• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Roger Ebert: hating terrorists = thinking like terrorists

Art Vandelay

Illuminator
A
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
4,787
Roger Ebert talked about an email about one of his reviews, in which a reader complained that he was "trying to humanize these animals [terrorists]". Ebert said that he replied "By calling them animals, you're thinking exactly the way they think about you". So considering someone to be subhuman scum because they're murdering bastards is the same as considering someone to be subhuman scum because of their nationality? What is it with this Leftist extreme moral relativism? Sure, there are problems with America. And some of the terrorists' point are valid. But the idea that there is something hypocritical about calling them monsters, yet denying that we are, is just absurd. The implied assertion that, if two sides both feel the same way about each other, then both feelings are equally valid, is simply perverted.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
We think the towel heads are savages. They think we are. So what Ebert said is accurate.

Your point?
Click to expand...

IMO, the point is that Ebert thinks that we are savages. It would seem that Ebert is far above such barbarity and has transcended our low level. Is that what the Central Scrutinizer thinks as well?

.
 
By describing your enemy as an, "animal," you're not only dehumanizing, you're taking away some of the fear that they cause. An animal does not reason nor does it have any human emotions. While we don't generally subscribe to, "The Great Chain of Being," we consider animals to be lower creatures. Thusly, by referring to your enemies as, "animals," you are now describing them as lowly beings who have no reason or any kind of humanity or soul. They cease to be people.

This is the problem. Terrorists and other sons of bitches are, in fact, people. They think and they feel. They could be us, we could be them. The idea that your enemy is that same manner of creature as the person next door is scary. In fact, it's downright horrifying.

Are we thinking like them? Sure. Do you want to think that you're out there killing other living, thinking, feeling human beings in the name of whatever-it-may-be or would you rather kill a bunch of savage animals? I find it very doubtful that the terrorists see their victims as human and I doubt our people think of the terrorist they've got in their sights as a human before they pull the trigger. They think it's a bastard who wants to kill them and destroy everything they hold sacred. And when we're talking about terrorists, yes. Yes, they do.

Now stop making threads I want to post in. I'm trying to work, damn it.
 
Art Vandelay said:
Roger Ebert talked about an email about one of his reviews, in which a reader complained that he was "trying to humanize these animals [terrorists]". Ebert said that he replied "By calling them animals, you're thinking exactly the way they think about you".
Click to expand...
I'd have to agree. I suspect that the terrorists do consider us to be animals; therefore, if you consider them to be animals, you are thinking about them in the same way they think about you. Perhaps you should link to the relevant article so we can see the context - I'm a little skeptical about your implications.
 
The Answer Man is right, as usual, for reasons explained above. Art Vandelay is wrong, which is not the least bit surprising. Also, this has little to do with "Leftist extreme moral relativism." Or even "extreme Leftist moral relativism", for that matter. Now please go away. Thank you. Oh, and never come back. Thanks again. And change your avatar before you go away forever. Bye.
 
YoPopa said:
IMO, the point is that Ebert thinks that we are savages. It would seem that Ebert is far above such barbarity and has transcended our low level. Is that what the Central Scrutinizer thinks as well?

.
Click to expand...

YO is wrong. Ebert thinks that the terrorists think we are savages.
 
Ebert gave the godawful movie "Stealth" two and a half stars out of four. I feel he is the real terrorist.;)
 
Roger Ebert is an excellent movie critic.

Maybe we should ask Donald Rumsfeld and Nancy Pelosi what they thought of the latest Harry Potter movie.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
YO is wrong. Ebert thinks that the terrorists think we are savages.
Click to expand...
I could very well be wrong about what Ebert thinks. It would be helpful to have a full text with his statement in it. It could be that Ebert was just making the third party Argument By Poopie Head. By that I mean that Ebert supports the war on terror in general but he does it with eloquent verbiage and total disdain for those who are limited by their gutter vocabulary.

So my question for the Central Scrutinizer was intended to ask, do you think that I am a savage if I think that someone else is one? I am using the word "savages" not "animals" because you used it in the initial reply. Or, is this whole thread turning into third party ABPH? I'm sure there are other possibilities and I ask the question in sincerity.

From my perspective it is often the knee jerk reaction of the left to use any and all arguments which appear to discredit the right. Third party ABPH is a way to do it while maintaining the appearance of being above the fray.
.
 
aerosolben said:
I'd have to agree. I suspect that the terrorists do consider us to be animals; therefore, if you consider them to be animals, you are thinking about them in the same way they think about you. Perhaps you should link to the relevant article so we can see the context - I'm a little skeptical about your implications.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Especially since it was made in response to what someone else said.
 
Art Vandelay said:
Roger Ebert talked about an email about one of his reviews, in which a reader complained that he was "trying to humanize these animals [terrorists]". Ebert said that he replied "By calling them animals, you're thinking exactly the way they think about you". So considering someone to be subhuman scum because they're murdering bastards is the same as considering someone to be subhuman scum because of their nationality? What is it with this Leftist extreme moral relativism? Sure, there are problems with America. And some of the terrorists' point are valid. But the idea that there is something hypocritical about calling them monsters, yet denying that we are, is just absurd. The implied assertion that, if two sides both feel the same way about each other, then both feelings are equally valid, is simply perverted.
Click to expand...

I agree that there is no moral equivalency between terrorists and the rest of us who do not commit acts of terror. To me it is the same as describing a mass murderer as an animal. I have no problem with that. Where the problem arises is when people generalize like this: there are muslim terrorists, terrorists are animals, muslims are animals or The Nazi's were German, the Nazi's were monstrous, Germans are monstrous.
 
Fundamental attribution error, anyone?

We call the terrorists monsters because it segregates them from us. We attribute strong negative personal traits to them that we don't have, because it's not fun to believe you could become a radical mass murderer if placed in extreme circumstances. Even if it's most likely true.
We dehumanize terrorists for different reasons than they do us, however. They do it to be comfortable with hurting us, which incidentally, does not require you be a terrorist. The same thing happens with soldiers, which Abu Ghraib was a prime example of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom