• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is it okay to speak ill of those who are hospitalized or just died?

Is it okay to speak ill of those who are hospitalized or just died?

  • Its never okay to speak ill of those who are hospitalized or just died.

    Votes: 10 19.6%

  • Its okay as long as everybody generally agrees that individual was a despicable person.

    Votes: 3 5.9%

  • Its okay as long as you think that person was despicable.

    Votes: 18 35.3%

  • other

    Votes: 20 39.2%
  • Total voters
    51
Cardinal said:
I like macaroni too.
Click to expand...
Which just proves my point--no discussion of the topic, just rude behavior toward the poster. which is why I don't make it personal. (not you, the previous post) In person folks are not so rude. they show respect--in person
 
Last edited:
I think the whole thought is that it's tasteless, and even cowardly, to bash someone who can't be there to defend himself/herself.
 
Harshaw said:
I think the whole thought is that it's tasteless, and even cowardly, to bash someone who can't be there to defend himself/herself.
Click to expand...
It reminds me of a yard dog, that hides under the porch, and comes out to snip at your ankles as you walk by, --then runs back under the porch, and barks.
 
Harshaw said:
I think the whole thought is that it's tasteless, and even cowardly, to bash someone who can't be there to defend himself/herself.
Click to expand...

What's your definition of "bashing?"
 
jamesrage said:
I think your right. When someone that they view as really despicable croaks or at least hospitalized they will be saying good riddance or I hope he or she croaks.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Some of our left wing collegues view Rush Limbaugh no different than some of our right wing collegues view Noam Chomsky.

To be such polar opposites, they are often much like two peas in a pod.

I like to point that out every chance I get. :mrgreen:
 
I think some people are just frustrated, and want to be fighters, but would rather talk trash, from the saftey of their keyboards.---I've been a fighter all my life, and have leaned to be respectful of others. I have nothing I have to prove.
 
Skateguy said:
I think some people are just frustrated, and want to be fighters, but would rather talk trash, from the saftey of their keyboards.---I've been a fighter all my life, and have leaned to be respectful of others. I have nothing I have to prove.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah? Prove it! :mrgreen:
 
Harshaw said:
Isn't the topic of the thread about "speaking ill"? THAT, naturally.
Click to expand...

I understand, but what's the line between bashing and stating historical fact about the person? When I state that Hitler caused one of the greatest incidences of suffering in the twentieth century, am I being historically accurate or am I bashing him?
 
Harshaw said:
I think the whole thought is that it's tasteless, and even cowardly, to bash someone who can't be there to defend himself/herself.
Click to expand...
That's a good part of it. It shows no courage to speak ill of those who are sick, injured, or dead because they cannot fight back, whereas if you said it while they could, you might get embarrased or punched in the face. The other part is that you naturally get the last word in, especially when one dies, they cannot have an opportunity at rebuttle, so it's kind of an injustice as well.
 
Cardinal said:
I understand, but what's the line between bashing and stating historical fact about the person? When I state that Hitler caused one of the greatest incidences of suffering in the twentieth century, am I being historically accurate or am I bashing him?
Click to expand...

You can always find examples of exceptions. Hitler is an extreme example. Almost no one is in that category.

I'm just talking about the general impetus behind the thought.

And if someone's injured, it's the same idea of "kicking a man when he's down." There's no honor or to it whatsoever, and it's, again, kind of cowardly.
 
Harshaw said:
You can always find examples of exceptions. Hitler is an extreme example. Almost no one is in that category.

I'm just talking about the general impetus behind the thought.

And if someone's injured, it's the same idea of "kicking a man when he's down." There's no honor or to it whatsoever, and it's, again, kind of cowardly.
Click to expand...

So, in other words, there are occasions in which it would actually be appropriate to "speak ill" or "bash" the dead, though you are being somewhat vague about what that actually means.

Which of the poll options would you have voted for?
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
I understand, but what's the line between bashing and stating historical fact about the person? When I state that Hitler caused one of the greatest incidences of suffering in the twentieth century, am I being historically accurate or am I bashing him?
Click to expand...

Don't be hatin'. :rofl
 
Cardinal said:
So, in other words, there are occasions in which it would actually be appropriate to "speak ill" or "bash" the dead, though you are being somewhat vague about what that actually means.

Which of the poll options would you have voted for?
Click to expand...

Oh, come on. Is there any rule of human interaction which doesn't have exceptions? I'm simply talking about general principles here, which is why I couched it in exactly those terms, not ironclad absolutes.

That there are exceptions does not make the general idea any less valid.
 
Hitler and Stalin, are just the latest examples of people who had no problem killing millions, in the name of what ever they believed in. History is full of them. From Caligula, to Ghingus Khan.-- Alexander the Great, killed millions. --"Evil" men, or successful world Conquerors?
 
doesn't the fact that DP had to add an RIP prefix for thread titles answer the question?
 
Harshaw said:
Oh, come on. Is there any rule of human interaction which doesn't have exceptions? I'm simply talking about general principles here, which is why I couched it in exactly those terms, not ironclad absolutes.

That there are exceptions does not make the general idea any less valid.
Click to expand...

I could accept that if there weren't so many people who knowingly caused brutal suffering to other people. It seems a lot less the exception and more a not-insignificant portion of the population. I don't need only Hitler to demonstrate this. What about a child molester? There are a lot of those. If a child molester dies, am I "kicking him when he's down" by stating that by his death, fewer children will be molested?

I think you have to be discriminating with who you'd choose to "speak ill of," certainly (which people still won't define, btw), but there are definitely a lot of people who'd deserve it.

Why won't you say which poll option you would have voted for?
 
Last edited:
Just a thought here--if the Guys is dead, why bother??---beating a dead horse comes to mind.
 
Some dead horses deserve to be beaten. Speaking ill of the dead serves to encourage other people to live better lives that they may be spoken of more pleasantly when they are departed. Think of the recently deceased as an object lesson.
 
Cardinal said:
I could accept that if there weren't so many people who knowingly caused brutal suffering to other people. It seems a lot less the exception and more a not-insignificant portion of the population. I don't need only Hitler to demonstrate this. What about a child molester? There are a lot of those. If a child molester dies, am I "kicking him when he's down" by stating that by his death, fewer children will be molested?

I think you have to be discriminating with who you'd choose to "speak ill of," certainly (which people still won't define, btw), but there are definitely a lot of people who'd deserve it.
Click to expand...

Right, because of the bulk of the population consists of child molesters. And apparently, the only people you shouldn't speak ill of when they're dead are those who did no ill to speak of. Not much of a principle.

Yeah, I would say, you can intensely dislike someone for valid reasons, but it's still cowardly to speak ill of him if he's not there to defend himself.


Why won't you say which poll option you would have voted for?
Click to expand...

Because it's irelevant to my point, which states my view on it, anyway. Why do you want to know so badly?
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Some dead horses deserve to be beaten. Speaking ill of the dead serves to encourage other people to live better lives that they may be spoken of more pleasantly when they are departed. Think of the recently deceased as an object lesson.
Click to expand...

But if s/he's that bad, everyone already knows it. It's not like you're required to say nice things.
 
Alright, so basically we can conclude that some people deserve to be spoken ill of.

All that's left is to define "speaking ill of" (vs. making a historically accurate statement about that person) and we can pack up for lunch.
 
Harshaw said:
But if s/he's that bad, everyone already knows it. It's not like you're required to say nice things.
Click to expand...

Are you required to not say mean (truthful) things simply because he/she died? Sorry. That's a stupid tradition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom