Jerry Falwell Dead

mmarsh

Active member
CNN is reporting that Jerry Falwell has died at age 73.


http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/05/15/jerry.falwell/index.html


I dislike to speak ill of the recently deceased, but I have got no respect for people that preach hatred. So to blazes with Jerry Falwell...

1. This is a man who was an outspoken supporter of Apartheid. Referred to Nobel prize winner Desmond Tutu as a phony.

2. Was an outspoken segregationist referring to Civil Rights Act as "Civil Wrongs Act".

"If Chief Justice Warren and his associates had known God’s word and had desired to do the Lord’s will, I am quite confident that the 1954 decision would never have been made…. The facilities should be separate. When God has drawn a line of distinction, we should not attempt to cross that line.”
-Jerry Falwell 1958

3. Blamed Lesbians and Liberals for 9-11.

4. Described to the anti-Christ as a Jewish man.

5. Notorious Homophobe.

A nasty, racist, anti-semitic, homophobic, Far-right Christian-Taliban Radical.

Good Riddance.
 
Well, looking on the bright side of such a sad day for the "Right" in America...... it does give Strom Thurmond someone to roast marshmallows with.
 
Ok, so you wanna go there, sobeit... I may not have agreed with everything he did but he stood up for those things he believed in, something most people don't do. So good on him for having the courage of his convictions even if I thought he was nuts.

And as far as his racist comments, people change. My grandpa was a bigot and got his tit in a wringer during WWII for telling a black E-7, ":cen: you n____r." But he changed, by the time I married my first wife he welcomed her with open arms and our daughter too.

Are you without sin? Have your beliefs never changed?

And on top of all this, he is dead. Railing against the actions of a deadman are the height of impotency.
 
Ok, so you wanna go there, sobeit... I may not have agreed with everything he did but he stood up for those things he believed in, something most people don't do. So good on him for having the courage of his convictions even if I thought he was nuts.

And as far as his racist comments, people change. My grandpa was a bigot and got his tit in a wringer during WWII for telling a black E-7, ":cen: you n____r." But he changed, by the time I married my first wife he welcomed her with open arms and our daughter too.

Are you without sin? Have your beliefs never changed?


Adolf Hitler believed in his convictions too, especially when he was gassing 6 million Jews, do you admire that too? Or maybe Stalin, when he sent 20 Million people to the Gulag. I'm sure Adolf and 'Uncle Joe' was absolutly convinced they were doing the right thing. Personally I would have preferred that they and Falwell been less honest to themselves, and become better human beings because of it. A monster with convictions is still a monster.

Secondly, only SOME people change. Some never do. Some people remain racists their entire life. Falwell comments about his admiration of Apartheid was only 20 years ago, not 50. And like so many on the right, he never apologized for his racism views either. He merely realized the segregationist platform was a lost cause and changed the subject. Thats hardly a change of heart. If Jim Crow ever made a return you can be sure he would be right there supporting it. A Leopard doesn't change it spots.

All Falwell did was to trade his Klansman robes for those of the pulpit, and in doing so sullied the good name of Christians everywhere. Falwell built his entire ministry on hate (blacks, Jews, Homosexuals, Leftists, Mormons, and various others who didn't agree with him). Hate is one of the 7 Deadly Sins (by contrast, homosexuality isn't). Thats the hypocrisy of all these 'moralists'. Gator is right, he'll be judged on that.

Maybe you find his 'convictions' admirable, I find it despicable.
 
Last edited:
Class is in session

Ok, so you wanna go there, sobeit... I may not have agreed with everything he did but he stood up for those things he believed in, something most people don't do. So good on him for having the courage of his convictions even if I thought he was nuts.

And as far as his racist comments, people change. My grandpa was a bigot and got his tit in a wringer during WWII for telling a black E-7, ":cen: you n____r." But he changed, by the time I married my first wife he welcomed her with open arms and our daughter too.

Are you without sin? Have your beliefs never changed?

And on top of all this, he is dead. Railing against the actions of a deadman are the height of impotency.
Highlighted since you seem to have missed a key point.

Further to your comments I would offer this...
The logical fallacy of argumentum ad hitlorum is a sure sign your opponent has no argument at all. Cheers.

FYI... hate is NOT one of the seven deadly sins... for your personal edification they are in fact; pride, avarice, envy, wrath, lust, gluttony and sloth.
http://www.whitestonejournal.com/seven/
 
Last edited:
As usual, you totally missed the point.

I never said you agreed with Falwell. Nowhere did I accuse of that. I'll highlight the points so you can understand.

What I said was: An evil man even with the courage of his convictions isn't to be commended when those same convictions are used in EVIL AND IMMORAL ACTIONS (like preaching hatred).

Its like commending the 9-11 terrorists for being good muslims. Only extremists think that way.

