Posted: Apr 08, 2014 10:27 am
The_Metatron wrote:Mr.Samsa wrote:[Reveal] Spoiler:Sendraks wrote:Who said you were wrong?
MoS is implying that someone needs to adopt a specific ideology related to atheism in order to think it's wrong to use a dead child's condition as an insult and that's why supposedly nobody agrees with me.Sendraks wrote:You think it is in bad taste. No one is telling you to think differently.
That some of us disagree doesn't make us wrong either.
Well sure, in some strict world of relativism, maybe. But the point is that someone can't be consistent in damning the Facebook decision and refuse to damn Cali for his comment, as they are both pretty equally horrible.Animavore wrote:Mr.Samsa wrote:Come now, I don't think we should be so pessimistic to think I'm the only one who found the comment to be ridiculously bad.
Actually I did. On par with saying that person X is more Down's-y than the Down's kid they're making fun of (to stick with my earlier analogy).
Though I wasn't bothered being outraged by it. I find Franky Boyle funny FFS.
I agree with your analogy but I don't think "outraged" is a good descriptor. I find Frankie Boyle hilarious too but I wouldn't enter a thread to make fun of some ridiculously insensitive thing somebody has said about rape to quote a rape joke made by Boyle. I'm more just amused at the ridiculousness of Cali attempting to criticise the actions of Facebook by making a comment that is similarly shitty to those actions themselves.
I never thought it would be controversial to basically point out that maybe we shouldn't insult the condition of a dead baby in a thread about its mother who is trying to raise awareness of the condition..
Insult a condition? When did this become a problem, and for whom?
Since this thread is about the problem of her kid's condition being treated as "offensive" it makes no sense to use it as an insult.
It's a problem for anyone who doesn't want to be hypocritical.