Jump to content
N-Europe

Recommended Posts

Posted
I don't buy into the whole "if we celebrate his death we are as bad as him" thing. I look at it very plainIy in that he was a vile cunt and I'm glad he is dead and I hope he suffered.

 

Yup. I don't think it'd be 'stooping to his level' to have people picket his funeral like people are saying. I would call that sweet irony.

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

I don't know, in my mind people like him only really serve as a very visible lightning rod for batshit opinions that reasonable people can look at as a foil against which to judge how they shouldn't be.

Posted
I wouldn't even do it for revenge, I'd just do it for experience purposes. It wouldn't necessarily be something that would be fueled with hatred, even if I do dislike them strongly.

 

Whilst I do agree that they may be too far gone in their own world, if it changes one person's mind to realise the damage they have caused, then, in my eyes, it's a success. This has happened before with someone who used to be a member of their religion so it's not impossible nor is it too late to change their minds.

 

Normally, I would be the one to agree with you and to say to turn the other cheek but there are some occasions where people need to make a point and, in my eyes, this is one of them moments. As I said, not purely out of hate but more for educational purposes to open their eyes. Even if it is one member of that church who realise the damage they've caused, that's one less evil person and one less evil, ignorant mind and that would be the success and the point in doing so.

 

They're hoping to 'convert' people to their religion and 'open their eyes' to their world by doing that to good people's funerals, why can't we do the same for the sake of their mind and sanity? That evil man has corrupted them, maybe it takes giving them the same treatment to snap them out of it...

 

Metaphorical blunt force just isn't the way to enlightenment; at the very least people need to be open to reason before they're able to understand a statement such as that, and I don't think ayone with the ability to reason would still be in the WBC.

Posted
Metaphorical blunt force just isn't the way to enlightenment; at the very least people need to be open to reason before they're able to understand a statement such as that, and I don't think ayone with the ability to reason would still be in the WBC.

 

True but it's happened before where a member of the church (IIRC, it was Phelps' daughter) decided to go against Westboro and quit because she saw them for who they were. As I said before, if it can happen with her, I have faith that it can happen to anyone in there, even if it is just one person. It'd be one less person to deal with. Obviously there's more evil in the world and people who are a lot worse than Westboro but do you not think that one less person to deal with is less hassle?

Posted
Metaphorical blunt force just isn't the way to enlightenment; at the very least people need to be open to reason before they're able to understand a statement such as that, and I don't think ayone with the ability to reason would still be in the WBC.

 

True but it's happened before where a member of the church (IIRC, it was Phelps' daughter) decided to go against Westboro and quit because she saw them for who they were. As I said before, if it can happen with her, I have faith that it can happen to anyone in there, even if it is just one person. It'd be one less person to deal with. Obviously there's more evil in the world and people who are a lot worse than Westboro but do you not think that one less person to deal with is less hassle?

 

In this respect Animal is right. In thinking that nobody in the WBC has the ability to reason I think that you're being too close-minded there Dannyboy, effectively giving up your ability to reason because of how you feel towards the WBC.

Posted

The fact is, many members of WBC were born into the church. WBC is basically a family business - the overwhelming majority are the Phelps family. The problem is, despite whether you agree or disagree with their views it must be awfully hard for a person who has grown up in that environment to turn their back on everyone in their family and everything they have ever known. Essentially you would be leaving the family and have no one.

Posted
In this respect Animal is right. In thinking that nobody in the WBC has the ability to reason I think that you're being too close-minded there Dannyboy, effectively giving up your ability to reason because of how you feel towards the WBC.

 

It was obviously an exaggerated statement. My point was that I don't think picketing the funeral is going to lead to any epiphanies; the hardcore crowd is too deep in the mindset to catch the irony, and I don't even think it'll do much in the way of convincing the doubters. It comes back to the fact that I don't consider picketing his funeral a strong message at all - quite the opposite: It comes across to me as petty and vengeful and not at all conducive to rational discourse. If we are to bring doubters to our side, what is needed above all, as my point has been, is debate and reason.

