"Insulting the dead is in extremely poor taste."

[Baldrick]

If we're finished arguing semantics maybe we can get back to the actual point of this thread?

"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.

[Makaze]

I am objecting to the continued several-pages discussion over a stupid game of pointless semantics that is second to the specific argument that I was making. I was interested in steering discussion away from the secondary point. I am no longer interested in humoring any of you regarding such an easily observed behavior because I realize you're only interested in pointless niggling. I am not going to aggravate myself with stupid meandering twists and turns to prove to you that people make general statements that have obvious exceptions, because I and everyone else here --including you-- are fully aware that they exist and are uttered or written several time a day by many people.

Go find someone else to try and prove to you water is wet, I'm not interested anymore.

Why would you state that? Everyone but you has been discussing whether they should be accepted or not. They have said that they should not happen. No one has said that they should happen. Absolutely no one has said that they do not happen in the first place. You have arguing a non-issue. With who?

I said what you were objecting to, not what you are objecting to (as in right now). I am not sure why said this:

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.

You seemed to have missed the point of the thread. I see now that you jumped straight to the topic of the previous thread despite indications that this thread was made to discuss eclipse's universal statement. Stating that the claim was made despite exceptions does not answer the OP's question. It might have if the OP were specifically targetting eclipse's motive, but we are arguing the position, not the person. What you said does not provide a clearer standard or a standard of any kind. I am more than willing to skip the semantics, but I'm not sure if you are.

There was one other point that you need to address. You responded to someone with faulty logic and possible dishonesty.

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?

The first statement reasoned that the original statement has exceptions, therefore it is false.

You jumped to the conclusion that if not everyone is worthy of respect, no one is. This was mistaken. It was neither what they meant nor a logical jump from what they said.

If you did not mean to defend the generalization, then this would have been the place for you to present your own more accurate statement such as "Insulting anyone, dead or alive, is usually in bad taste." We could have discussed precisely when it was acceptable and come to a conclusion.

You should stop saying that people make general statements, a claim which no one disagrees with. Since everyone else has been arguing should's and should not's without disagreeing with you, you were the one who was stuck. We have to get to the "why they should(n't)"s instead of addressing the same thing that we have no disagreement on.

Person 1: This statement has an exception, therefore it is false.

You: People make statements with exceptions.

Person 2: Yes, we can see that; someone just did. But they shouldn't have because: . . .

You: People make statements with exceptions anyway.

Person 3: Yes, but they shouldn't because: . . .

You: I'm tired of this.

Based on this, why do you think we aren't going anywhere?

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.

Agreed. As an addendum, whether or not they deserve respect is not the only thing that affects whether insulting them is a good idea or not. There are times where insulting someone who would deserve it is a bad idea and other cases where insulting someone would not deserve it is a good idea. Insults can be used for many things. For example: provocation.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Makaze

[Esau of Isaac]

This is the response I had intended to be paid attention to

How did you prove that it isn't always wrong? You just proved that many people do it.

No I am not going to debate over a debate

[Chiki]

If we're finished arguing semantics maybe we can get back to the actual point of this thread?

Whenever someone says "it's just semantics" it's obvious proof of the fact that they have no idea what they are talking about. It makes me cringe.

Semantics is crucial to every debate. You can't have a debate without agreeing on the semantics first. It's like trying to have a gun fight without guns.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Celes

[Balcerzak]

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

Disagree.

Respect must be earned. If someone dies without having earned respect from me whilst alive, the fact that they have ceased to exist will not magically grant them free respect.

NB: Holding a lack of respect for someone does not imply they may be insulted. There is middle ground here, people. Respect > Neutral > Disrespect.

Edit: Lol, I misread the statement, brain pulled some crazy double negatives or something. I guess my answer is Agree, which should be obvious from my clarification.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Balcerzak

[Rehab]

Huck didn't say anything along the line that semantics itself doesn't matter, and I don't know a lot of people who actually believe something like, "the meanings of the words used in a discussion with any pretense of intellectual rigor don't matter." What was asked was, "are we done yet?"

