dondon151 Posted October 29, 2013 Author Share Posted October 29, 2013 It's a statement that was used to close a thread, not a challenge, and after seeing your side of the argument, it's better to let it rest. You are free to debate this with other people, and you are also free to think of this statement as you will. i did not say that it was a challenge. the fact is, however, that you used that statement to close the thread as if that statement were a tacit fact. so i thought that a tangential discussion regarding the validity of that statement would be interesting. within this topic, you made a claim. i asked you to defend that claim because i sincerely wanted to know how you justified empathy for one party but not empathy for the other party. The fact that you can't tell whether the indignation is real or feigned is part of the reason why I refuse to discuss this further with you. uh, of course i can tell whether my indignation is real or feigned. i hardly ever feign indignation unless i am being facetious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baldrick Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 (edited) The title of this topic is pretty clearly an opinion. A moderator's job is not to derive the truth, but to stop the rules from being broken. An absolute statement based on a subjective concept such as taste is dubious, and there are situations where it is impossible to avoid at least indirectly insulting one of the parties. Edited October 29, 2013 by Huck Finn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 (edited) Are you saying he deserved to die? I respect your opinion, but theft is NOT a capital crime. No, nobody "deserves" to die (in most cases, at least), but if you knew the guy (my mother knew him because she is friends with the guy's family; she told me a lot), you also knew that he had crossed the line on many occasions and it was only a matter of time before something happened to him. Good riddance. Edited October 29, 2013 by AVERAGE RIVEN PLAYER Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Espinosa Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 (edited) Who said that abstaining from criticising the dead who have wronged is empathy towards the dead? What about the considerations regarding how your anger affects you? That's one thing that's not connected to any mystical meanings with an impact here and now. If I don't say "Adam Lanza was a faggot" or suchlike things, it hardly follows that I've made myself see the world from his shoes; rather, it's the same indifference with which we tend to treat each other as well as a sort of efficiency of not wasting time and energy thinking pointless and destructive thoughts and feeling pointless and destructive emotions. Edited October 29, 2013 by Espinosa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau of Isaac Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 (edited) The title of this topic is pretty clearly an opinion. A moderator's job is not to derive the truth, but to stop the rules from being broken. I am pretty sure fruitless, empty insults towards dead people is not germane to serious discussion. An absolute statement based on a subjective concept such as taste is dubious, and there are situations where it is impossible to avoid at least indirectly insulting one of the parties. This is not one of those situations. No, nobody "deserves" to die (in most cases, at least), but if you knew the guy (my mother knew him because she is friends with the guy's family; she told me a lot), you also knew that he had crossed the line on many occasions and it was only a matter of time before something happened to him. Good riddance. "I'm not saying he deserved to die, but I am saying I am glad he was murdered." Okay it's good we made that distinction Edited October 29, 2013 by Esau of Isaac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 No, nobody "deserves" to die (in most cases, at least), but if you knew the guy (my mother knew him because she is friends with the guy's family; she told me a lot), you also knew that he had crossed the line on many occasions and it was only a matter of time before something happened to him. Good riddance. Last year I was bullied by a religious fanatic who hated my for being atheist. If he dropped dead, I wouldn't feel happy, but not sad, either. However, if you could revive him and make it so he was out of your life forever, would you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 (edited) It's a statement that was used to close a thread, not a challenge, and after seeing your side of the argument, it's better to let it rest. You are free to debate this with other people, and you are also free to think of this statement as you will. The fact that you can't tell whether the indignation is real or feigned is part of the reason why I refuse to discuss this further with you. Dondon is simply trying to have a serious discussion on the serious discussion forum on something that you said which was wrong. Saying a member is trying to "pick a fight" or refusing to discuss something is not having a serious discussion; it's spamming, and, in fact, it's incredibly inappropriate and rude. Dondon brought up a perfectly valid point and what you're doing is completely inappropriate if we're trying to have a serious discussion here. By accusing him of being confrontational, you're the one making things personal and therefore more confrontational. You should apologize to him for trying to accuse him of starting a fight when he wasn't. Let's get back on topic. I agree completely with the topic. Insulting Hitler isn't out of place at all, is it? The man is dead but he probably deserves all the insults in the world. Edited October 29, 2013 by Celes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau of Isaac Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 By accusing him of being confrontational, you're the one making things personal and therefore more confrontational. You should apologize to him for trying to accuse him of starting a fight when he wasn't. Vintage Olwen. Let's get back on topic. I agree completely with the topic. Insulting Hitler isn't out of place at all, is it? The man is dead but he probably deserves all the insults in the world. Arguing the most hated human in history deserved hate and therefore every dead person is fair game doesn't sound the slightest bit off to you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Eclipse made the general statement that insulting the dead is always wrong period. I just proved that it isn't always wrong. It may be the case it's wrong most of the time. This is just common sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau of Isaac Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Eclipse made the general statement that insulting the dead is always wrong period. I just proved that it isn't always wrong. It may be the case it's wrong most of the time. This is just common sense How did you prove that it isn't always wrong? You just proved that many people do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Is it okay to insult Hitler? If yes (obviously) then I've proven that it isn't always wrong. If there is one case in which it isn't wrong, then it isn't always wrong. I'm not sure what you don't understand here. This is very basic and simple reasoning. If no, why is it wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau of Isaac Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 I have already said why it is wrong. It is worth noting that even in the case where there are exceptions to a rule it does not mean the rule is not a rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted October 30, 2013 Author Share Posted October 30, 2013 I have already said why it is wrong. no, you haven't. but if you have, please excuse me for thinking that you haven't, because your argument was probably some combination of unconvincing and tangentially relevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 (edited) I have already said why it is wrong. It is worth noting that even in the case where there are exceptions to a rule it does not mean the rule is not a rule. Obviously a rule is by definition true for all cases. We're using a very rigid definition of rule or law here, such as a law of nature.Dondon is obviously using this definition for rule. Why don't you ask him if you don't believe me? Edited October 30, 2013 by Celes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baldrick Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 @esau, yes those people ought to be ashamed, but please read the OP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau of Isaac Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 (edited) no, you haven't. but if you have, please excuse me for thinking that you haven't, because your argument was probably some combination of unconvincing and tangentially relevant. Okay I forgive you. Obviously a rule is by definition true for all cases. We're using a very rigid definition of rule or law here, such as a law of nature. Dondon is obviously using this definition for rule. Why don't you ask him if you don't believe me? Pretty sure dondon isn't eclipse so I'm not sure why this is relevant. Edited October 30, 2013 by Esau of Isaac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 "Insulting the dead is in extremely poor taste." News flash: that's a general statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rehab Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Regardless, I assume that most of us can take away from the subject that it's not a great idea to speak of people we don't know, and especially, out of those, people we at this point can never know, in absolutes (In this equation, Hitler =/= somebody we can never know, while Lady In India Who Killed Herself = getting there) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 So we can't judge someone who we know killed 6 million Jews just because we didn't know them? I don't think so. It's not like knowing him just magically excuses killing 6 million Jews.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rehab Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 I'm saying we do know Hitler. Not literally friggin "had an interview with him," but we can measure his impact on history and are well aware of his fucked-up (obviously) psych profile. we have footage of him telling thousands of people the most hateful sort of words possible. it's pretty safe to say that, yes, we can judge hitler I'm saying that it's stupid to do that for some kid that killed themselves halfway across the country, much less the world, which I think most of us aren't arguing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau of Isaac Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 "Insulting the dead is in extremely poor taste." News flash: that's a general statement. And general statements have exceptions. Noting that dondon is operating under a separate and distinct scrutiny isn't relevant to the point that I was making, nevermind that the point I made was entirely tangential to my response to your original point. Oh wait not nevermind because you'd hold onto this line of discussion for dear life if it meant you could have another pointless niggling discussion over nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 (edited) I think you need to take some classes on reasoning. General statements are by definition statements which are always true. "Insulting the dead is in extremely poor taste." It's just basic common sense that a general statement is made here with no exceptions. That's translated to predicate logic as follows: for any person x and for any insult y, if x insults the dead with y, then y is in poor taste. Literally "any" insult. There's no exceptions in the translation here. Edited October 30, 2013 by Celes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 (edited) thankfully, humans aren't computers and the dynamics of language actually exist. i'm quite certain that eclipse meant for there to be exceptions for the especially bad people (hitler, pol pot), making it more of a loose general statement, not a rigid one. one thing you've absolutely got to understand one of these days is that when people converse with one another and keywords in your logic classes are used every now and again doesn't mean they're defined exactly as they are in your classes or in the field of academia at all. most of the time there will be similarities, but they aren't defined the same way. like, energy to you more than likely means something completely different than what i'm used to handling. same goes for power, work, force, et cetera. Edited October 30, 2013 by Phoenix Wright Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 (edited) I get your point, and agree with it, but I think eclipse might even agree with not being able to insult Hitler. Both me and dondon seem to have taken it that away, judging from his first post here The statement considered by itself is definitely a general statement, and eclipse needed to clarify her post better if she wasn't making one. Edited October 30, 2013 by Celes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau of Isaac Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 I think you need to take some classes on reasoning. Yeah get a degree or two in it huh General statements are by definition statements which are always true. "Insulting the dead is in extremely poor taste." It's just basic common sense that a general statement is made here with no exceptions. Common sense would lead you to understand that most rules have exceptions and that a conversation about said rules doesn't have to mention these exceptions for them to exist Nevermind in case you fell asleep before you got to the end of my last post; this is completely irrelevant to the discussion and the only reason you're continuing this is because you have a curious fetish for debating semantics in the most annoying way possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.