Posted
It was obviously an exaggerated statement. My point was that I don't think picketing the funeral is going to lead to any epiphanies; the hardcore crowd is too deep in the mindset to catch the irony, and I don't even think it'll do much in the way of convincing the doubters. It comes back to the fact that I don't consider picketing his funeral a strong message at all - quite the opposite: It comes across to me as petty and vengeful and not at all conducive to rational discourse. If we are to bring doubters to our side, what is needed above all, as my point has been, is debate and reason.

 

Generally speaking I agree, it's just that with the statement you made, over-exaggerated or not, still isn't really right to say which is what you tend to uphold is it not? You can't just say that these people don't have the ability to reason.

Posted

What I tend to uphold? What do you mean?

 

I stand by that it was simply that, an exaggeration - a rhetorical device; obviously few human beings literally lack any ability to reason - I wouldn't argue for the use of logic and debate if I thought they were beyond such things. My point was that believing the ideas of the WBC requires overriding a special level of critical thinking, and this is often facilitated by the fact that people in the WBC have been brought up there.

Posted

You say that but what's to say that you are correct? What's to say you are right? They have beliefs which they're entitled to, the beliefs themselves don't hurt anyone it's the actions they undertake which do.

 

There's no overriding a "critical" way of thinking, it's just their belief which there is nothing wrong with. It's the actions that are I think are wrong.

 

I've nothing against those that think homosexuality is wrong, in the same way I've no problem with anyone thinking it's fine. For me, I have no problem with homosexuality, some of my family and friends are gay and I've no issue either being so.

Likewise, some of my friends think it's wrong and unnatural and it disgusts them, I've no issue with them thinking that. They don't act out against anyone so why should I? There's no overriding a critical way of thinking, both trains of thought are fine.

 

It's the picketing and preaching that I don't agree with. Everyone should be able to form their own opinions on the matter. Which although difficult for their family, it's still possible, the daughter did.

 

I just think in your sweeping statement that you weren't being as balanced as you tend to be, that's what I meant by what you intend to uphold. You try to be balanced given things you've said on other topics. I just felt this wasn't a balanced view.

Posted

Kav, you do realize that Dannyboy is against picketing the man's funeral, right? He's not saying the family can't form their own opinions, he's saying that shoving our points into their faces isn't going to work (it's also hypocritical).

 

He's also saying that logic and debate might not work, due to how entrenched those opinions are, but it is ultimately the only reasonable course of action.

Posted

Likewise, some of my friends think it's wrong and unnatural and it disgusts them, I've no issue with them thinking that. They don't act out against anyone so why should I? There's no overriding a critical way of thinking, both trains of thought are fine.

 

There is, just generally not with people who are tools.

Posted (edited)
Kav, you do realize that Dannyboy is against picketing the man's funeral, right? He's not saying the family can't form their own opinions, he's saying that shoving our points into their faces isn't going to work (it's also hypocritical).

 

He's also saying that logic and debate might not work, due to how entrenched those opinions are, but it is ultimately the only reasonable course of action.

 

Yes I realise completely, I agree with him in that, as I've said. I just thought his sweeping statement that anyone I'm the WBC was incapable of reason wasn't fair to say.

 

There is, just generally not with people who are tools.

 

Is this directed at people who are against homosexuality? I don't think it's fair to call them tools just because of that. If they act out and discriminate then I'd be ok calling them tools but not just casually calling them all like that. My friends that are against it aren't tools.

One of my friends that is against is good friends with one of my gay friends, hell they were both friends prior to me becomin their friend. If the gay lad is ok with him being against it and the other is against but accepts that is who the gay lad is, what's the problem there?

Edited by Kav
Automerged Doublepost
Posted

What I mean is, people can change their minds about groups they have prejudice against (now vs the 60s, discrimination of blacks). If somebody's way of thinking cannot be overridden at all, like you say, then I would question why that is...

