"Insulting the dead is in extremely poor taste."

[Light-Heart]

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.

I don't remember Hitler committing suicide over loosing Facebook because he lived within a strict family and Facebook was his only escape from the harsh reality.

This was a young innocent girl, whom took her own life because she couldn't handle life anymore and her only escapism was taken away. Not a racist douche, not even a murder. Just a innocent girl, whom didn't need to be insulted by a nerdy online Forum.

Edited October 30, 2013 by glenncoco

[Raven]

"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

Is there not a distinction? He didn't deserve death for the things he was doing around here, but he was a piece of shit on the pavement of my community that needed dealing with one way or another. Turns out unlawful murder caught up with him before lawful justice. You fuck with people, you will get fucked in return. Ain't that a bitch.

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?

No, because he terrorised my community, not me personally (aside from eating the icing of my fucking cake, that was the only time I recall ever seeing him). I don't feel happy or sad about his death, but I am happy that my community has two less pieces of shit around (the murdered guy and the guy who is serving jail time for the murder). Two birds with one stone. Brilliant.

[dondon151]

I don't remember Hitler committing suicide over loosing Facebook because he lived within a strict family and Facebook was his only escape from the harsh reality.

okay dude, please read the OP

we are not talking about that anymore

[Rehab]

I think it has at least some bearing on this thread regardless, because, as far as I got from your OP, this thread is partially a response to Eclipse's closing line on the last thread. I think Eclipse meant what she said in a less all-encompassing way than her closing words could be taken to mean, but your OP, while IMO a perfectly suitable/interesting object of discussion on its own, understood it otherwise. So from my seat, it looks like between a third and half of us are still talking about how that girl ought to be off-limits to flippancy and character assassination (when in the previous thread, she definitely wasn't treated as such universally), at least taken in the company of Breivik, Falwell and Literally_Hitler (who have comparably little character to assassinate at this point), and between a third and half of us aren't, and want to take the topic.. somewhere else, but are having trouble because the way this line of discussion appeared to start didn't seem to the former group like it adequately recognized the distinction that the source of the whole discussion probably wanted to make.

[Phoenix Wright]

No, because he terrorised my community, not me personally (aside from eating the icing of my fucking cake, that was the only time I recall ever seeing him). I don't feel happy or sad about his death, but I am happy that my community has two less pieces of shit around (the murdered guy and the guy who is serving jail time for the murder). Two birds with one stone. Brilliant.

it's a fucking cake from your 16th birthday. he was stabbed to death. get the fuck over it.

[Elieson]

"Insulting the dead is in extremely poor taste."

News flash: that's a general statement.

Just accept it, the original topic was closed due to an opinion. That's not a statement because there's an adjective of varying degree within it.

[Raven]

it's a fucking cake from your 16th birthday. he was stabbed to death. get the fuck over it.

Cake or no cake, he was still a total cunt.

[BluBlaDe]

Can't believe you guys. I did not know half the forum was personally friend with Facebook suicide girl. My bad.

My thoughts on insulting the deads :

Insulting the dead in front of their loved ones now that's insane stuff and should not be done.

Insulting some random dead person over the internet is stupid too.

However people that are comitting suicide are a special case especially when it's a stupid reason like say not getting access to facebook. There are people that lose limbs and friends and they don't go comitting suicide all over the place for that. Killing yourself when you have no REAL LIFE DAMAGING problems is spitting in the face of people that have them and are trying hard to live with them.

So it's okay to insult the dead when they do something that isn't logical and pisses people off. Like say kill themselves over something extremely stupid. Nobody is going to force you at gun point to commit suicide.

[Phoenix Wright]

But see, it should strike a chord that it isn't normal for anyone to kill themselves for something so petty, and that because of this, she more than likely had more deep-rooted issues that she couldn't deal with. Issues that she seemed to not want to admit--as an inability to live without Facebook is absolutely unheard of. So when her computer was seized, likely her only outlet, she decided to take her own life. When a parent neglects their children or other loved ones because Farmville is just too much fun, it's more probable that the parent is simply depressed and really doesn't want to have to deal with life.

We can say that the choices these people make are pretty dumb--but to take stories like these at face value is most certainly a mistake. No one any of you or I know is ever that shallow--no matter how likely it may seem to you. It's best to analyze the situation.

