Robertson was one of the most prominent and influential Christian broadcasters and entrepreneurs in the U.S., equal parts religious leader and culture warrior.
I know you won’t understand any of this but I’m bored.
You actually can tell people not to celebrate death, for instance if it’s your family member- you’re within your rights to be upset because you have a relationship with that person. So if you think Pat Robinson was a good dude, it’s actually not as self-righteous to say “Stop that, he was a good guy!”. That would be silly for other reasons though.
But if you don’t have a dog in the fight, it’s pretty self-righteous and morally superior to just rant that strangers can’t be glad someone that caused them pain is dead. Not everyone shares the vacuous sentiment that the dead should be uncritically revered and expecting them to is as silly as them expecting you to celebrate with them, but I haven’t seen anyone asking for that.
As far as telling people not to murder… yeah- actions and words are inherently distinct. Hilariously weak point but I do like the energy.
@stanleytweedle Okay. So it’s not that he was telling people what to do, but rather that it’s okay to celebrate somebody’s death if they were a bad person who’s unrelated to you, is that your position? And how does that line up with self-righteousness? As far as I know, self-righteousness refers to thinking you’re morally superior to other people, but the logical conclusion of your argument here would be that he was just wrong, not self righteous specifically.
I think you should just stick to the idea that self-righteousness means ‘telling people what to do’. That seems to be as far as you can go with this. Do another ‘cognitive dissonance test’ on me- that was funny.
I did the cognitive dissonance test but you failed already.
“Self-righteousness is telling people what to do, that’s why I told that person what to do”
“Is it wrong to tell people what to do if it’s murder tho?”
“No, of course not!”
The only way to get out of this logical quandary would be to claim that self-righteousness is bad, but that would have defeated your grounds for criticism in the first place.
I know you won’t understand any of this but I’m bored.
You actually can tell people not to celebrate death, for instance if it’s your family member- you’re within your rights to be upset because you have a relationship with that person. So if you think Pat Robinson was a good dude, it’s actually not as self-righteous to say “Stop that, he was a good guy!”. That would be silly for other reasons though.
But if you don’t have a dog in the fight, it’s pretty self-righteous and morally superior to just rant that strangers can’t be glad someone that caused them pain is dead. Not everyone shares the vacuous sentiment that the dead should be uncritically revered and expecting them to is as silly as them expecting you to celebrate with them, but I haven’t seen anyone asking for that.
As far as telling people not to murder… yeah- actions and words are inherently distinct. Hilariously weak point but I do like the energy.
@stanleytweedle Okay. So it’s not that he was telling people what to do, but rather that it’s okay to celebrate somebody’s death if they were a bad person who’s unrelated to you, is that your position? And how does that line up with self-righteousness? As far as I know, self-righteousness refers to thinking you’re morally superior to other people, but the logical conclusion of your argument here would be that he was just wrong, not self righteous specifically.
I think you should just stick to the idea that self-righteousness means ‘telling people what to do’. That seems to be as far as you can go with this. Do another ‘cognitive dissonance test’ on me- that was funny.
@stanleytweedle
I did the cognitive dissonance test but you failed already.
“Self-righteousness is telling people what to do, that’s why I told that person what to do”
“Is it wrong to tell people what to do if it’s murder tho?”
“No, of course not!”
The only way to get out of this logical quandary would be to claim that self-righteousness is bad, but that would have defeated your grounds for criticism in the first place.
I enjoy reading your interpretation of this conversation.