 

And if the 'unnatural' argument comes up specifically 'for' gay prejudice: we fly in metal machines, and survival of the fittest has mostly been thrown out of the window. :blank:

Posted
What I mean is, people can change their minds about groups they have prejudice against (now vs the 60s, discrimination of blacks). If somebody's way of thinking cannot be overridden at all, like you say, then I would question why that is...

 

And if the 'unnatural' argument comes up specifically 'for' gay prejudice: we fly in metal machines, and survival of the fittest has mostly been thrown out of the window. :blank:

 

I'm not saying people can't change their opinions on things. It's just that I don't think people have to to behave differently.

 

Also, we don't fly, we travel in things that are purposefully designed and built for flight. There's nothing unnatural in that. Also, survival of the fittest still plays a part in life it's just not to the extent it's meaning was initially coined for.

Posted

Also, we don't fly, we travel in things that are purposefully designed and built for flight. There's nothing unnatural in that.

Really? So anything we purposefully build or develop, seeing as we developed it (as a beaver may develop a dam), becomes natural as 'developing' is a natural thing to do? What about gene splicing and cloning - we designed and developed those too!

Posted

Here's the thing Sheikah, I'm not suggesting homosexuality is unnatural. When a friend tells me it's unnatural I tell them that if it was unnatural there wouldn't be homosexuality. It is natural, not in the context most people use it for, but it's evidently within human nature hence it being. Same-sex acts occur in the animal kingdom too funnily enough too, it is natural in a manner of speaking.

 

So yes, gene splicing and cloning is natural as it's in our nature to learn develop and create such techniques.

Posted
What is unnatural then?

 

A cow sprouting wings and flying to the moon. It is unnatural and so it doesn't happen. :p

Posted (edited)

I think 'natural' serves merely as an opposite to the word 'artificial' (or in the case of the closed minded, what they perceive to be against a 'higher power's will'). Artificial would cover most of the things we said apart from, rightly, homosexuality. Which brings me back to those against it - I think people with that mindset should be challenged, rather than left be. It isn't really a logical thing to believe, and we should challenge the illogical.

Edited by Sheikah
Posted
I think 'natural' serves merely as an opposite to the word 'artificial' (or in the case of the closed minded, what they perceive to be against a 'higher power's will'). Artificial would cover most of the things we said apart from, rightly, homosexuality. Which brings me back to those against it - I think if people can't be dissuaded from that mindset then they should be challenged, rather than left be.

 

In many a way I agree with you but I do t think we need challenge them unless the act out or preach against it. There's nóging wrong with them having their views on it. If they have such views but never act out or preach then that's perfectly fine. They're entitled to their opinion and just as I think they shouldn't preach, neither should we.

Posted

Why shouldn't we preach the good fight? Even if that occurs as 'preaching' in the form of teaching in schools, or public messages/celebrities speaking out or raising awareness?

 

People in the past discriminated against black people (not just through actions, it was part of the common although not universal mindset of the time that a black person was of lower status) yet now far fewer believe such. It's unlikely anything would have changed if nobody preached their side or non-violently protested.

 

I think people should be made aware of their ignorance and made to feel ashamed, personally. It is no different to a person bearing a hatred against a certain race of people.

Posted

I just think people have a right to an opinion. I don't see any problem whatsoever on an opinion. As I say, my problem is if it is acted upon, prejudice is raised or if they preach it. That's not fair to others.

Posted

If by "preaching", you mean "forcing your opinions", then I agree, if only because in that case, nothing is ever solved, even if the preacher fights for the good cause.

 

Staying civil is the only way anyone will listen, really.

Posted (edited)

When you say force, that brings all the wrong words to mind. They're free to ignore or take on board your comments if you challenge their ignorance. Just maybe you'll make them rethink their view.

 

Although I get what you mean. Induce change in nonviolent, civil ways, as opposed to yelling at people like a lunatic.

Edited by Sheikah

×
×
  • Create New...