Edited October 30, 2013 by Phoenix Wright

[Makaze]

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.

And general statements have exceptions.

Generalizations with exceptions are considered fallacious and inadmissible in serious discussion because of faulty logic. Both of eclipse's statements fall under all of the following informal fallacies; all faulty generalizations.

Hasty generalization

Thought-terminating cliché

Accident (fallacy)

Rules of thumb are casual and do not hold up under scrutiny. Heuristic-based statements are only as reliable as personal anecdotes.

It would not be such an issue if it were stated as a rule of thumb in the subject, but upon being questioned the statement was made even more extreme to accentuate the conviction of its speaker.

When challenged with a counter example, eclipse made an appeal to motive to discount dondon instead of addressing the exceptions and possible contradictions.

You stepped in to defend the generalizations. In the process you misrepresented the point you were critiquing. When someone mentioned that Hitler was worthy of hatred, you mocked the position that one is justified in hating everyone because there is one person worth hating. No one holds this position, so you were straw manning your partner's statement. Disproving one rule does not equate to proving the opposite rule true. If you knew that it was inaccurate, then it was intellectually dishonest.

We are all expected to say what we mean or face the consequences of presenting bad arguments instead of moving the goal posts after being challenged. If you have trouble discussing your position or do not want to discuss your statements, why are you posting them? "You" being anyone who reads this.

Edited October 30, 2013 by Makaze

[Chiki]

Just accept it, the original topic was closed due to an opinion. That's not a statement because there's an adjective of varying degree within it.

The part that makes it a general statement is "insulting dead people is..." The degree does not matter. "Insulting dead people is slightly wrong." It's still a general statement. "Insulting dead people is lame." Obviously it doesn't matter.

Great post Makaze. Esau is generally clueless when it comes to posting in matters of reasoning and common sense, and you put it in a far better way than I could have.

Edited October 30, 2013 by Celes

[Esau of Isaac]

Generalizations with exceptions are considered fallacious and inadmissible in serious discussion because of faulty logic. Both of eclipse's statements fall under all of the following informal fallacies; all faulty generalizations.

Hasty generalization

Thought-terminating cliché

Accident (fallacy)

Rules of thumb are casual and do not hold up under scrutiny. Heuristic-based statements are only as reliable as personal anecdotes.

It would not be such an issue if it were stated as a rule of thumb in the subject, but upon being questioned the statement was made even more extreme to accentuate the conviction of its speaker.

When challenged with a counter example, eclipse made an appeal to motive to discount dondon instead of addressing the exceptions and possible contradictions.

You stepped in to defend the generalizations. In the process you misrepresented the point you were critiquing. When someone mentioned that Hitler was worthy of hatred, you mocked the position that one is justified in hating everyone because there is one person worth hating. No one holds this position, so you were straw manning your partner's statement. Disproving one rule does not equate to proving the opposite rule true. If you knew that it was inaccurate, then it was intellectually dishonest.

We are all expected to say what we mean or face the consequences of presenting bad arguments instead of moving the goal posts after being challenged. If you have trouble discussing your position or do not want to discuss your statements, why are you posting them? "You" being anyone who reads this.

I didn't defend any generalization. I pointed out that generalizations can be used while also understanding there are underlying exceptions to them. The entirety of this debacle of a debate about the validity of underlying motive is less than relevant to any post I made. It was literally barely even a real talking point in the original area I mentioned it. My original rebuttal was actually counter to an entirely separate claim Olwen made, in which he stated he'd proven the concept of hate against the dead isn't wrong because most people publicly hate Hitler.

Great post Makaze. Esau is generally clueless when it comes to posting in matters of reasoning and common sense, and you put it in a far better way than I could have.

That's a laugh coming from the guy that cries ad hominem every time he sees his own shadow.

[BK-201]

Generalizations with exceptions are considered fallacious and inadmissible in serious discussion because of faulty logic. Both of eclipse's statements fall under all of the following informal fallacies; all faulty generalizations.

Hasty generalization

Thought-terminating cliché

Accident (fallacy)

Rules of thumb are casual and do not hold up under scrutiny. Heuristic-based statements are only as reliable as personal anecdotes.

It would not be such an issue if it were stated as a rule of thumb in the subject, but upon being questioned the statement was made even more extreme to accentuate the conviction of its speaker.

When challenged with a counter example, eclipse made an appeal to motive to discount dondon instead of addressing the exceptions and possible contradictions.

You stepped in to defend the generalizations. In the process you misrepresented the point you were critiquing. When someone mentioned that Hitler was worthy of hatred, you mocked the position that one is justified in hating everyone because there is one person worth hating. No one holds this position, so you were straw manning your partner's statement. Disproving one rule does not equate to proving the opposite rule true. If you knew that it was inaccurate, then it was intellectually dishonest.

We are all expected to say what we mean or face the consequences of presenting bad arguments instead of moving the goal posts after being challenged. If you have trouble discussing your position or do not want to discuss your statements, why are you posting them? "You" being anyone who reads this.

What? As far as I'm aware, Serious Discussion isn't bound by the logic rules outlined by various philosophers and other experts on the matter. Generalizations aren't strictly defined as statements that are always true and while they may be fallacious in certain cases, that doesn't negate the fact that the generalizations are still worth considering. Analogously we can look to Newtonian laws that fail under relativistic conditions but are still worth considering in our daily lives without having to adjust the equations using a correction factor or whatever. Just because a generalization fails when taken to the extreme doesn't mean we can't still use the generalization... generally. I think Esau conceded that Hitler may be worthy of insults but just because Hitler doesn't get empathy doesn't mean we should ignore the generalization completely. I think your arguments only hold provided that Esau believes in the absolute power of generalizations which is a position you are trying to force him into with definitions rather than proving he actually holds such beliefs.

He mocked the idea that Hitler disproved the generalizations it runs like this:

Even if Hitler is deserving of mockery, because it is a generalization and is likely to have exceptions, Hitler is an irrelevant example that fails to disprove the generalization.

Esau has always operated under the assumption generalizations have exceptions but exceptions don't necessarily disprove the generalization.

Edited October 30, 2013 by BK-201

[Baldrick]

Let's make this simple bc people are throwing big words around and I can't follow it

"The dead do not automatically deserve respect". In one word, agree or disagree?

I agree. As an addendum, I propose a person's reputation should not change once they take their final breath. If they were pricks when alive, they are pricks when dead.

Edited October 30, 2013 by Huck Finn

[Chiki]

What? As far as I'm aware, Serious Discussion isn't bound by the logic rules outlined by various philosophers and other experts on the matter. Generalizations aren't strictly defined as statements that are always true and while they may be fallacious in certain cases, that doesn't negate the fact that the generalizations are still worth considering. Analogously we can look to Newtonian laws that fail under relativistic conditions but are still worth considering in our daily lives without having to adjust the equations using a correction factor or whatever. Just because a generalization fails when taken to the extreme doesn't mean we can't still use the generalization... generally. I think Esau conceded that Hitler may be worthy of insults but just because Hitler doesn't get empathy doesn't mean we should ignore the generalization completely. I think your arguments only hold provided that Esau believes in the absolute power of generalizations which is a position you are trying to force him into with definitions rather than proving he actually holds such beliefs.

He mocked the idea that Hitler disproved the generalizations it runs like this:

Even if Hitler is deserving of mockery, because it is a generalization and is likely to have exceptions, Hitler is an irrelevant example that fails to disprove the generalization.

Esau has always operated under the assumption generalizations have exceptions but exceptions don't necessarily disprove the generalization.

We're not operating by the rules of any philosophers here. It's basic English that "insulting dead people is wrong" is a general statement, and by definition, general statements have no exceptions. You can't operate under the assumption that general statements have exceptions, because, news flash: general statements, or rules in sentences like "squares are shapes" have none.

Me and Makaze are simply arguing that eclipse needed to clarify her offensive claim. She could have said "insulting dead people is usually wrong" and I'd be okay with it.

[BK-201]

We're not operating by the rules of any philosophers here. It's basic English that "insulting dead people is wrong" is a general statement, and by definition, general statements have no exceptions. You can't operate under the assumption that general statements have exceptions, because, news flash: general statements, or rules in sentences like "squares are shapes" have none.

Me and Makaze are simply arguing that eclipse needed to clarify her offensive claim. She could have said "insulting dead people is usually wrong" and I'd be okay with it.

