Patine
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2011
- Messages
- 11,964
No, I understood the stretched, hyperbolic correlation. I just think the conflation is excessive to the extreme, when simply disagreeing with their opinion would suffice.
It's not hyperbolic (especially by the standards of an Internet and public discourse today where almost everything is already somewhat hyperbolic to begin with, especially relative to not so long ago - probably the result of irresponsible, untrustworthy, sensationalist, "screaming-headlines-and-clickbait-media"). It seems my analogy just strikes an uncomfortable nerve, and now an attempt to brush it under the carpet and denounce the comparison for daring to be said rather than being addressed with any sincerity is what's being attempted.
Whether he would have done it or not is beside the point. I was directly responding to what someone else said, I wasn't the one to bring it up. The point is generally speaking, "at least they didn't do something" that they never could have done even if they wanted to is not an accomplishment in and of itself. Ergo, an irrelevant thing to bring up. I don't think he deserved to get killed because of what I assume he might or might not have done if those options were realistically on the table. I'm condemning explicitly for things he HAD done, in conjunction with pretending to be the complete anthesis of those things.
You're still saying he DESERVED to be murdered, and that is where I have to call you (or anyone else) out on. That way of thinking is reprehensible and soulless - but not, in MY view, worthy of being murdered - obviously another area we differ on...