I don't feel bad

DEATHPIGGIE · I'm fat and nobody likes me

I don't feel bad

Jason · Only in cartoons

If that man was a revered politician, then we should never respect politicians. He was a reckless, self-absorbed monster. His liberal policies reflect that, I think.

DEATHPIGGIE · I'm fat and nobody likes me

A drunk who killed his girlfriend but got off on charges and continued to be a fat, loud drunk for the rest of his life, contributing 0 to society would be tarred and feathered everywhere he went. But ya see, this man was a politician. AND A KENNEDY, part of the American aristocracy of sexually deviant, self-absorbed drunks.

DEATHPIGGIE · I'm fat and nobody likes me

Great man, great man.

Jason · Only in cartoons

He called his ****ing lawyer before he called emergency services that might have saved his "friend"'s life. Shows you what it means when you're the friend of a career politician.

Andy001 · Spaghetti

Jason wrote:
He was a reckless, self-absorbed monster. His liberal policies reflect that, I think.

To me that sounds like way too nice and simple a way for it to work.
I agree with the thread's general sentiment that it's hard to feel sad about his passing, though.

Jason · Only in cartoons

Andy001 wrote:

Jason wrote:
He was a reckless, self-absorbed monster. His liberal policies reflect that, I think.
To me that sounds like way too nice and simple a way for it to work.

What do you mean?

I should note that I think his liberal policies can be explained by his being a reckless self-absorbed monster, and not that all liberals are such monsters.

Or, did you mean that no person can be described in such a simplistic, black-and-white way? I'm sure ol' Teddy boy was a lovable guy on the surface to his family and important friends, but what does love mean to such a man? Lots of awful people have great senses of humor, and I'm sure Mr. Kennedy would have been a joy to have a beer with. But when push comes to shove, he'll let his friends drown to cover his own ass.

Andy001 · Spaghetti

Well, maybe it will become obvious that I don't know enough about TK's full life and career to comment on it with proper accuracy - if so please shout me down.
I'm not disputing that he did some terrible things. Again, I don't know enough to say for sure whether they reflected his general character or whether they were anomalies within an otherwise good life, but the acts themselves certainly deserve to be condemned. Letting your friends die while you cover your own ass is sickening, I agree 100% on that.
But what I was really getting at is that in general it's not very safe too assume that people's politics directly and unambigously reflect their personalities. It's too psychologistic, it feels a bit like the old ideas that protestors are just bored and indulged kids, that feminists are just moody and have penis envy, etc. Again, from the patchy facts I know about TK, it seems perfectly possible that he was a horrible guy on a personal level, that he also supported some political policies that were arguably misguided, but that he was committed to those policies in good faith, thinking they were doing good for other people. I don't think his political beliefs were purely an expression of his personal nastiness.

Jason · Only in cartoons

Granted. Psychologizing is hardly scientific since it is next to impossible to falsify a psychologistic explanation. I can say, though, that -- whether or not it is a true explanation of his politics -- that those political beliefs (in my opinion) share on some level the nastiness of his personality.

I did a poor job of it, but I just wanted to comment that I find his politics just as repugnant as his personality, in response to widespread claims that his flawed personality did not detract from his noble political career.

Throw out the incident in which he arguably killed somebody, and he was still a hereditary career politician who never worked an honest day in his life, a notorious womanizer who drank to excess without regard for consequences, who transparently changed his politics to match his ignoble self-interest (he was the king of "not in my backyard" politics), and who was probably very corrupt (missing funds from large pork barrel projects in his district).

Andy001 · Spaghetti

^^ Well that's all fair enough then really.
I don't have anything else worthwhile to add. :(

Jason · Only in cartoons

*gentlemanly handshake*

Andy001 · Spaghetti

Why of course sir!

john31584 · Zinc Saucier

MATHSEX · MASTER BATOR

Jason wrote:

Granted. Psychologizing is hardly scientific since it is next to impossible to falsify a psychologistic explanation. I can say, though, that -- whether or not it is a true explanation of his politics -- that those political beliefs (in my opinion) share on some level the nastiness of his personality.

I did a poor job of it, but I just wanted to comment that I find his politics just as repugnant as his personality, in response to widespread claims that his flawed personality did not detract from his noble political career.

Throw out the incident in which he arguably killed somebody, and he was still a hereditary career politician who never worked an honest day in his life, a notorious womanizer who drank to excess without regard for consequences, who transparently changed his politics to match his ignoble self-interest (he was the king of "not in my backyard" politics), and who was probably very corrupt (missing funds from large pork barrel projects in his district).

my old man met his brother, bobby, and he said that bobby was a snide asshole about secular interests, so i don't doubt that some of those traits were learned from family. however, the man worked as hard, if not harder than any arbitrarily selected u.s. senator, and his alcoholic ways (if your brothers were murdered/KIA and your sister was given a lobotomy, you'd probably be an alkie, too) had been changed by his second marriage.

it is clear that since you don't share his political views, you must resort to criminalizing the man in response to the due media attention resulting from his death. this ad hominem attack is worthless: his constituents decided he was worthy of serving as their u.s. senator since 1962, so the man was clearly u.s. senate-material.

i'd like to see the sources for your implied claims that he was linked to funds missing from pork barrel projects in massachusetts.

Jason · Only in cartoons

MATHSEX wrote:
it is clear that since you don't share his political views, you must resort to criminalizing the man in response to the due media attention resulting from his death.

Actually, that is far from clear. That is a wild speculation with very questionable logic.

Yes, I am announcing my distaste for this man because the media has been singing his praises all day and I'm sick of it. I also announced my distaste for this man every time he did something revolting and unethical.

I say your logic is highly suspect because one might think that I would make such hateful announcements every time any liberal died. This is far from the truth. If Bill Clinton were to die of a heart attack (or whatever), I would respectfully refrain from bringing up my disagreements with his politics. Sure, Bill Clinton abused his office for sexual favors, but I don't know of him ever getting someone killed by his alcohol abuse. Ted Kennedy is an alarming example of politics at its absolute worst.

To call anything I've said in this thread "ad hominem" is incorrect; ad hominem is a logical fallacy whereby an counter-argument is presented in the form of a personal attack on the arguer. I was not responding to any argument Ted Kennedy ever made. I was responding to positive media coverage of a man I have always found contemptible. They say he was great. I say he was awful. That is an honest disagreement between people remembering a recently deceased man, not a fallacious appeal to an irrelevant personality flaw in response to anyone's argument. An example of argumentum ad hominem would be if Katie Couric said, "Ted Kennedy was a great man," and I responded to her with, "Ted Kennedy was not a great man because Katie Couric is a stupid bitch who has no sense of fashion." [I don't believe that, by the way.]

The fact that a senator was continually elected by his constituents is a poor indicator of whether or not that senator was a morally upstanding individual. In Ted Kennedy's case, he got elected almost entirely because of his last name. He held that office because he was a Democratic incumbent in one of the most liberal states in the Union. As long as Ted Kennedy was the Democratic candidate for senator, Ted Kennedy was going to get elected.

About the corruption, I did not say definitively that he was corrupt. He was never charged with corruption (that I'm aware of). However, with such huge amounts of money missing from projects like the Big Dig in Boston, it's difficult for me to believe that such a powerful senator had no idea what was going on and did not have a cut. Let's face it -- most corruption never gets uncovered.

john31584 · Zinc Saucier

Brain tumors are more powerful than scotch and rivers combined.

Jason · Only in cartoons

Anyone see The Onion's headline about Kennedy?

'Kennedy Curse' Claims Life Of 77-Year-Old Tumor-Riddled Binge-Drinker

Golden.

DEATHPIGGIE · I'm fat and nobody likes me

That's what this thread links to, silly. Admittedly, I changed it.

john31584 · Zinc Saucier

Andy001 · Spaghetti

john31584 wrote:

Marvellous.
Obviously the Quite Rly Owl should take over Kennedy's former senate seat.