Originally posted by Rockydonovang
1) Ad hominem. Stick to my arguments please. I'm not in the mood for your tantrums.2) I'm not sure if you're missing this or just intentionally trying to avoid the point. Let me make this simpler for you.
Calling Bush a war criminal is an example of
https://literarydevices.net/figurative-language/3) This use of language can . Bush may not, technically be a war criminal. But instigating a conflict that kills thousands of people is worthy of being considered a war crime. It dangerous to use literal definitions as strictly as you are because these technicalities are used by powerful people to prevent themselves from being held accountable. Has the UN went along with Obama killing people with drones? Yes. Does that mean someone who calls Obama a war criminal after his death is a idiot? The reason why Bush isn't technically is a war criminal is because he's protected by the office of the United States of America. That doens't remotely render this woman's point inaccurate.
And if you aren't willing to address this point, then you're in no position to take a stand on this woman's tweet.
4) I'm sorry. Are you calling my statements regarding the role of parental influence on the development of their children, philosophy? I hate to break it to you, but that's scientific fact:
https://my.vanderbilt.edu/developmentalpsychologyblog/2014/04/recognizing-the-importance-of-parental-influence-in-social-and-behavioral-development/5) "Free will"? Unsubstantiated, unsupported belief. The issue is you're trying to define free will as something independent of the scientifically proven factors that determine who we are. Our choices are based on who we are, and who are are is largely based on how our parents raise us. Asserting that parents have nothing to do with how their children turn up is nonsense. If you aren't willing to take responsibility for your children, don't have them.
1) It's the truth. You're just a pretty horrible person supporting the actions of an even more horrible person (westboro-level horrible). You can go ahead and call it a "tantrum" if you want, but I'm just calling it what it is.
2) Let me get this straight, you "justify" her words due to its "historical truth" even tho it is simply a figure of speech (citation needed where you found out that she meant it in a figurative way)? Lol.
Ladies and gentlemen. Rocky says Bush JR is figuratively a war criminal, thus an attack on his dead mother and their grieving family is justifiable for "historical truth (but not literally)". Historical truth based on figurative crimes! Yay! Logic!
You know that when a crime is used as historical fact, it needs to be based on literal truth, correct?
3) So, most every single US president is a "war criminal" now? Every soldier who kills for his country a "murderer"? Every single parent who sends their kids to their room are "like the worst parents ever". And that should be somehow historically relevant?
And we should now "respect" (in your own words) the actions of people who use exaggerated subjective opinion (because that's what it is, an opinion) to justify these horrible actions due to.... um... some sort of "truth"?
Are you just so desperate to justify the actions of a hateful troll that you simply go on to probably do the longest logic reach in the history of these forums?
4) Nice attempt at moving the goal posts. We are not talking about parental influence. We are talking about parental ACCOUNTABILITY.
You know like when you say, that it is ok to attack an old lady because her kids are assholes due to the fact that they are basically partly responsible for everything their kids do even tho their kids are like 50 or something?
Nice try, tho. Not really.
5) You do not have to believe in the concept of free will. But you do have to live with it. Because personal responsibility is the standard for which our society judges accountability, via our laws. Regardless of what you want to happen.
Again, moving the goal posts. Never said the parents have nothing to do with it (because basically everything we interact with in this world can influence us in some way or another duh), they are, however, based on society via the law, not accountable for the independent actions of their fully grown adult children. How are you not getting this?
So, go ahead and be a snowflake. But I'd love to see you blame your mommy the next time you get a speeding/parking ticket. Let her pay part of the fine. See what the judge thinks. 👆
So breaking down your logic:
Mrs Bush is sufficiently guilty for her (and her entire grieving family) to be viciously attacked during her funeral due to her son's figurative crimes because y'know parents somehow need to be held accountable for all their fully adult kid's figurative crimes because this lends some sort of figurative "historical truth".
This is your logic, take it in.