Wrong. General statements can have exceptions. "In general you shouldn't punch people in the face." Like this statement IMPLICITLY has exceptions attached to it. The entire statement is predicated off a common scenario but obviously leaves room for punching people in the face provided it is justified. This is sufficient proof to debunk the argument that all general statements are absolutely true 100% of the time.

And Esau is not defending total generalization, like he has literally raised this point in nearly every single one of his posts and you completely missed it.

[Chiki]

Lol, straw man at its finest. "Should" is a modal. Think of a better example. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_modality

"Murder is wrong." Are any exceptions present in this sentence? Nope, not considered in a vacuum.

Do these two mean the same thing to you: murder is wrong vs. murder is usually wrong?

Edited October 30, 2013 by Celes

[BK-201]

Lol, straw man at its finest. "Should" is a modal. Think of a better example. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_modality

"Murder is wrong." Are any exceptions present in this sentence? Nope, not considered in a vacuum.

Do these two mean the same thing to you: murder is wrong vs. murder is usually wrong?

In general, punching people is wrong.

I would argue certain killings are justifiable - it's a matter of definition but the statement is still legitimate.

Both are legitimate statements that I expect would come out of someone. Only the first statement would be jumped on by people who care more about semantics than the actual point.

[deleted35362]

There are people that lose limbs and friends and they don't go comitting suicide all over the place for that. Killing yourself when you have no REAL LIFE DAMAGING problems is spitting in the face of people that have them and are trying hard to live with them.

bad argument imo. for example, you can't compare the mind of a hardened war veteran who loses his legs and comrades in battle but continues to support his family...TO...a teenage girl. teenagers are freakin confused and awkward and sensitive but in varying degrees. not every one has the same amount of emotional strength, beacuse we all have our own personalities and experiences. not everyone has the mental capacity to *holds up index finger* look towards the future, *holds out middle finger also* not everyone has the same mental capacity or thoughtfullness or sense of hope to look towards the future, and with religion being thrown around the world, it wouldn't be too out of left field to propose that maybe...maybe the girl believes in life after death, so she felt she would rather move on already?

sorry to touch on that locked thread's subject matter, but i'm trying to say that you can't go around insulting people for their reasons for suicide when you didn't have much of an understanding of their thought processes...

[Chiki]

In general, punching people is wrong.

I would argue certain killings are justifiable - it's a matter of definition but the statement is still legitimate.

Both are legitimate statements that I expect would come out of someone. Only the first statement would be jumped on by people who care more about semantics than the actual point.

When you put "in general," it's not the same strong sense of generalization I'm talking about here. In general means the same as usually.

But if you say murder is wrong, it's a very strong generalization (a rule) where there are no exceptions implied.

Edited October 30, 2013 by Celes

[BK-201]

When you put "in general," it's not the same strong sense of generalization I'm talking about here. In general means the same as usually.

But if you say murder is wrong, it's a very strong generalization (a rule) where there are no exceptions implied.

Right and when you say general it's not the same type of general Esau was defending, do you not understand this?

Basically you're either going to concede you've been bending the meaning of Esau's posts or are arguing an entirely different point in which case we aren't really arguing more than making points.

[Chiki]

Of course I understand it: I'm saying he's wasting his time. The entire point I'm making here is that Esau's sense of general for eclipse's statement is indefensible.

Eclipse's statement is literally that insulting dead people is always wrong with no exceptions implied. I'm glad we agreed on this so far.

But since eclipse implied no exceptions whatsoever, Esau's defense of her claim is impossible. Therefore he is wrong.

[BK-201]

Esau is defending Esau's vision of Eclipse's argument therefore if it's general in the same way I view general, it's legitimate. Either way it's evident this whole dialogue has been a waste of time.

[Chiki]

Huh? I'm not sure what you're even trying to say.

Anyway, saying "murder is wrong" means the same thing as "murder is always wrong" and therefore, there are no exceptions. Eclipse's claim is actually quite offensive and commits multiple logical fallacies.

[LuxSpes]

I think that insulting anyone, dead or alive is wrong. Why? Insults are contemptuous remarks, driven by hate, anger and or pettiness meant to hurt or belittle someone.

Criticizing someone and their actions, both dead or alive is perfectly fine though since it allows alive people to better themselves if they have the will to change or it will make other people aware of why such person or action is bad and/or wrong.

Call it semantics, but that's my opinion on it.