Cindy Sheehan realizes irrelevance two years later than world

[Gadiantor]

Originally posted by Snrrub
Nice attempt at trying to paint what I said as an insult. I didn't say that using drugs and joining the military are the same thing. I didn't compare them on the basis of morality, and I didn't compare them to make a point about strength of character of an individual or anything similar. I said that they have one thing in common - they're both choices, and that's the only comparison I made. The point of my saying it is to illustrate that just because someone chooses to do something, that in itself does not mean that their parents shouldn't subsequently advocate against activities relating to it.

Your comparison is flawed because the "choice" to overdose is in no way similar to the choice to put your life in danger for a cause you believe in. There is a world of difference between a parent working to put an end to drug abuse in memory of their lost child and someone speaking out against a cause that their child willing put their life at risk for.

Now, some maintain that the war in Iraq is illegal, so if you subscribe to that line of thinking you could say the war is illegal and drug use is illegal, so choosing to be a part of either is the same thing. This still doesn't change the fact that choosing to risk your life fighting for something you believe in is a world apart from the intentionally or unintentionally ending your life by overdosing on drugs.

I know your intent isn't to insult my choice to put my life in danger to protect my country and our way of life, but comparing it to the choice to engage in illegal, addictive, and self-destructive behavior is insulting. I don't put my life in danger for any of the same reasons a drug addict does, and I don't purposefully seek to end my life like someone overdosing on purpose.

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Snrrub
Nice attempt at trying to paint what I said as an insult. I didn't say that using drugs and joining the military are the same thing.

Yes you did. You drew an equivalence.

Originally posted by Snrrub

I said that they have one thing in common - they're both choices, and that's the only comparison I made.

Murdering someone and giving to charity are also choices. Do you draw equivalences between them as well?

You drew the comparison, and it is a totally outrageous, absurd, and insulting comparison. Now you have to live with the result of your own words - a result that makes you look extremely bad.

[Savaric]

You guys are getting into the knitty-gritty. Knitty, gritty, kitty litter.

[Darion]

Originally posted by Aristotle
Murdering someone and giving to charity are also choices. Do you draw equivalences between them as well?

I was planning on saying something to this tune, but I was beaten to it. Really, you can compare anything you want but I believe that in this case the comparison loses any meaning.

The fact that I disagree with Cindy Sheehan's political views has very little to do with how I view her as a person - she is an exploiter who has been disavowed by the rest of her family because of the aforementioned exploitation. It is extremely repugnant to me that she would take her son's death and essentially use it for profit and political-office viability. This is totally separate of her political leanings.

[Dalaena]

Originally posted by Snrrub
One person said that she was motivated purely by "attention and profit". Motivated by profit? Sounds like a businesswoman to me. Also, she'd be a cunning one in order to craft an image for herself as an activist and be successful enough at it to eventually earn large speaking fees. I say "craft an image for herlself" because she clearly wouldn't genuinely be an activist at all if profit and selfish attention were her only ambitions.

Um, no. Tons of people are motivated by profit that honestly can't hold on to a dime. They're always looking for the next big way to make money. That doesn't mean that they're good at it or that they're successful. I sure as heck doesn't mean that they're a businesswoman. She has no image of being a successful business woman to me at all, but it's very clear that she's attempting to profit from the death of her son and her subsequent limelight. I'm not sure she's successfully crafted an image of being an activist at all, at least not a successful one. There are lots of activists who believe we should bring the troops home and end the war in Iraq. I find them much more convincing than Sheehan.

[Snrrub]

Originally posted by Aristotle
Yes you did. You drew an equivalence.

...

Murdering someone and giving to charity are also choices. Do you draw equivalences between them as well?

I wasn't drawing a complete equivalence and you know it. I was making a comparison based on something that they have in common. When two things have something in common then it's perfectly reasonable to compare them in that specific regard. If someone compared me to a murderer on the basis that we are both humans, I wouldn't be insulted by that. Maybe because I'm rational. Go figure. If you don't understand that, then I'm not particularly interested in whether or not I look bad in your eyes.

For people who apparently aren't able to follow my analogy, let me put it into simpler, more general terms. The fact that her dead son wouldn't approve of what Sheehan is saying/doing is irrelavent. I think Sheehan believes that what she is saying is truth. Regardless if it is truth or not, she believes it is. If someone believes something is true, it's not acceptable for them to say anything to the contrary just because others may be offend by it, or otherwise not approve. Even if that other person is her dead son. If Sheehan speaks what she thinks is true, that is not a character flaw, even if the whole world thinks she oughtn't be saying it. If someone thinks that Sheehan is lying, or otherwise incorrect, then bring on the logical argument. I'm not saying any of this as a supporter of Cindy Sheehan's political positions, believe me. But for people to stoop to the "she shouldn't even be arguing this in the first place because her dead son wouldn't like it" soundbyte, that's pretty weak.

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Snrrub
I wasn't drawing a complete equivalence and you know it.

No, I don't know it. Don't make ridiculous, erroneous comparisons if you don't like the implications.

FACT: You compared drug abuse to joining the military.

Now you are regretting the natural implications of that, but you aren't willing to apologize for it or take it back. Until you do, your whole argument is a farce.

Originally posted by Snrrub

For people who apparently aren't able to follow my analogy, let me put it into simpler, more general terms. The fact that her dead son wouldn't approve of what Sheehan is saying/doing is irrelavent.

Good thing that isn't the point we are making then, huh? It is relevant when she does it IN HIS NAME.

When she uses his name and his sacrifice to demand multiple meetings with the President (beyond the one she already got). When she uses his name and his sacrifice to rake in massive speaking fees.

He chose to give his life for his country. It is despicable for Cindy Sheehan to use and twist her son's sacrifice for her own fun, profit, and fame.

[Dalaena]

Originally posted by Snrrub
For people who apparently aren't able to follow my analogy, let me put it into simpler, more general terms. The fact that her dead son wouldn't approve of what Sheehan is saying/doing is irrelavent. I think Sheehan believes that what she is saying is truth. Regardless if it is truth or not, she believes it is. If someone believes something is true, it's not acceptable for them to say anything to the contrary just because others may be offend by it, or otherwise not approve. Even if that other person is her dead son. If Sheehan speaks what she thinks is true, that is not a character flaw, even if the whole world thinks she oughtn't be saying it. If someone thinks that Sheehan is lying, or otherwise incorrect, then bring on the logical argument. I'm not saying any of this as a supporter of Cindy Sheehan's political positions, believe me. But for people to stoop to the "she shouldn't even be arguing this in the first place because her dead son wouldn't like it" soundbyte, that's pretty weak.

You're leaving out some pretty relevant facts as you state this in addition to stating something as fact that is nothing more than opinion. It doesn't matter if Sheehan thinks it's true to me even though it might matter to you. And it IS a character flaw in my eyes even if you might not think it is. Why? She is directly profiting and gaining fame from her son's death with total disregard to the pain she is bringing to her family and their memory of his beliefs. While you might be okay with someone doing that to their loved ones, it is perfectly valid for others to believe she is a crappy, horrible person for doing it REGARDLESS of what she thinks. I'm boggled, though, that you think her BELIEF is worth more than the BELIEFS of her other children, her husband (who also lost a son), and her dead son. What makes Cindy Sheehan so special that I should applaud her for trampling all over someone else's beliefs? You obviously think it's wrong for us to be questioning her beliefs, so why isn't it wrong for her to totally disregard her own family and son's beliefs? I don't think you can have it both ways. (This is of course assuming that her motives are as pure as you imply them to be, which I highly doubt.)

I honestly have no problem if someone wants to think Sheehan's cause is true, but I won't be told that she is RIGHT in her behavior. You don't get to make that judgement for me.

[kestra]

After all this time, does Cindy Sheehan still invoke the name and memory of her son whenever she speaks at rallies or marches, etc...??
If so, even this perpetual memory invocation gets old and loses it's purpose and meaning. 911 had a tragic loss of thousands of lives, but when you keep bringing it up, over and over again as politicians do, it starts becoming too common, and common things lose their value.

I would hope she would ween herself off of this, and focus on doing her part to help bring the troops back home. The media, however, would likely continue to prefix her as "the woman who lost her son in Iraq", thereby rendering any attempt by her to distance herself from this moniker pointless.

[Gromgor]

Originally posted by kestra
After all this time, does Cindy Sheehan still invoke the name and memory of her son whenever she speaks at rallies or marches, etc...??
If so, even this perpetual memory invocation gets old and loses it's purpose and meaning. 911 had a tragic loss of thousands of lives, but when you keep bringing it up, over and over again as politicians do, it starts becoming too common, and common things lose their value.

I would hope she would ween herself off of this, and focus on doing her part to help bring the troops back home. The media, however, would likely continue to prefix her as "the woman who lost her son in Iraq", thereby rendering any attempt by her to distance herself from this moniker pointless.

Not to flame, not to insult. I know it can easily be taken that way, so I wanted to state that ahead of time. I would just like to point out that this is probably the most logical and agreeable thing I've ever read by Kestra. I have to agree with this. At this point Sheehan is probably beyond the point where the public would give her a chance, even if she did a 180. Although, it is admittedly because she so strongly set herself in the position.