Speaking ill of the dead.

Chris James · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Maggot

Over the last few weeks we have had several comments/threads about people who are either recently dead, or elderly and frail (Manning, Thatcher, Pinochet, Blair, The Queen et al). etc
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I agree, although think it is strange that you should make this point given that a couple of weeks ago you were blaming the dead at Hillsborough for their own demise. They ALSO have living relatives who probably find that distasteful (as well as ill informed and contrary to the findings of the various public enquiries).
It also seems at odd to the quote below that was posted by you on page 7 of the Scouser Misbehaviour thread:

quote:

What bollocks. The events were tragic and avoidable. But to say that no-one should be allowed to knock, make fun or say ANYTHING about what happened just about proves the Scouser "victim mentality". You can't honestly tell me that there have been no jokes going about Liverpool about other tragic events can you? Hippocritical, sentimental ****e. People died, some other people were to blame no doubt, but because they were mostly from Liverpool no-one can talk about anything concerning it in case someone gets up-set. Get a grip!

Or perhaps you think it is acceptable to make fun of the dead if they are from Liverpool, but not otherwise?

dondare · June 2007

Humour is a way of coping.

This sig is under construction.

Unknown · June 2007

In his book, "Things can only get better," John O'Farrell wrote about being a Labour supporter during the Thatcher years. He says one of the touchstone issues that divided the extreme left from the mainstream left was the issue of shooting the Royal Family. Apparently, much discussion on the left is over who you'll shoot when you get into power, and although there was general agreement over shooting the other Royals, only the hard left demanded that the Queen Mother be shot.

Joe Sacco · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens

In his book, "Things can only get better," John O'Farrell wrote about being a Labour supporter during the Thatcher years. He says one of the touchstone issues that divided the extreme left from the mainstream left was the issue of shooting the Royal Family. Apparently, much discussion on the left is over who you'll shoot when you get into power, and although there was general agreement over shooting the other Royals, only the hard left demanded that the Queen Mother be shot.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Whereas the far right are deciding which minorities they will be shooting...

Chris James · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens

In his book, "Things can only get better," Apparently, much discussion on the left is over who you'll shoot when you get into power, and although there was general agreement over shooting the other Royals, only the hard left demanded that the Queen Mother be shot.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I think you forgot to insert the word 'humorous' between the second and third words.

I don't think shooting people you don't like is a lefty thing in particular. That would make Mrs Thatcher's pal, General Pinochet, some sort of communist[:D]

redcogs · June 2007

i don't recall anything other than rejoicing from the right when Sadam was swinging out.

please look up to the stars.. ***

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Chris James

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens

In his book, "Things can only get better," Apparently, much discussion on the left is over who you'll shoot when you get into power, and although there was general agreement over shooting the other Royals, only the hard left demanded that the Queen Mother be shot.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I think you forgot to insert the word 'humorous' between the second and third words.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No, it was deliberate. John O'Farrell's joke was written deadpan, so I thought I'd repeat it in the same way. I am of course assuming that it was a joke. [:0]

ankev1 · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

i don't recall anything other than rejoicing from the right when Sadam was swinging out.

please look up to the stars.. ***
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

As I already posted, I think a degree of satisfaction at the death of a murderous dictator is understandable on the part of the bereaved. I was glad he got justice but it would never occur to me to actually rejoice about his death, after all he was a human being who went very wrong and did some terrible things.

OTH when people talk about having parties when Thatcher dies (and I've no doubt a few people will) there is something tasteless about celebrating in such a way the death of a democratically elected politician. It would make more sense to have a go at the people who voted for her sufficiently to get her elected three times or those opposed to her who in the eyes of the electorate made a crap job of opposing her.

I detest Scargill as I always saw a wannabe Hitler in him. I could imagine discretely raising a glass on the occasion of his demise but I couldn't imagine taking joy in it or saying things to that effect in public as it might hurt the feelings of those who rated him. Attacking him for his actions is of course another matter and there should be little difference in how that is done both before and after his death.

Flying_Monkey · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by spire

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

Patrick - if I'm going to reply to you, you should at least try to address the substance of my argument, rather than leaving out the difficult bits.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

FM is definitely having his monthlies today![;)]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Sigh. It's like kids tittering at the back of the class sometimes...[|)]

And BTW, 'woosh' / 'whoosh' is not a real word, it's a sound effect, so you can spell it exactly how you like... in this case, perhaps it should be more like 'woooooOOOOSSSSHHHH', as it's clearly a lot faster and higher from where you're standing... [;)]

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

rothbook · June 2007

Brilliant post Chris James.

Unknown · June 2007

Some clarification, ankev you are correct, I was being ironic in response to Redcogs reply.

Chris, I was not, as far as I recall, saying that hopefully the new Liverpool stand will fall over and bury all the car-thieving Scousers who are stupid enough to follow football was I? Also I certainly did not blame the victims for their own deaths, do you think I believe Hillsborough to be an enormous and elaborate suicide plot? I was saying, and still believe that, nothing is out of bounds as far as humour is concerned. I see the use of humour as the key, there. I would not have started a thread entitled "No jokes about any subject that someone might find offensive", this thread is about actually wishing people dead or rejoicing in their death, which is completely different from rejoicing in someones life. I see no contradiction in saying nothing is out of bounds for comedy, but also saying lets not wish people to die. Have I explained that clearly? (That is not meant to be aggressive before you pick me up on it, it's a question)

_______________________________________________________
"Finding a witty yet original signature is quite difficult isn't it?"

http://www.flickr.com/photos/26011722@N00/

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by spire

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

Patrick - if I'm going to reply to you, you should at least try to address the substance of my argument, rather than leaving out the difficult bits.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

FM is definitely having his monthlies today![;)]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Sigh. It's like kids tittering at the back of the class sometimes...[|)]

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Now, why do I suddenly picture FM as a very earnest school teacher? [;)]

spire · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

And BTW, 'woosh' / 'whoosh' is not a real word, it's a sound effect, so you can spell it exactly how you like...

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Tut, tut. WRONG!

It is onomatopoeic AND a real word.

I thought you were an academic?[;)]

Flying_Monkey · June 2007

You are correct. I'm clearly not an English Language teacher...

But pedantry aside, you still seem to be avoiding the main issue.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by rothbook

Brilliant post Chris James.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Got another identity?

So you voted, and now you've got a government. I just hope YOU like it.

Chris James · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Maggot

Have I explained that clearly? (That is not meant to be aggressive before you pick me up on it, it's a question)

_______________________________________________________
"Finding a witty yet original signature is quite difficult isn't it?"

http://www.flickr.com/photos/26011722@N00/

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
So it is okay to laugh at Mrs Thatcher's death but not to say that you will have a party?

Your quote above actually says that, in your opinion, it is okay to 'say ANYTHING' so doesn't limit comment to just humorous stuff.

You may not actively be wishing people's death but your quote:

'Imagine the scouse outcry if more of them had been crushed to death! They do seem to bring it on themselves, knobs.' from Are Scousers Stupid page 1, does sound like you wouldn't have been upset if death had occurred.

As far as the original point is concerned, I find it strange that people could be really full of hate for people they probably have never met to actually want them dead. I am no fan of Mrs Thatcher, and am very glad that she is no longer PM. I have no wish for her life to be shortened, equally however, I will not shed any tears at her demise.

spire · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

1. You are correct. I'm clearly not an English Language teacher...

But pedantry aside,

2. you still seem to be avoiding the main issue.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

1. It's sad that academics now consider it pedantic to correct faulty English! [;)] Your students must have an easy ride.

2. The main issue is whether 'dancing on a grave' is distasteful. It is a simple matter you are trying to complicate, and I answered it on page 1:

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by spire

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Maggot

Over the last few weeks we have had several comments/threads about people who are either recently dead, or elderly and frail (Manning, Thatcher, Pinochet, Blair, The Queen et al).

