The nuclear option for guiltification is what I call a situation where you are effectively silenced because another person angrily notes how frivolous your whining is when compared to the much more severe problems that certain other people have. And the most coomon response here is the feeling of massive guilt when such people make note of your frivolous whining. Of course to present a counter-arguement for that would make you an even bigger asshole. And though I'd love to present counter-arguemnts here, I'm not going to because I don't want to be guiltified any further and I don't want to become an even bigger asshole. All I can say is that I believe this situation further confirms my assertion that the love of pleasure is the root of all evil. So if it wasn't for that, I wouldn't be whining about frivolous issues.
posted by:
|
Michigan
|
-
Unsu...
Re: The nuclear option for guiltification
Fri, August 12, 2005 - 9:39 AMyou are not alone. keep posting. this is great stuff Yul :-) -
-
Re: The nuclear option for guiltification
Mon, August 15, 2005 - 7:16 AMAnother good example of the nuclear option for guiltification comes from those who approve of torture on terror suspects. Some people insist that such torture is likely to encourage more terrorism not to mention the fact that it violates human rights laws and treaties. However, others would respnd to that by saying, "The terrorists at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are getting a way better deal than the victims of Iragi insurgents and the victims of 9-11! And since you want to coddle these terrorstists, that mean you support the insergent attacks and the 9-11 attacks!" I mean, how do you respond to that without sounding like a terrorist sympathizer?!? -
-
Re: The nuclear option for guiltification
Mon, August 15, 2005 - 9:32 PMOnly a coward believes that might makes right and that the end justifies the means. No matter what the terrorists did or did not do, acting like terrorists ourselves only makes us like them, not better than them.
-
-