You can spend a lot of time straightening out what every term relevant to a discussion means without actually taking a position on it. When people go "ugh semantics," it's not because they're thinking, "how dare everybody not immediately be on the same page as to how the discussion should be framed and phrased," it's because they're thinking something like, "y'all have taken up four pages with this shit and haven't actually done much to answer the topic's question, can you please wrap this part up"

I feel like I've mostly said my piece with regard to why I think insulting somebody specifically like the person from the thread that led to this one is bad, but in general:

"Respect," in the sense of "recognition," doesn't really feel like something I think people should have to earn, at least not from me. Everybody has unique pressures on them, and most often are just trying to deal with them, so my take is that I at least might as well not be the one to dump on them unless I have a good reason. Somebody who lived under much different conditions than I can accurately imagine, who I don't have a lot of documentation on and who I'll never be able to interact with is probably going to be somebody I'm not going to "judge" very effectively, even if I try.

Now, "respect" in the sense of "admiration," yeah, I can't say I just look at every person I meet or read about with a huge sense of wonder, or like they must have been great or anything. I just think it's not too hard to figure that there's probably enough that went into "being that person" that I'll never fully know, that the assumptions I make about them should have some reservations.

I guess the most direct answer I can give is that I don't think that as a rule, insulting the dead is necessarily wrong in a moral sense, but I do think it's often kinda pointless.

That long wind finished, though, by these standards I can still call Hitler or Falwell or Columbus an asshole.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Rehab

[Dark Sage]

Whenever someone says "it's just semantics" it's obvious proof of the fact that they have no idea what they are talking about. It makes me cringe.

Semantics is crucial to every debate. You can't have a debate without agreeing on the semantics first. It's like trying to have a gun fight without guns.

I'm pretty sure that when people make general statements that they know have exceptions, it's in the interest of saving time. Now he could've phrased it better, but I can understand his irritation since he probably thinks that the main meat of his post is getting ignored in favor of something insignificant in comparison.

People often complain about debating semantics because it is often pedantic and they're more interested in arguing their core ideas. I don't think anybody would disagree that setting some parameters or being on the same page isn't important. Also I'm pretty sure that you made a topic about this and got some nice responses on this.

Huck didn't say anything along the line that semantics itself doesn't matter, and I don't know a lot of people who actually believe something like, "the meanings of the words used in a discussion with any pretense of intellectual rigor don't matter." What was asked was, "are we done yet?"

You can spend a lot of time straightening out what every term relevant to a discussion means without actually taking a position on it. When people go "ugh semantics," it's not because they're thinking, "how dare everybody not immediately be on the same page as to how the discussion should be framed and phrased," it's because they're thinking something like, "y'all have taken up four pages with this shit and haven't actually done much to answer the topic's question, can you please wrap this part up"

I feel like I've mostly said my piece with regard to why I think insulting somebody specifically like the person from the thread that led to this one is bad, but in general:

"Respect," in the sense of "recognition," doesn't really feel like something I think people should have to earn, at least not from me. Everybody has unique pressures on them, and most often are just trying to deal with them, so my take is that I at least might as well not be the one to dump on them unless I have a good reason. Somebody who lived under much different conditions than I can accurately imagine, who I don't have a lot of documentation on and who I'll never be able to interact with is probably going to be somebody I'm not going to "judge" very effectively, even if I try.

Now, "respect" in the sense of "admiration," yeah, I can't say I just look at every person I meet or read about with a huge sense of wonder, or like they must have been great or anything. I just think it's not too hard to figure that there's probably enough that went into "being that person" that I'll never fully know, that the assumptions I make about them should have some reservations.

I guess the most direct answer I can give is that I don't think that as a rule, insulting the dead is necessarily wrong in a moral sense, but I do think it's often kinda pointless.

That long wind finished, though, by these standards I can still call Hitler or Falwell or Columbus an asshole.

Hey man, I wouldn't put Columbus on the same level as Hitler or Falwell.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Jack Frost

[dondon151]

history doesn't have as much to say about columbus, but there's certainly some merit in the claim that he wasn't the super amazing person that elementary schools portray him as.

[Dark Sage]

history doesn't have as much to say about columbus, but there's certainly some merit in the claim that he wasn't the super amazing person that elementary schools portray him as.

that's true, i don't disagree on that. People tended to be more dickish back then.

[Phoenix Wright]

He helped in the Native American genocide. He's definitely up there...

That said, it's equaling annoying when others try to discredit what he was able to do just because he was a giant asshole.

Agree.

Respect must be earned. If someone dies without having earned respect from me whilst alive, the fact that they have ceased to exist will not magically grant them free respect.

Piggy-backing off of this...I must say as much as I agree, in practice it's the opposite. I sort of put everything behind me and celebrate the good that person may have done.

[Skynstein]

The Spaniards who invaded (yes, invaded) America and killed and enslaved most of the precolumbian people are in the same category as Hitler, no doubt. Their acts' repercussions can still be noticed today. In most Latin American countries, the descendants of indigenous people are the poorest people in the country.

I have no reservations with saying bad things about people who did the evil in our world, like Hitler, Stalin, Pinochet and Thatcher (yes I rank Thatcher among them).

[amadeuscho]

Disagree. It's all about context. There's certainly places you shouldn't talk bad about dead people (more specifically, where it's not socially acceptable to talk bad about them). But you have to remember certain commentators are polemicists. Christopher Hitchens (RIP) was a self identified polemicist, so I think on some level I think his contribution to discussion was saying things other people couldn't. My thing is if you can't take the heat, you shouldn't say it. Either be prepared to apologize for it or be willing to take the wrath of haters. Because there will always be haters, no matter what you say. I do think it's good that there is a certain amount of not talking about the dead, but there also needs to be certain people who are willing to cross the line.

It's easy to talk about this and use the worst individuals in order to elicit the point. Your Hitler's and Falwell's and Columbus's (all those killing of Native Americans). But the question is do you have to have reverence for a person that is just disagreeable? Ted Stevens for me is a good examples. Ted Stevens was a United States Senator who died in a plane crash. No one really talks about his record. But aside from the usual halting of social progress, Ted Stevens was a very corrupt public official. He got caught, was tried and found guilty, and still had the gall to run for reelection. He lost by the way. Is it okay to talk ill about Ted Stevens? More specifically, would it be okay to talk bad about him just after his death? I personally wouldnt.

And if it's funny, it's always OK. I really hate apologizing for humor. I'm really glad we can make fun of the King of Pop again.

[Rehab]

I mean, I guess a relatively simple shorthand for who I'm most willing to make fun of/exempt from the "try to 'respect' people I have scant way of knowing intimately" guideline, in general, goes something like;

The more power somebody has/had, the more they use/d it to fuck with other people, especially those who had less power than they, and the less significant provocation they had to do so, the more willing I am to make an exception for them.

Hypothetically, of course, I could do that with a lot of people who aren't evil incarnate, but I just like to keep a degree of separation between "I don't like [thing] that [person] did (or said, or thought, or was involved with on some level, etc.), but I'm not entirely comfortable pronouncing judgment on their entire being, so I'd rather speak about them with a relatively neutral tone," and "I'm reasonably confident that I'd rather this person had never lived, and will insult them at every opportunity."

So yeah, I'm the kind of fuddy-duddy that doesn't like to make fun of Michael Jackson very much. (somewhere between 30 and 60 percent of my reasoning for that being "I feel like I barely know jack shit about Michael Jackson")

[Gregosa]

w

Edited November 5, 2013 by Gregosa

[dondon151]

So yeah, I'm the kind of fuddy-duddy that doesn't like to make fun of Michael Jackson very much. (somewhere between 30 and 60 percent of my reasoning for that being "I feel like I barely know jack shit about Michael Jackson")

i think it's fine to make fun of michael jackson, as long as you're aware that he's not just a pedophile or something.

incomprehensible babble

i think you posted in the wrong topic

[Gregosa]

oh sorry, is a there a thread on this topic, atm?

EDIT:SORRY GO AHEAD AND DELETE THESE TWO

Edited November 5, 2013 by Gregosa

[Makaze]

This is the response I had intended to be paid attention to

No I am not going to debate over a debate

Don't you have it backward? Tell me if I'm wrong:

Someone states that it is always wrong. A subjective statement.

Someone else brings up an example that they believe the first person will agree is an exception.

You say that bringing up exceptions doesn't prove it isn't wrong, just that people do it.

If I'm right, then you missed the point. We were trying to get eclipse to admit that she even she doesn't believe what she said in all cases. There are instances where disrespecting people will help her accomplish her goals and others where it will not help or hurt them. We need to know why she thinks those circumstances are irrelevant in order to accept the idea that she believes what she said.

We are trying to disprove that anyone actually believes what eclipse said by getting everyone who says they do to admit that they personally see exceptions. That's why we kept addressing our exceptions as questions and challenges to the original claim. 'Do you believe that even in X circumstance?'

You were right. It doesn't prove anything to question by itself. We need those who claimed to believe what she said to accept or deny the exceptions to get anywhere. No one has addressed the exceptions. You have said that they don't prove anything but have not accepted or denied them either. We are at an impasse until someone who believes what eclipse said reasons out why they believe it in spite of our reasons for not believing it instead of just saying that they do.

Edited November 30, 2013 by Makaze