Are you asking me to “prove” that my principle is somehow “correct” in a metaphysical sense? I obviously can’t do that; these aren’t objectively factual questions we’re dealing with.
It was an honest coding error (you’ll note I quoted both you and Apos). My apologies. You needn’t be a dick about it. **
I am willing to pardon soldiers in wartime even as I cling to the principle that killing is wrong. Does that also make me a hypocrite? **
Again, I hardly think I was putting words in anyone’s mouth. I think what Thurmond represents and what Hussein represents are two decidedly different things – not just in degree, but of kind. I continue to think it foolish to suggest, even implicitly, that one is analagous to the other. **
Maybe if your attention span was a little longer, you’d have seen there was an argument in my post rather than a string of “blahs.”
Fair enough on the coding error. Sorry for the rudeness.
My point is that no one has tried to draw any analogy between Thurmond and Hussein. You seem to think some people have. I think the point is: What is the depth of your conviction? Is it respect for the dead, or respect for some dead?