I think the Smarts are fucking idiots, but I don’t agree with this.
Of course hindsight is always 20/20
I’m going along with World Eater on this one. While I find a lot of the media coverage to be exploitive and distasteful, and while the Smart’s may be at least partially responsible for it, I see no reason to villify them for trying to do good deeds by hiring homeless people top work at their home. I also don’t like the implication that homeless people cannot be trusted or that they’re all would-be kidnappers. If the Smart’s had a failing it was that they were naive and open-hearted which is no failing at all, IMO.
I would have to say in theory, yeah it’s a good deed to help out homeless people. But invite them into your house? I think if you invite enough drifters into your life you are asking for trouble. Drifters tend to be desperate, and mentally ill. IMO.
So, cc; you think they hired them as babysitters or to do a job of work such as drywall? C’mon, it’s not like you haven’t insinuated criminal activity on the part of other innocents.
I sure wouldn’t parade homeless strangers though my house, and I don’t even have children, or the spoils of the well-to-do on display.
This whole charade just reeks of bad karma. These people were one of the very, very few lucky ones that had a happy ending to a tragic episode. I think they are flapping their wings a bit too hard now, for the almighty dollar.
There’s another name for naive, open-hearted people, they’re call victims.
Weren’t you insinuating earlier that they were more like culprits?
Culprits can’t be victims?
I just think we have to keep an open mind about things and think objectively. I hardly ever say - this is true and that is false - the world is rarely black or white, there are grey areas. I try to consider the motivations behind people’s actions. What are the two biggest motivators in anyone’s life? RELIGION and MONEY. Now that I can say for sure, in big bold lettering.
Also, in an open forum like SDMB, please try to focus your attack on the issues raised by a poster, and not the poster personally. Thank you.
Well, it would be nice, ccwaterback, if you would keep an open mind. Your posting’s in this thread certainly don’t show that you’re doing so.
<erk> Make that: “Your postings in this thread […].”
Please explain how I am not being objective.
I have two post in this thread I would like to erase, but I’m sure that happens to all of us at one time or another. My original post about “people from Utah, enough said”, was inappropriate. I am usually not sarcastic, my apologies. Also I try not to attack people personally, but if someone misquotes me it’s really hard to hold back emotions. I will try harder.
You’re wrong. My cite is the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
When a person is a public figure, by virtue of seeking that status (politician, movie star) or having it thrust upon them (newsworthy crime victim) they don’t have much in the way of legal ammunition. They could certainly sue for falsehoods, but they’d have to prove not only that the statement made was false, but that it was made with knowledge of its falsity and with actual malice. I think the relevant case is New York Times v. Sullivan.
They don’t need to give permission to the producers of a TV movie.
- Rick
That wasn’t just inappropriate, ccwaterback; it was stunningly stupid and close-minded. That was also reinforced with your stunningly stupid comment
Then you dredged this from who knows where:
Thus considering the public as a mindless whole. Open your mind and you might realize that some folks might just want to see that (a) the victims are not castigated & (b) the victims can be strong in their survival.
Then this complete antithesis of brilliance:
The first sentence is an insinuation indicting the church the victim belongs to. The second sentence is, to be blunt, a damn stupid comment on the faith of the Smarts.
Then you immediately followed it with:
Which really doesn’t have a damn thing to do with the “argument” you’d advanced so far.
Next up to the plate was this gem:
So you pretend it’s relevant when it’s not. Then you say the whole case revolves around religion so we must consider her religion when her religion doesn’t have a damn thing to do with her abduction. Then you make the comment about childish name-calling. Heck, you’ve been doing the childish accusation without proof all along! Finally you put the bumper sticker question in, which isn’t really relevant here to your “argument.”
Next is this pearl:
The first paragraph is a complete nonsequiter. The next question is probably answered by: "The thing the Smarts did: try to help those who are less fortunate thean they in the case of the drifters & show some decency and compassion towards the victim in the case of Elizabeth. TDB you haven’t figured that one out yet.
Digging even closer to the barrel bottom you offer this:
Where you again assert the Smarts must get permission from their church before embarking on a particular action & accusing the church of being more hypocritical than the Smarts, thus accusing them of being hypocrites when you have zero proof, “in it” for some money.
As for WWJD?, perhaps he’d tell you to quit tossing his name around tagged onto closeminded asinine comments.
Apparently not satisifed with talking utter crud, you add this to the mix:
Where you
[list][li]Say it’s not your intention to hurt feelings when you’re clearly tossing insults around designed to hurt feelings.[/li][li]Saying you feel sorry for her when you’ve already condemned her religion, so that seems to me you’re kind of putting some of the blame onto her what with her being a member of that religion you condemn.[/li][li]Insinuate AGAIN that it’s the LDS church controlling the Smarts’ actions.[/li][/quote]
Oh, let’s not forget this lovely bit:
Where you condemn ALL religions.
& this inane suggestion to Diane:
That needs no further comment other than what’s already been posted.
Of course you couldn’t let much more time pass without yet again blaming the victim:
At least you identified your stupid assertions about “drifters” as an opinion.
And yet again casting aspersions on the Smarts:
But at least you said you think that’s what’s happening. Of course, you’ve no evidence or support for that, but hey, you have a right to an opinion–no matter how stunningly stupid that opinion may be.
And another insinuation of the Smarts being to blame for the abduction:
There’s also this:
That’s a heck of a lot more than two posts. It proves you’re not objective. It also proves you’re not exactly too bright either.
So, which of these absolutely asinine comments of yours is the other post besides the utterly stupid comment about living in Utah you want to remove?
In addition to hosing the coding on the close list, I left out cc’s comment about logic to Diane. CC, you did insinuate that you don’t hate because you said it’s religions that teach people to hate.
BTW, where exactly were you misquoted?
Thanks Bricker, that was what I thought (although I wasn’t 100 percent positive nor able to provide cites).
It validates my belief that it would be a foolishly stupid and naive thing for the Smart family NOT to be involved in movies about their daughter.
Monty -
Gee, I don’t know where to start.
OK, let’s start with the biggie:
Religions teach people to hate. I’m not religious.
So, what can we conclude from these statements? A person that has no logical capabilities whatsoever could conclude: ONLY religious people hate. Read the two sentences again.
I’m not religious, so I have not been taught to hate. The hate seed in me has not been nurtured. I still have the ability to hate, but I have not been schooled on the finer points of hating. Non-religious people can hate too, I just choose not to.
I don’t think I really have to go any further. If you lack the reading comprehension and deductive reasoning capabilities of the average man on the street, I don’t want to waste too much time trying to explain myself to you.
If I were you, I would base every decision in my life on what Oprah and Catie say, you’ll be much safer that way.
I believe you’ve already reached the bottom of that barrel in which you’re dregging up your inane "arguments,’ ccwaterback. Your presentation above of how sweet & innocent you are in this is ludicrous.
p.s. I already know you have the ability to hate as you’ve proven that sufficiently with your postings in this thread.