I'll put this into terms you'll understand. Basically, He's Megatron.
I'll put this into terms you'll understand. Why are you giving this guy any attention?
He's irrelevant. We don't pay any mind to the freaks who push ridiculous hateful-in-god's-name signs anywhere else, at most we mock them once and forget their name. So why do we give a #### about this overly keen dick bag? Forget him like you forget all the others.
__________________
THANK MR DEMKO
CPHL Ottawa Vancouver
The Following User Says Thank You to Blaster86 For This Useful Post:
I'll put this into terms you'll understand. Why are you giving this guy any attention?
He's irrelevant. We don't pay any mind to the freaks who push ridiculous hateful-in-god's-name signs anywhere else, at most we mock them once and forget their name. So why do we give a #### about this overly keen dick bag? Forget him like you forget all the others.
Yeah, those are nice thoughts but it really doesn't work that way, unfortunately.
If any message is sent to the Westboro Baptist Church, a bunch of soldiers, bikers, high profile gay community members, and Rock Stars should show up, and quietly, and peacefully pay their respects without any fanfare or controversy.
Just show complete civility, and maybe, just maybe, a couple of these brainwashed cult members might question their futile crusade.
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to pylon For This Useful Post:
Yeah, I'm not sure how people ethically reconcile the difference between verbal hate and desire for death and suffering. I would imagine most of the world isn't going to mourn or miss him, but I still can't morally differentiate between the the two stances.
Because morals are complex, individual, and have so many different philosophical layers that it makes discerning between things easy. If you can't morally differentiate between the people who wish suffering and death upon otherwise morally good people and people who celebrate the cease of existence of a morally bad person, then you should think more deeply about your own morals.
Perhaps your own morals were not formed in a way that allowed for applied ethics, or any situational relativism. Often people of some religious belief have trouble with it, as many ethics are structured around god, but things are very rarely cut and dry.
If nothing else, I find the philosophy behind it fascinating. I understand the morality behind your statements, but I also find it immoral to refuse to differentiate between the treatment of people based on situational context.
I find it really fascinating that someone who championed for African Americans during the Civil Rights Movement, playing an instrumental role in striking down racial laws in Kansas, became the intolerant figure he fought against all those years ago.
For years, I was convinced that his anti-gay stance was all reverse psychology to make society more tolerant. Specifically, I thought that this...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate
Fortunately, as his antics became known, people have stood up against him. As I said in the previous thread about Westboro, over the last few years the only thing the church has done is galvanize forces against them.
...may have been his plan all along. I've pretty much stopped holding out any hope that his hate was anything other than what it seemed to be, but that would explain why he was excommunicated.
Because morals are complex, individual, and have so many different philosophical layers that it makes discerning between things easy. If you can't morally differentiate between the people who wish suffering and death upon otherwise morally good people and people who celebrate the cease of existence of a morally bad person, then you should think more deeply about your own morals.
Perhaps your own morals were not formed in a way that allowed for applied ethics, or any situational relativism. Often people of some religious belief have trouble with it, as many ethics are structured around god, but things are very rarely cut and dry.
If nothing else, I find the philosophy behind it fascinating. I understand the morality behind your statements, but I also find it immoral to refuse to differentiate between the treatment of people based on situational context.
You're not thinking like a crazy person.
Start with the absolute conviction that god is real.
If there is a god, then all ethical and moral dilemmas are structured around god and these issues are cut and dry.
According to WBC and some interpretations of the bible, if you sin, or allow sinners to sin, you're going to hell. WBC have taken it upon themselves to scorn the world and to warn the world of their upcoming doom.
That said, it doesn't seem like they take too much stock in what that Jesus guy has to say about acceptance and love. He dies at the end anyway so I guess he doesn't matter that much.
__________________
Always Earned, Never Given
The Following User Says Thank You to TheDebaser For This Useful Post:
Yeah, I'm not sure how people ethically reconcile the difference between verbal hate and desire for death and suffering. I would imagine most of the world isn't going to mourn or miss him, but I still can't morally differentiate between the the two stances.
I think you'd be singing a different tune and differentiate pretty quickly if your daughter was kidnapped and murdered and some nut jobs picketed her funeral.
When it comes to intolerance against this prick it is all good in my books. I will even walk my dog and let him #### on his grave or stuff myself with taco bell and diarrhea #### on his grave myself.