Does anyone else find this theme disturbing? I can see why people are angry about the decisions these people took while alive, but to propose parties and dancing on peoples graves, well, it's distateful isn't it?

com/photos/26011722@N00/

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Agree completely.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by simoncp

It's just a way that a few people who consider themselves to be caring, kind, moral and ethical individuals have of demonstrating to the rest of us just how caring, kind, moral and ethical they are. All very immature, but there's no real malice, just a desire to show off.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Very insightful and well put.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Flying_Monkey · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by spire
2. The main issue is whether 'dancing on a grave' is distasteful. It is a simple matter you are trying to complicate, and I answered it on page 1:
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No you didn't. In fact, apart from saying you agreed completely with the OP, and also with the usual cynical and vacuous squib posted by simoncp, you didn't address the issues which are complex, in my post at all. Since you are now engaging with me, please do me the favour of actually reading the initial post I made and addressing those issues... you still haven't shown any sign of actually making the effort yet. It might require a little more effort that just saying 'I agree' or 'I disagree', but I'm sure you're capable.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Chris James

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
So it is okay to laugh at Mrs Thatcher's death but not to say that you will have a party?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

What it's really about it is the difference between black humour and ostentatiously rejoicing at someone's death.

spire · June 2007

FM

In all seriousness, there's very little I disagree with in your OP, which makes a fair assessment of the situation. However, your analysis is non-judgemental - it explains why people act the way they do, rather than saying whether this behaviour is acceptable or not.

The original OP by Maggot was a fairly straightforward question, which I answered.

Lastly, I think you are very harsh on simoncp. Like you, I disagree with much he has to say, but he does have an insightful wit that you seem to miss.

Joe Sacco · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by spire

FM

In all seriousness, there's very little I disagree with in your OP, which makes a fair assessment of the situation. However, your analysis is non-judgemental - it explains why people act the way they do, rather than saying whether this behaviour is acceptable or not.

The original OP by Maggot was a fairly straightforward question, which I answered.

Lastly, I think you are very harsh on simoncp. Like you, I disagree with much he has to say, but he does have an insightful wit that you seem to miss.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

He is not the only one to miss that insightful wit. Although I do skim over his posts as they are always just a mix of negativity, bitterness and cynicism. Characteristics I choose to avoid.

redcogs · June 2007

i wonder, who amongst the fine and upstanding principled members of the right wing defenders of all that is patriotic and decent would own up to thinking it might have been a progressive and/or appropriate thing to have assassinated Stalin immediately after the fall of Berlin, or PolPot in about 1975, or Chairman Mao before the long march?

Any takers?

please look up to the stars.. ***

Gary Askwith · June 2007

I agree with joe [:0] Simoncp is champion witless, humourless poster in cycling+
But he does amuse me considerably, arf arf [:)]

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

spire · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

i wonder, who amongst the fine and upstanding principled members of the right wing defenders of all that is patriotic and decent would own up to thinking it might have been a progressive and/or appropriate thing to have assassinated Stalin immediately after the fall of Berlin, or PolPot in about 1975, or Chairman Mao before the long march?

Any takers?

please look up to the stars.. ***
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I would say hunting to eat vs hunting for pleasure is analogous to assassinating for greater good vs dancing on graves.

redcogs · June 2007

It is acceptable to kill an individual, but unacceptable to dance on their grave?

Wherein the morality?

please look up to the stars.. ***

redcogs · June 2007

According to your argument spire, it could have been appropriate to bump Thatch off prior to the unremitting damage she did throughout her period of office.

We may have found, at last, some measure of agreement.

please look up to the stars.. ***

Joe Sacco · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

According to your argument spire, it could have been appropriate to bump Thatch off prior to the unremitting damage she did throughout her period of office.

We may have found, at last, some measure of agreement.

please look up to the stars.. ***
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Have you managed to build a time machine then? Are you going to go back through history and kill anyone whose actions you disagreed with? Sounds a bit dangerous!

redcogs · June 2007

Simply applying the spire logic. Not necessarilly a bad idea though.

;-)

please look up to the stars.. ***

redcogs · June 2007

Not saying i'm paranoid, but when the site went down, i was waiting for a knock at the door from Maggot n the rest of the moral high ground acrobats waving pickaxe handles..

please look up to the stars.. ***

Joe Sacco · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

Not saying i'm paranoid, but when the site went down, i was waiting for a knock at the door from Maggot n the rest of the moral high ground acrobats waving pickaxe handles..

please look up to the stars.. ***
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

you need to lay off the pot I reckon.

Speaking ill of the dead.

Comments

Categories