Umm, To Hate is to be totally consumed by wrath. Therefore since Wrath is a sin, automatically so is hate. Hate cannot exist without anger.

Racism's root is Fear. Fear becomes Anger, Anger becomes Hatred. All links on the same chain.

I would offer this in reply to you: One cannot be effective in expressing his/her argument when the person is incapable of listening.

Class is now over.
 
Last edited:
Evil is a highly subjective word. To some people the ideals of western society are "evil" and to others those espoused by islam are "evil" but I digress. Jerry Falwell did not kill 6 million jews... Jerry Falwell did not kill 20 million soviets... comparing Falwell to Hitler and Stalin is a classic logical fallacy, Argumentum ad hitlorum and saying that the deceased was a former Klansman is commiting the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam because you have no proof of this claim, the hyperbole of the leopord and his spots is again a logical fallacy, composition fallacy because beliefs and knowledge are able to change unlike the phenotype of the leopard species.
 
As usual, you totally missed the point.

I never said you agreed with Falwell. Nowhere did I accuse of that. I'll highlight the points so you can understand.

What I said was: An evil man even with the courage of his convictions isn't to be commended when those same convictions are used in EVIL AND IMMORAL ACTIONS (like preaching hatred).

Its like commending the 9-11 terrorists for being good muslims. Only extremists think that way.

Umm, To Hate is to be totally consumed by wrath. Therefore since Wrath is a sin, automatically so is hate. Hate cannot exist without anger.

Racism's root is Fear. Fear becomes Anger, Anger becomes Hatred. All links on the same chain.

I would offer this in reply to you: One cannot be effective in expressing his/her argument when the person is incapable of listening.

Class is now over.

Editing after a response is bad form, so you force me to double post to quote you and hold you to your responses.

Hate does not require anger, in fact hate without anger is to be feared most I would argue because it grows from logic rather than emotion.

"Evil" and "immoral"... again subjective. Morallity is NOT universal. Ethics are as they apply to the accepted conventions of action in a given profession or field of study but morals are confined to cultures. What is moral in the US is not what is moral in India and it goes even more detailed as the morals of one region within a country vary from those of another within the same country. What you're doing right now is called cultural imperialism, you are imposing the values and morals of your belief system upon those external to the society from which those beliefs and moral judgments were arrived at by the members of that group.
 
Evil is a highly subjective word. To some people the ideals of western society are "evil" and to others those espoused by islam are "evil" but I digress.

Only to extremists on both sides, not rational people.

Jerry Falwell did not kill 6 million jews... Jerry Falwell did not kill 20 million soviets... comparing Falwell to Hitler and Stalin is a classic logical fallacy,

Birds of a feather flock together. Had Falwell been in a position of power to act on his beliefs, I think he might have. Absolute power corrupts absolutly. History is full of Religious radicals persecuting those they deem as heathen.

Argumentum ad hitlorum and saying that the deceased was a former Klansman is commiting the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam because you have no proof of this claim,

FYI, Early in his career, Falwell did actually defend Klan views, but He disagreed with them on the use of violence. I didn't say he was a member (though he might have been). I said he acted like one. Specifically that he pushed an agenda of the segregation through the pulpit while Klan pushed the same message via violence. The means to the end were different between the Klan and Falwell but the goal was the same.

the hyperbole of the leopord and his spots is again a logical fallacy, composition fallacy because beliefs and knowledge are able to change unlike the phenotype of the leopard species.

Again, only sometimes. Not always. Some people change their views some stick stubbornly by them. My grandmother was a southerner who always thought Jews or Afro-Americans were inferior to whites. She wasnt a racist, never referred to blacks as the "N" Word or opposed Civil Rights. But still thought them inferior. She was a product of her time. On her deathbed at 94 she was still referring to the Afro-American nurse as a "good girl". It made my father and I cringe...
 
Last edited:
You have not disproven any of your logical fallacies, you've simply confounded them further. I'm stickin a fork in this as it is pointless trying to reason with someone who doesn't use reason. Baka.
 
From your last post, Probably because I don't understand your reasoning.

Editing after a response is bad form, so you force me to double post to quote you and hold you to your responses.

Not really. The rules here actively encourage it. The problem is that we are both posting at the exact same time thus making things confusing. Unfortunately nothing can be done about that other than to allow time between each others posts.

Could you state an example of Hate coming from something other than anger? I have never heard of Hate coming from logic. To me they are opposites. To have logic (be logical); is to reach a level enlightenment. Enlightenment is the opposite to anger as anger is emotional.

While I agree that morality is subject to interpretation some themes remain constant regardless of the cutlure. Preaching Hatred for example is widely viewed as evil, even in places like the Middle East, (although Iran might be the exception). It just goes to show what happens when you leave the extremists in charge.

You accuse me of cultural imperialism, how so? I don't recall force feeding my beliefs to other people. As a matter of fact I consider myself extremely tolerant to other people. I am not the one telling gays they are going to hell, telling Jews they need to convert, or pushing minorites into 2nd class citizenry. Thats precisely what I dislike about these "moralist".

The worst you can say about me is that I passed judgement on a single person who has made a lifetime habit of judging other people and making their lives as miserable as possible. I'll survive, and I won't deny that I'm glad he's gone.


4 day weekend is now starting. My ass is a vapor.

Later.
 
From your last post, Probably because I don't understand your reasoning.
I'm using classical, sometimes called Aristotelian Logic. Its simple, there are various fallacies which make a point invalid which I highlighted for you. But rather than reframe some of your posits you continued to use the same flawed reasoning. Logic is boiled down to simply this... you establish an enthyneme and then using links you then progress to your point. These links must be based on facts that are proven. The most common logical fallacy in students' writing is argumentum ad ignoratium which simply means they jumped a few links and didn't prove their case. Other elements of all arguments are pathos, ethos and logos. I'd offer this, your comments on the deceased are rooted too heavily in pathos for this discourse community.

Editing after a response is bad form, so you force me to double post to quote you and hold you to your responses.

Not really. The rules here actively encourage it. The problem is that we are both posting at the exact same time thus making things confusing. Unfortunately nothing can be done about that other than to allow time between each others posts.

Well, not to put too fine a point on it but there was 18 minutes between when I posted and when you editted but so be it. Some people take more time constructing a response and there is nothing wrong with that so I'll concede this point.

Could you state an example of Hate coming from something other than anger? I have never heard of Hate coming from logic. To me they are opposites. To have logic (be logical); is to reach a level enlightenment. Enlightenment is the opposite to anger as anger is emotional.

Other than personal examples I can offer this classic to illustrate my claim. Teachers hate to see a student with great potential squander it. There is no anger in that. It is a hatred derived from a logical basis.

While I agree that morality is subject to interpretation some themes remain constant regardless of the cutlure. Preaching Hatred for example is widely viewed as evil, even in places like the Middle East, (although Iran might be the exception). It just goes to show what happens when you leave the extremists in charge.

In China and many other places with repressive regimes it is not considered evil to preach hatred. The Chinese use the constant propaganda of hate aimed at the japanese with great success. In various countries for whatever spurious reasons it is ok to preach hate. In Russia it is also considered ok by the majority of Russians to preach hatred of the Chechens. This is a point I would make, most people are surprised when they leave their own cultures and become immersed in one very foreign to the one of their origin that morals are varied and very little is constant.

You accuse me of cultural imperialism, how so? I don't recall force feeding my beliefs to other people. As a matter of fact I consider myself extremely tolerant to other people. I am not the one telling gays they are going to hell, telling Jews they need to convert, or pushing minorites into 2nd class citizenry. Thats precisely what I dislike about these "moralist".

You don't have to preach it to be guilty of cultural imperialism. Anytime you judge another culture, society or person which is outside of your own by the rules of your culture you have committed this act. Simply put, you are not a religious conservative of which the deceased was a member of that sub-culture of the US. As such to judge his life by the rules of the sub-set of the culture you are a member of is to be committing an act of cultural imperialism. I am not saying the deceased didn't do this. That is not the point. The point is that by criticising him you are doing the very thing you say he did that was so heinous.

The worst you can say about me is that I passed judgement on a single person who has made a lifetime habit of judging other people and making their lives as miserable as possible. I'll survive, and I won't deny that I'm glad he's gone.

My comments in red. Have a nice vacation Mr Vapor.
 
CNN is reporting that Jerry Falwell has died at age 73.


http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/05/15/jerry.falwell/index.html


I dislike to speak ill of the recently deceased, but I have got no respect for people that preach hatred. So to blazes with Jerry Falwell...

1. This is a man who was an outspoken supporter of Apartheid. Referred to Nobel prize winner Desmond Tutu as a phony.

2. Was an outspoken segregationist referring to Civil Rights Act as "Civil Wrongs Act".

"If Chief Justice Warren and his associates had known God’s word and had desired to do the Lord’s will, I am quite confident that the 1954 decision would never have been made…. The facilities should be separate. When God has drawn a line of distinction, we should not attempt to cross that line.”
-Jerry Falwell 1958


3. Blamed Lesbians and Liberals for 9-11.

4. Described to the anti-Christ as a Jewish man.

5. Notorious Homophobe.

A nasty, racist, anti-semitic, homophobic, Far-right Christian-Taliban Radical.

Good Riddance.

Can't say I liked Gerry Falwell, nor most of his enemies, but in this prissy shrieking rant, I'm surprised #5 didn't appear at #1. :)
 
Back
Top