One of my favourite Westboro videos, Russell Brand having a field day with them.
If the only income these scum can get is from lawsuits against people punching them in their faces, they must do quite well. They remind me of cartoon characters, so exaggerated and stupid, yet they exist. I would love to drop anvils on them.
Last edited by Red Ice Player; 03-16-2014 at 11:02 PM.
Because morals are complex, individual, and have so many different philosophical layers that it makes discerning between things easy. If you can't morally differentiate between the people who wish suffering and death upon otherwise morally good people and people who celebrate the cease of existence of a morally bad person, then you should think more deeply about your own morals.
Perhaps your own morals were not formed in a way that allowed for applied ethics, or any situational relativism. Often people of some religious belief have trouble with it, as many ethics are structured around god, but things are very rarely cut and dry.
If nothing else, I find the philosophy behind it fascinating. I understand the morality behind your statements, but I also find it immoral to refuse to differentiate between the treatment of people based on situational context.
I too find it entirely fascinating, but I think you're simplifying cases like this into the wrong terms. It's not celebrating the cessation of an individual that puzzles me, it's those that actively promote as much suffering and pain as possible to that individual. I'm not upset at his passing, but I would rather his philosophy of hate die quickly, quietly, and peacefully along with him. I don't see the need to draw satisfaction from copious amounts of suffering...I think he and his group has promoted enough of it for a thousand lifetimes.
I'm of the belief most akin to relativism, but it's interesting (and confusing) to see ethical contradictions like these in these situations.
Your final statement is, frankly, a brash generalization of my ethics and personality that I don't believe applies at all. I just don't see how wishing for suffering and death in any situation should be acceptable. I don't know how me actively wishing for additional pain on top of the pain already caused makes me a better person.
__________________ "It's a great day for hockey."
-'Badger' Bob Johnson (1931-1991)
"I see as much misery out of them moving to justify theirselves as them that set out to do harm." -Dr. Amos "Doc" Cochran
Last edited by Yamer; 03-17-2014 at 07:01 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Yamer For This Useful Post:
I think you'd be singing a different tune and differentiate pretty quickly if your daughter was kidnapped and murdered and some nut jobs picketed her funeral.
If my moral judgment to something is vastly different because my emotional response to that thing, that's a good indication that my response probably isn't moral.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
I too find it entirely fascinating, but I think you're simplifying cases like this into the wrong terms. It's not celebrating the cessation of an individual that puzzles me, it's those that actively promote as much suffering and pain as possible to that individual. I'm not upset at his passing, but I would rather his philosophy of hate die quickly, quietly, and peacefully along with him. I don't see the need to draw satisfaction from copious amounts of suffering...I think he and his group has promoted enough of it for a thousand lifetimes.
I'm of the belief most akin to relativism, but it's interesting (and confusing) to see ethical contradictions like these in these situations.
Your final statement is, frankly, a brash generalization of my ethics and personality that I don't believe applies at all. I just don't see how wishing for suffering and death in any situation should be acceptable. I don't know how me actively wishing for additional pain on top of the pain already caused makes me a better person.
The best part is that even philosophers who were heavily involved in ethics and morality contradicted themselves constantly.
Kant, I believe, thought along the lines that it was immoral to do or wish harm on any individual, but that it was also immoral NOT to wish harm on someone who negatively affected society.
Even in war, you might wish for the safe return home of soldiers, but without it being spoken, this accompanies the wish that the enemy be defeated and (possibly) death come to them. Is it immoral? No.
The situation is similar here. Human rights and kindness are moral objectives. WBC are profoundly immoral, so in the battle for morality and what is best for society, it is perfectly moral to hope for the defeat (of whatever means) of anyone who does harm to society through immoral means. Perhaps you might take issue with how it's verbalised, but this is also the Internet, home to anyone expressing however they feel in the most basic and emotional form. Morals are complex, so I wouldn't get too worried about how people express themselves on the Internet.
There were a lot of questions regarding the morality of celebrating death when Bin Laden died. Religious leaders all said celebration by any means was immoral, but most philosophers seemed to think the opposite. That, while it wasn't perfect, the root of the emotion behind the celebration was indeed a moral one.
Anyways, I just find it to be alright. You may not be any morally different than the guy who wishes Phelps dies a slow and painful death. It's a matter of expression.
The Following User Says Thank You to strombad For This Useful Post:
