Is it distasteful for people to use a tragedy to further their viewpoint?

[Annoni_mouse 10]

Just seems to me there are a lot of people on 'ere since the Oslo attacks who have lept on the fact that the attrocity was carried out by someone from the far right with barely disguised glee?

 

To my way of thinking it just comes across as in extremely poor taste when we are faced with the deaths of so many people to turn the whole tragedy into political/ethical capital?

 

(Oh and before anyone mentions, I'm well aware that those on the opposite end of the spectrum use every attrocity commited by Muslim extremists to further their view point also, which is of course equally as bad)

[HeadingNorth 11]

Just seems to me there are a lot of people on 'ere since the Oslo attacks who have lept on the fact that the attrocity was carried out by someone from the far right with barely disguised glee?

 

To my way of thinking it just comes across as in extremely poor taste when we are faced with the deaths of so many people to turn the whole tragedy into political/ethical capital?

 

They have not tried to. They have only pointed out that those who did try to, by pinning it on the Muslims, were completely wrong.

[algy 11]

They have not tried to. They have only pointed out that those who did try to, by pinning it on the Muslims, were completely wrong.

 

So on the other thread you try to pin it on the Chrisitians instead. Does everyone have to be one or the other? Are there no atheist psychopaths?

[altus 540]

So on the other thread you try to pin it on the Chrisitians instead. Does everyone have to be one or the other? Are there no atheist psychopaths?

 

It's quite amazing how people who are quite happy to accuse all members of one religion of supporting the actions of a small, unrepresentative minority get all upset when someone does the same to members of another religion as a way of highlighting how irrational their position is.

[CXC3000 10]

Just seems to me there are a lot of people on 'ere since the Oslo attacks who have lept on the fact that the attrocity was carried out by someone from the far right with barely disguised glee?

 

Exposing truth can be taken in so many ways, by so many people.

 

We musn't shy away from telling what really happened (and why).

[HeadingNorth 11]

So on the other thread you try to pin it on the Chrisitians instead.

 

I do not. I have pointed out that the person who perpretated the Norway massacre was a Christian. Nowhere have I suggested that Christians as a whole are responsible for his act.

[Mister M 1,625]

On a seperate but slightly related point, politicians of both main parties (and newspaper commentariat like Melanie Phillips) have used the deaths of James Bulger & 'Baby P' (Peter Connelly) to futher their viewpoints and a means to hang their prejudices on.

 

I've always thought that using dead children as political footballs was distasteful

Edited July 24, 2011 by Mister M

[plekhanov 10]

Just seems to me there are a lot of people on 'ere since the Oslo attacks who have lept on the fact that the attrocity was carried out by someone from the far right with barely disguised glee?

 

To my way of thinking it just comes across as in extremely poor taste when we are faced with the deaths of so many people to turn the whole tragedy into political/ethical capital?

 

(Oh and before anyone mentions, I'm well aware that those on the opposite end of the spectrum use every attrocity commited by Muslim extremists to further their view point also, which is of course equally as bad)

If you genuinely believe that the far right is a dangerous movement prone to violence and a movement that you consequently think should be opposed how could you not point to the recent atrocity in Norway as evidence of this?

 

How is that any difference from say anti-tobacco activists pointing to lung cancer deaths to urge people to stop smoking or anti-drink driving activists pointing to the most recent death caused by a drunk driver?

[algy 11]

I do not. I have pointed out that the person who perpretated the Norway massacre was a Christian. Nowhere have I suggested that Christians as a whole are responsible for his act.

 

No, he claims to be a Christian. A different thing. Other than that what proof have you that he is what he says? The crimes he's confessed to are not actions typical of any religious group, or any rational person for that matter.

[algy 11]

It's quite amazing how people who are quite happy to accuse all members of one religion of supporting the actions of a small, unrepresentative minority get all upset when someone does the same to members of another religion as a way of highlighting how irrational their position is.

 

Sorry, I don't see how you draw that conclusion from what I said. My point was that there seems to be a belief that all atrocities are carried out either by Muslim or Christian extremists. My question was why does there not seem to be a possibility of perpetrators who have no religion, but are simply mentally unbalanced?

[HeadingNorth 11]

No, he claims to be a Christian.

 

In order to be a Christian only one thing is necessary; to profess Jesus as your lord and saviour. By claiming to be a Christian that is what he is doing, therefore he is one.

[boyfriday 21]

No, he claims to be a Christian. A different thing. Other than that what proof have you that he is what he says? The crimes he's confessed to are not actions typical of any religious group, or any rational person for that matter.

 

You could use that argument against anyone who commits an act of terrorism based on what they say they believe.