CPCFTW Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 Edited to add: And according to g_bambino, it is about showing restraint: I think he means showing restraint as in my last post about weeping/bawling in public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 I think he means showing restraint as in my last post about weeping/bawling in public. Yes, that's right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 Mmmm... JFK is a good example; I hadn't thought of him and the reaction to his death until now.... [fix] "Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy, I knew Jack Kennedy, Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy." - Senator LLoyd Benson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 (edited) CPCFTW, on 27 August 2011 - 12:31 PM, said: I think he means showing restraint as in my last post about weeping/bawling in public.Yes, that's right. I realize that, which is why I pointed out that "restraint" of such a nature isn't expected at sporting events. Many Canadians don't restrain their excitement - ie: emotions - when Canada wins the Gold in hockey. They publicly display their emotions. Why is that more acceptable than showing one's emotions when losing a beloved politician? Why is it "immature" to weep publicly over a politician who has died and not immature to whoop it up over a hockey win? - why is it acceptable to display one's emotions in one instance and not the other? I'm wondering why we have to show restraint when feeling sadness when we aren't expected to show restraint when feeling happiness/excitement. Edited August 27, 2011 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roFB7bGCAgc&feature=related Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 - why is it acceptable to display one's emotions in one instance and not the other? I'm wondering why we have to show restraint when feeling sadness when we aren't expected to show restraint when feeling happiness/excitement. Well, I wished some people would have shown some restraint when the Canucks lost to Boston in June. But overall, I agree with you. While I am tired of the Jack Layton nonsense (not my thing) I just turn it off. Now I need to turn off those who whine about those who pay "excessive" tribute to a dead man. Now someone else is going to have to turn off my whine about people who whine about people who pay "excessive" tribute to a dead man. Etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPCFTW Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 I realize that, which is why I pointed out that "restraint" of such a nature isn't expected at sporting events. Many Canadians don't restrain their excitement - ie: emotions - when Canada wins the Gold in hockey. They publicly display their emotions. Why is that more acceptable than showing one's emotions when losing a beloved politician? Why is it "immature" to weep publicly over a politician who has died and not immature to whoop it up over a hockey win? - why is it acceptable to display one's emotions in one instance and not the other? I'm wondering why we have to show restraint when feeling sadness when we aren't expected to show restraint when feeling happiness/excitement. The point I'm trying to make is that the reaction over Layton's death is akin to Canadiens fans rioting over a first round playoff win. The wailing/bawling or screaming/rioting should be reserved for the deaths of family and close friends or for a stanley cup win, not for the death of a likeable politician or a 1st round playoff win. Both are distasteful and attention-seeking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 The point I'm trying to make is that the reaction over Layton's death is akin to Canadiens fans rioting over a first round playoff win. The wailing/bawling or screaming/rioting should be reserved for the deaths of family and close friends or for a stanley cup win, not for the death of a likeable politician or a 1st round playoff win. Both are distasteful and attention-seeking. Rioting should not be reserved for anything, except fighting dictatorships. Don't you agree? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 The point I'm trying to make is that the reaction over Layton's death is akin to Canadiens fans rioting over a first round playoff win. The wailing/bawling or screaming/rioting should be reserved for the deaths of family and close friends or for a stanley cup win, not for the death of a likeable politician or a 1st round playoff win. Both are distasteful and attention-seeking. Nice of you to impose your values on us. Stanley Cup Win? Really? If you will allow it, o arbiter of taste, I would submit that your list of permitted expressions of emotion is shallow and meaningless. Please forgive my boldness in speaking out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 (edited) The point I'm trying to make is that the reaction over Layton's death is akin to Canadiens fans rioting over a first round playoff win. Since rioting is against the law and generally results in injury to other parties and destruction of innocent people's property - no it's not. Not even remotely akin to that. The wailing/bawling or screaming/rioting should be reserved for the deaths of family and close friends or for a stanley cup win, not for the death of a likeable politician or a 1st round playoff win. Both are distasteful and attention-seeking. A Stanley Cup win? - That's more worthy of public emotion than the death of a beloved politician?? And "rioting" is acceptable under those circumstances? But wailing and bawling over the death of a political leader is not? Good grief. Edited August 27, 2011 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 Why is it "immature" to weep publicly over a politician who has died and not immature to whoop it up over a hockey win? There are more than a few who take hockey wins a little too far. Usually alcohol plays a part in that, though. Maybe all these cuddle-me public weepers are drunk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 If you're not, and if you're a socialist then your desire to assess and audit public discourse is a little more understandable. That makes little sense on more than one level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 There are more than a few who take hockey wins a little too far. Usually alcohol plays a part in that, though. Maybe all these cuddle-me public weepers are drunk. I see. So everyone enjoying a hockey/football/whatever game - unless they are controlling their emotions, not cheering, not showing their excitement - is "drunk." Everyone at the Olympic Games is "drunk" - or quietly, unemotionally, watching the Games. And that makes it somehow more "acceptable." Or "mature." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPCFTW Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 Since rioting is against the law and generally results in injury to other parties and destruction of innocent people's property - no it's not. Not even remotely akin to that. A Stanley Cup win? - That's more worthy of public emotion than the death of a beloved politician?? And "rioting" is acceptable under those circumstances? But wailing and bawling over the death of a political leader is not? Good grief. I meant more the rioting of the 2011 Olympics variety (not so much rioting as exuberant jubilation and partying). You're the one who insisted on bringing sports into the discussion so I'm just making the analogy that the wailing/bawling is like when Montreal fans started rioting over a 1st round series win. It's unneccessary and attention-seeking. And Layton wasn't "beloved" until like 3 months ago. He was the Ralph Nader of Canadian politics until then. Would you not think it odd if Ralph Nader were given a state funeral and covered on the news 24/7 for a week after his death? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 I meant more the rioting of the 2011 Olympics variety (not so much rioting as exuberant jubilation and partying). You're the one who insisted on bringing sports into the discussion so I'm just making the analogy that the wailing/bawling is like when Montreal fans started rioting over a 1st round series win. But it's NOT like that. There's nothing illegal or harmful in "wailing/bawling." It's unneccessary and attention-seeking. How would you know what's "necessary" regarding someone else's emotions? And Layton wasn't "beloved" until like 3 months ago. He was the Ralph Nader of Canadian politics until then. Would you not think it odd if Ralph Nader were given a state funeral and covered on the news 24/7 for a week after his death? Since Ralph Nader doesn't hold any political position similar to "opposition leader," yes I would think it was odd. Furthermore, Layton didn't die "3 months ago," so whether he was beloved then or not is irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPCFTW Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 How would you know what's "necessary" regarding someone else's emotions? And how would you know if I should be repulsed by the whole thing? If you're going to argue that I have no right to determine that the flamboyant emotions displayed over Layton's death are unnecessary, then you probably shouldn't be dictating that my repulsion is unwarranted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 And how would you know if I should be repulsed by the whole thing? If you're going to argue that I have no right to determine that the flamboyant emotions displayed over Layton's death are unnecessary, then you probably shouldn't be dictating that my repulsion is unwarranted. Where, exactly, did I "dictate" that? But let's recap. They lost a beloved politician - you just don't like the way they are reacting. Yep. You're on equal emotional ground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPCFTW Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 Where, exactly, did I "dictate" that? But let's recap. They lost a beloved politician - you just don't like the way they are reacting. Yep. You're on equal emotional ground. The obvious irreconcilable difference in our arguments is that you seem to believe in the (in my opinion fabricated) "emotional ground" that they are on from "losing a beloved politician". If the foundation of your argument lies on the premise that I am completely at odds with, obviously it will not be very convincing to me. I happen to believe that after all the crocodile tears are shed for a few days, these people will go on merrily with their lives looking for the next cause that they can use to seek attention. There hasn't been an environmental protest in a while, I'm sure we'll see some familiar faces crying over the baby seals and other cuddly critters soon enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 So everyone enjoying a hockey/football/whatever game - unless they are controlling their emotions, not cheering, not showing their excitement - is "drunk." No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted August 28, 2011 Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 My eyes were moist a few times after learning of his death. I think it's more of the irony - it's like a Shakespeare tragedy. Politics is obviously his passion. To have taken the NDP Party this far, only to have to leave and not partake in it. It is very sad. It makes me wonder if it was the rigorous campaigning that ironically got him to succumb to cancer. But without his energy and passionate campaigning....would the NDP have become the official Opposition Party? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socialist in Oil Country Posted August 28, 2011 Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 So you agree, the excessive lionisation of Jack Layton is disgusting? No The posts Are disgusting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted August 28, 2011 Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 No The posts Are disgusting Not all of them though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted August 28, 2011 Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 You're not expected to love him when he's dead, but you are expected to allow those who loved him to grieve at least until the funeral. Despite the disagreements I have had with conservatives, I have always broadly held them in high esteem when it comes to matters of protocol and tact. Until now. Nothing wrong with dignified respect. I just felt the lionization, as someone referred to it, or the sainthood, had gotten way, way, way over the top. Still do. And my commentary was not so much disrespectful for Layton as it is for those engaging in the overhyped and meldramatic "grieving" for a man they never met. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted August 28, 2011 Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 I guess I am. Are you? If you're not, and if you're a socialist then your desire to assess and audit public discourse is a little more understandable. Why? Because those rotten conservatives you "used to have respect for" would never do something like that? I guess they're all just knuckle-draggers, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted August 28, 2011 Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 Nice of you to impose your values on us. Stanley Cup Win? Really? If you will allow it, o arbiter of taste, Pot, meet Kettle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.