jon5000
Posts: 1087
Joined: 29/3/2007
From: LA
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DancingClown
quote:
ORIGINAL: jon5000
quote:
ORIGINAL: Shifty Bench
quote:
ORIGINAL: jon5000
I would have liked see like to see him punished for his crimes of course and if it was my child I would probably want to see him hung - but yes, call me a hippy twat whatever you like, I would still shake his hand on the charity work he's done.
Ah, but would you have shaken the hand of a charity worker who abused our child and you knew they had done so?
Again call me out on this as much as you like, but yes... I genuinely would. It would probably be the most awkward handshake ever but if that person had made a positive difference to the lives of others I couldn't argue with it I'm sorry. I would want them to serve a sentence in jail but I genuinely wouldn't wish to take away the acknowledgement for the good they have done.
I have very strong principles with things like that. Maybe even a flaw, I don't know.
Sorry y'all.
That is one of the stupidest things I have ever read on this forum, and that's saying something. "You abused my child, you evil bastard...but hey you participated in a series of charity bake-offs for Great Ormonds so I'm going to shake your hand anyway". That does not make any sense. Although I imagine you could be saying it simply to try and save face after having exhausted any logical justification for your argument with your absurd Hitler analogy.
Yes, a good deed is a good deed that may have helped someone. The deed itself does not get undone by subsequent actions of the person responsible. But the motivations and sincerity of the altruism is called into question, and the person's character is what could prove to become undone, as opposed to the effect of the good deeds themselves. But offering a handshake would reveal a moral ambivalence on your behalf as well, Jon. To offer another analogy it would be like accepting drug money for a hospital. It wouldn't matter that people may have died, that the money may be tainted with innocent blood, as long as the money goes to doing good then it doesn't matter, you would turn a blind eye. Some different lives at the hospital may be saved, but it would be an ultimate hipocrisy.
And the Hitler thing. Oh, dude. The idea that you might want to "acknowledge" any altruism prior to the slaughter of millions is not only nonsensical, but insulting. You should do the honourable thing and retract it because it has rendered your attempts to justify your feelings as obselete.
Edit: Sorry to perpetuate the argument but I felt compelled to comment on this horseshit.
See, this is where it really becomes insulting.
Failing to see the argument and clearly disagreeing with my own personal point of view, you have decided to jump aboard some righteous crusade and essentially accuse me of insulting the millions who died in the holocaust in that sentence. Nice.
I personally see a good deed as a good deed, as I have explained several times above. I do not see that as nonsensical. I see that as right in a civilised society. So yes, in some hypothetical world - I would want to see Hitler get the full force of retribution possible for his heinous crimes, but I would not write off any hypothetical good deed he might have done prior. I'm not saying I would posthumously award him great accolades in the face of those that lost their lives, no. That really would be insulting. But a good deed is still a good deed. Even if somebody evil does it. That is all I have been saying. That is my personal, apparently isolated, belief. Call me stupid if you like, I'm sure it adds weight to your argument.
I would loathe the person who abused my child, of course. I would want them to feel the full weight of punishment. But if they had made a difference to peoples' lives in the weight that Jimmy Saville had, I would not do the reactionary thing and write that off. I can assure you I'm not trying to save face in this argument I genuinely believe good is good.
You clearly all disagree with that point of view, fine. But don't try and weasel any kind of righteous argument here. I have never, ever said that an evil act isn't an evil act. Not once. So please don't imply that I have. That really is insulting.
To use another, no doubt to be accused of poor-example: Lance Armstrong. Does the fact he cheated render his charity work worthless? I will admit to feeling let down by his actions, as I mentioned in another thread, but I would not wish to see his charity work undone or written off. I know, cheating in races is a few extremes way from what Jimmy Saville is alleged to have done, but I use this example to illustrate how my principles don't waver regardless of what Esther Rantzen says on the Radio.
Public opinion is the worst form of moral judgement. It is consistently flawed and often knee jerk reactionary. Even if the worst, most evil bastard had done an ounce of good, I would still recognise that as good. Call me stupid, call me insane, call me Christian... whatever. I stand by that even if it makes me look like a tit. I honestly don't care.
< Message edited by jon5000 -- 1/10/2012 11:10:45 AM >
|
Printable Version
RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread