| |
|
Thanks, Lurid...
fridgemagnet said: And frankly, you're not making an argument, or at least not a very good one. You've not even tried to prove "this abuse is bad therefore all abuse is bad".
why would I want to prove that? That's not an argument at all! Are you sure you know what the word argument means?
You are also claiming that people are saying throwing eggs at Blaine is justified because lots of people are doing it, which is nonsense...
No, fridge. I said that people feel that this form of abuse is more acceptable because lots of people are doing it. Not justified. It's a recognised phenomenon - arguable, certainly, but not nonsense.
...and that the people advocating and actually throwing eggs at Blaine are doing it because he's different, which may be true in some cases but is false in others.
No again. One more time. I DO NOT CARE WHY THEY ARE DOING IT. I HAVE NEVER SPECULATED ON THEIR MOTIVATIONS, EXCEPT TO POINT OUT THAT SOME ARE DEFINITELY ABUSING HIM BECAUSE THEY DO NOT LIKE HIM.
I don't believe that abuse of any kind is ever justified. This includes egg-throwing (which I'm gratified to see you all find so amusing) and shouted insults and taunts of all descriptions from complete strangers. I've made this very clear. Perhaps you've not been paying complete attention?
I now understand that, on some occasions, you believe that abuse is justified. You're welcome to your point of view. Just don't be surprised if I don't particularly want to know you. As I said, having suffered this kind of abuse all my life, for reasons which my tormentors, one would assume, also felt were entirely justified (posh school, pretentious gothboy in black, silly hairstyle, obviously asking for it, etc), I don't think this kind of bullying rubbish is healthy or positive, and it makes me very angry. I've tried, and am still trying, to refrain from getting angry in these last two posts, because it's unhelpful and I'm trying to be good.
So don't be surprised if what you get is sarcasm when you claim Blaine food assault is basically HATE AND XENOPHOBIA and the Nazis would have done it, in a such a po-faced, patronising manner.
Actually, my last post deliberately avoided escalation or extrapolation into harder forms of abuse. I believe I said that "I'm stopping short of describing the other, harder abuse - the beatings, the stones thrown, the threats - because I understand that you'll just sneer and accuse me of escalating the definition of abuse for effect in my argument, rather like a Godwin-lite." It appears that, in accusing me of going Godwin - which I hadn't, you've actually become the first proponent of that law in this thread. That's an excellent working definition of irony.
Anna: You were walking through town and got abused by some people in the street and I would condemn that but believe you are being far too subjective about this. You did not pull a stunt that appears to be about publicity and only publicity. Nor were you getting paid an extortionate amount of money for sitting in a perspex box for days.
Still not arguing about your motivation or justification for all this. Still not caring. Your opinion of David Blaine and his antics is not of the slightest interest to me.
I am not scared to admit that were I to throw things at that box it would be because I am jealous. His 'trick' does not deserve that money...
Gotcha. Still don't care. Again, the reasons why you'd like to abuse David Blaine, or approve of others abusing David Blaine, is not the subject of my argument. However, I think I can see a subtext here, and what you're basically saying, like fridgemagnet, is that you believe that abuse of this sort - taunting, insults, the throwing of non-lethal items designed to humiliate rather than wound - is acceptable and even to be applauded, if for the right reasons or at the right person. Again, I disagree, and the idea makes me angry. I do not believe that personal abuse of this kind is ever acceptable. Not even against people I personally loathe, like Jon Bon Jovi or Tony Blair.
...and the general British public are entirely within their rights to express a little, harmless resentment...
There's so much wrong with this statement that I genuinely don't know where to begin. How about with defining who agrees what's justified? Because the lads who made my schooldays hell were all in perfect agreement. Who decides what's harmless? Why is anyone "within their rights" to express resentment in such a manner?
because throwing food at his makeshift cage from which he may escape at any time is not on the same scale of abuse as subjecting someone to physical abuse based on the way they look. You were not putting yourself up for judgement but Blaine is- you could not avoid that food but I doubt that Blaine will get any real abuse in the streets afterwards.
You're assuming that Blaine is putting himself up for judgement, because it fits neatly with your desire to judge him. And, for the record (and I can't BELIEVE I'm having to point this out) - the fact that none of the eggs, for example, are actually physically hitting Blaine's increasingly slim body is not the issue. I've had eggs thrown at my windows, too. It's the act of throwing them that's the issue, not whether he gets yolk in his hair.
And I don't think you have any basis for that last assumption.
And I'd think he was a twat and it was acceptable to throw things at his box if he was Derren Brown and quite frankly I'd throw food at any of you if you did something so apathetic and unoriginal.
Nice. I think that might be lacking in diplomacy, however, but then these things are always easier in the hypothetical, aren't they?
Tell you what. Next time I decide to do something you consider to be overly 'apathetic' or 'unoriginal', and you decide to set yourself up as an independent arbiter of what is worthy of abuse, how about you mind your own business instead? Go throw food at Tom instead, he's up for it. |
|
|
