I’m not advocating tolerance. The key difference is laughing at someone’s death isn’t just an expression of disapproval, it is a devaluation of human life in general. It isn’t a question of being justified in laughing at their demise because they laughed at horrible things; the very act of laughing degrades yourself.
Let me put it another way: Epstein and his accomplices deserved to be gang raped by all of us in prison. Should we run a train on them? No! Because that defiles us as much as it does them.
My post wasn’t meant it present an equivalence. It was meant to illustrate that both acts are degrading to the person performing them, with the latter being more extreme in its harm. It isn’t meant as some kind of “proof” that I am right. I was hoping that if someone agreed that the more extreme dehumanizng acts are harmful for them, then maybe they would consider that the lesser ones could also be. But I guess my real mistake was trying to convince people not to hurt themselves.
You’re really dedicated to this. I’m sure someone is eager to engage your bad-faith . . . suppositions dressed in slightly bigger words than usual but it ain’t me.
I’m sorry you assume this is in bad faith. Internet text messages leave a lot to be desired when it comes to conveying a message. I am sincere, but I’m afraid I often come off as know-it-all, arrogant, holier-than-thow, in an attempt to make my point. I’m afraid it is self-defeating. I need to learn how to communicate these things better.
I get your point but it feels like just a spin on the paradox of tolerance.
My enemy in this case is laughing at something they support happening to someone they don’t support.
I am (not really) laughing at something i don’t support that happend to someone who does supports that thing.
The thing here being, far too easy acces to firearms and the inevitable deaths resulting from it.
I also feel like its more a dopamine approval of the general karma of the situation then it is a literal celebration of lost life.
I’m not advocating tolerance. The key difference is laughing at someone’s death isn’t just an expression of disapproval, it is a devaluation of human life in general. It isn’t a question of being justified in laughing at their demise because they laughed at horrible things; the very act of laughing degrades yourself.
Let me put it another way: Epstein and his accomplices deserved to be gang raped by all of us in prison. Should we run a train on them? No! Because that defiles us as much as it does them.
Yours is a perfect false equivalence.
Epstein was offed via bedsheets. We can also laugh at that.
You can also dig up his body and rape it still: https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/articles/jeffrey-epstein-final-resting-place-183719617.html
You can, but you shouldn’t.
My post wasn’t meant it present an equivalence. It was meant to illustrate that both acts are degrading to the person performing them, with the latter being more extreme in its harm. It isn’t meant as some kind of “proof” that I am right. I was hoping that if someone agreed that the more extreme dehumanizng acts are harmful for them, then maybe they would consider that the lesser ones could also be. But I guess my real mistake was trying to convince people not to hurt themselves.
You’re really dedicated to this. I’m sure someone is eager to engage your bad-faith . . . suppositions dressed in slightly bigger words than usual but it ain’t me.
Enjoy your day.
I’m sorry you assume this is in bad faith. Internet text messages leave a lot to be desired when it comes to conveying a message. I am sincere, but I’m afraid I often come off as know-it-all, arrogant, holier-than-thow, in an attempt to make my point. I’m afraid it is self-defeating. I need to learn how to communicate these things better.
I sincerely hope you can enjoy your day also.