Difference between revisions of "Debate:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 62: Line 62:
This is disgusting. [[User:RDre|RDre]] 12:51, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
This is disgusting. [[User:RDre|RDre]] 12:51, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
:::This is the most disgusting thing I've seen printed on this site, and that is saying something.  The fact that Andy could print something like that is understandable... he has his agenda to push and doesn't care who gets pushed with it.  But the fact that "Christians" like Ed Poor, TK, and Karajou would so quickly jump to his defense is nauseating.  Have fun with your little hate spewing toy. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Revision as of 16:54, 21 April 2007

Moved from talk:Main Page

The Poem Criticism on the Main Page...

Really isn't needed. We shouldn't be pushing an agenda when 32 innocent lives were just taken. Wouldn't the space be better spent with prayers, and links to sites which will help students grieve? --Hojimachongtalk 03:10, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

It seems to go to great lengths to read something into the poem that isn't there. It also seems a bit tasteless under the circumstances. Murray 03:20, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Pathetic ... I would have thought caring christians as the admins claim to be would be above this sort of trash. Jrssr5 03:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. The "Poem" is an ode to secularism and minimizes their demise by equating their tragic deaths with other causes and tragedies, involving one thousand times the number of people. Such tactics are often used by Holocaust denial groups, and is certainly not worthy of a supposedly great University. --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 04:02, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
Jesus Christ, now you compare them to holocaust deniers! You and Andy sicken me. Nematocyte 06:24, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
It's a crappy poem, but using it score cheap points is not in good taste.Jaques 07:04, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
Personal remark removed You use a poem - admittedly poor, but written from the viewpoint of those writing it - in a feeble attempt to push your own agenda. It's appalling. --Hacker(Write some code) 07:22, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

In the notes in brackets Andy seems to be critiquing the politics of the "poem". The poem is a feeble attempt on the part of VTech's English Department to use the tragedy as a hook to hang their liberal agenda on. Andy's just calling them out on this. --Ed Poor 07:34, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Personal remark removed This is a site on the Web, not a life and death situation. Personal remark removed --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 07:39, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
The poem is a political, self-serving rant by a University that should have taken meaningful steps to prevent this massacre. The English Department that educated this killer should be scrutinized and this poem is the best place to start. Ideas do matter, and unless the mistakes are identified here than the sacrifice of innocent lives will inevitably and needlessly occur again. We owe to the victims and to future students to look critically at the University's role in allowing this massacre to happen.--Aschlafly 09:10, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

So, there is an student at VT english department who mourns his fellow students and decides to write a poem for them. Rest of the department honors the victims by publishing it on their web page. Then there is Conservapedia, which instead of mourning or respecting the feelings of the survivors starts to bash the poem as too liberal and not christian enough. This kinda sickens me. Im not even going to say anything more about the critisism itself, exept what does it matter, even if the writer was an liberal atheist, arent they allowed to mourn and write about their feelings? Do you really think she wrote it to be an political statement? What if others would act the same? If you where one of the survivors, would you like to read some atheist bashing your poem written to the wictims to be too christian or mayby pushing concervative agenda? Timppeli 09:47, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

The "poem" expressed many political opinions and very few feelings. I do not see how it could even be considered poetry, other than the fact that it was formatted as blank verse.
Moreover, not all "feelings" are worthy of unconditional respect and approval. The incident was the "expression" of feelings of rage by a very disturbed individual. Must we "approve" of his expression as an artistic act? Get real, mister. --Ed Poor 09:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
Please tell me you just didnt try to say that we should criticise the people who don't mourn the way we want, as we would criticise the killers homicidal rampage? Timppeli 10:03, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
I didn't say that. I said that not all "feelings" are worthy of unconditional respect and approval. Suppose someone hates you. Would you feel obliged to "validate" their feelings? --Ed Poor 10:36, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
This is an poem, written by an student who might have been there at the time of the shootings, very least she knew some of the people killed. You take her poem, try to find hidden liberal agenda from it, for example the mentioning of elephants and ivory... Give me a break, you really think she wrote the poem to help the wildlife?, and then without even knowing her religios views you bash her for not mentioning God or including a prayer. And then you justify it by saying that her attempt to show her grief isn't an opinnion worth respecting? That is just outrageous. Timppeli 10:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, re an earlier post on this, you're not entitled to degrade the quality of this site either... but anyways. This is not about how "good" the poem is. This is not about whether or not its "political." What this is about is how it's tacky & tasteless to start bashing VT for what they clearly see as an attempt to express their mourning! I don't care if it's political, or good poetry, but they deserve respect & compassion, not politicization. Criticizing them is another of Andy's attempts to score points off of a tragedy. I'll close by saying that making fun of grieving children is a new low, even for the Schlafly family.-AmesGyo! 11:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Shame on Conservapedia for adding a critique to that poem. Can this Trustworthy Encylopedia sink much lower? Can Christian decency and compassion be denied in a more tasteless manner?
WhatIsG0ing0n 12:02, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
Shame on Liberals for politicizing the VTech incident. Can they sink much lower than to exploit a senseless tragedy to score partisan points? --Ed Poor 12:08, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed, the "liberals" aren't politicizing this! We're explicitly protesting the politicization! Now, Andy, either you pull this poem criticism from the main page, or I'll e-mail Virginia Tech's English department to tell them about your gross insensitivity, ignorance, and baseless hatred.-AmesGyo! 12:18, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Kind of strange that the very ones who whine and complain about demanding free speech here would attempt to stifle it by protesting a self-serving poem. Karajou 12:29, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

It's obviously legal to be a hateful bigot. I'm not saying it's illegal for Andy to put things like that on the front page. I'm saying that he should exercise his discretion as a compassionate (we hope) human being and limit his legal rights according to general rules of decency. There's a difference that many people misunderstand and apparently, Karajou, you're one of them. Andy, please pull the poem critique, or I will alert VT, and I bet they won't be happy.-AmesGyo! 12:31, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Wrong answer, AmesG, and I've never been a bigot. From the continued posts I've seen from you over the past few months I cannot tell whether you're a highly educated man or a whining child who refuses to act like one...and now this "pull the poem or I'm going to tell" garbage. Go ahead and notify them. They're already in hot water for giving a lunatic a pass to kill. Karajou 12:36, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
Ed, you say that they express political points in their poem? I didn't know it was now overly liberal to mention that millions have died from AIDS, which is easily preventable. Or that those without fresh water could perhaps be given some. -—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hojimachong (talk)-12:34, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, Karajou, I think? It's the educated one. I'll give Andy a chance to reply first. I never called you a bigot, I called Andy a bigot.-AmesGyo! 12:37, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, AmesG, I'm going to call you a four-letter word, and that word is GONE, as in I want you to pack up and leave this site. I'm fed up with your self-serving rants, your attitude, your high-and-mighty self righteousness, your repeated attempts to force an alien ideology down our throats, and the babyish name-calling when you don't get your way. LEAVE. Karajou 12:44, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

This is disgusting. RDre 12:51, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

This is the most disgusting thing I've seen printed on this site, and that is saying something. The fact that Andy could print something like that is understandable... he has his agenda to push and doesn't care who gets pushed with it. But the fact that "Christians" like Ed Poor, TK, and Karajou would so quickly jump to his defense is nauseating. Have fun with your little hate spewing toy. Myk 12:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)