Senator Edward Kennedy dies at 77

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Yes, of course, this reason alone must be what drives people into a life of crime.:rolleyes:


Come on. Didn't you realize that every crime ever committed was done so by a "good kid" and "somebody who was trying to turn their life around." ;)

Members don't see this ad.
 
Sure, go nuts.

I wonder if she purposefully tried to avoid alerting the authorities for hours after the accident...

Eh, who knows? Accounts vary, and we're all known for making good decisions following stressful events. It's nice to know that one decision defines a person, instead of things like creating federal systems to help kids get food, poor people get medical care, and making workplaces safe. Kennedy authored 2500 pieces of legislation in his career, and there are folks who choose to define him through things like this. Whatever helps you to sleep at night, I guess.

From the sounds of it, Laura Bush's incident was an accident....a bit different from Teddy's incident.

I also wanted to check to see if it's okay to condemn an incident that happened before I was alive. I suppose if I wasn't alive then there is no possible way to tell if it was morally wrong or not??? Seems rather weak to me.

Well, gee, if that was what I was inferring, then that point might be valid. As it stands, both the Laura Bush and Ted Kennedy accidents have been cast in very different lights with conflicting accounts since they happened, and people have a tendency to harp on or magnify the accounts they happen to agree with. So if you are inclined to attack Kennedy because you disagree with his political stances, you tend to be more inclined to see Bush's actions sympathetically. The point of all of this is that it is hypocritical to condemn one action with ambiguous details (with which you are unfamiliar experientially) and use a different standard to judge an equally ambiguous case. Feel free to condemn things that happened before you were born, but be honest enough to admit that you might not have all of the details necessary to make that judgment. Way too many people rely on talking heads on TV to form their opinions for them, and these talking heads are politically motivated. Kennedy's opponents will define him through his car accident, instead of his tenure in political office.

It's a mistake to focus only on the good or only on the bad things that people do. Some do more of one that the other, to be sure, and we cannot ignore patterns of behavior for anyone, but to reduce someone down to one action or decision is simplistic, dishonest, and ignorant, and this holds true of Ted Kennedy and Laura Bush. A lot has happened in the 40 years since the accident.
 
The point of all of this is that it is hypocritical to condemn one action with ambiguous details (with which you are unfamiliar experientially) and use a different standard to judge an equally ambiguous case.

The Kennedy case I am familiar with and condemn. The Bush case I am not as familiar with, but the same standards are still being used. I don't see how a second standard was introduced anywhere. The reports I read about the Bush incident seemed like an accident. If those reports are not accurate and it was not an accident then I would condemn it just the same. No separate standards are being used anywhere.

Way too many people rely on talking heads on TV to form their opinions for them, and these talking heads are politically motivated. Kennedy's opponents will define him through his car accident, instead of his tenure in political office.

I agree that too many people blindly believe TV personalities, but the fact is I don't even have TV so I got nothing from them really. Also, Kennedy's opponents and supporters will both define him through his incident and his tenure. Opponents will say he's a killer and will not agree with his politics. Supporters will say he was strong for being able to overcome the incident and agree with his politics. Either way you look at it the incident is a defining moment in his life/career.

It's a mistake to focus only on the good or only on the bad things that people do. Some do more of one that the other, to be sure, and we cannot ignore patterns of behavior for anyone, but to reduce someone down to one action or decision is simplistic, dishonest, and ignorant, and this holds true of Ted Kennedy and Laura Bush. A lot has happened in the 40 years since the accident.

Much of Ted's behavior pattern was not favorable. It was not only his incident that bad, much of his politics and his methods were equally bad.



*Thread summary from my end

Teddy is dead, oh well
Teddy = drunk, killer, power hungry
Me = hate Teddy (not just because of incident, also politics among other things)

okay I'm done. Feel free to twist words or make assumptions for things that I never said.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Thank goodness none of us make any mistakes... :rolleyes:

At least he went on to fight for what he believed in. That's all we can ask anyone to do. :thumbup:

I wonder if you would think the same of the Unabomber. At least he went on to fight what he believed in. And he wasn't a sellout like Kennedy running on his family's name, fame, and money. And he was actually smart. Never mind that he killed innocents, he was fighting for what he believed in. Again, that is all we can ask for.




You can't be serious. Cheating on your wife, drunk driving, and killing a woman are just mistakes that get to be forgiven?! Hell no!

I highly doubt you would be saying the same things if somebody killed somebody you cared about but then went on to "fight for what he believed in."

So, by this logic, it is now fair for me to judge the entirety of Laura Bush's life because she killed someone, too? Just wanted to check, since I see a lot of condemnation from people who weren't even alive when Kennedy's accident happened, and a lot of ill-founded attempts at the moral high-ground.

Cheating on your wife can be forgiven. DUI can be written off as lapse of judgment or mistake. Killing someone accidentally and taking responsibility and showing remorse afterwards can be semi-forgiven.

Driving drunk with an aide, crashing into the river, abandoning the sunken car with the passenger, not reporting the accident to emergency services, and then using your family's influence to get out of the crime is scummy. Ted Kennedy is a scumbag, and it's good he is dead.
See how this differs from Laura Bush's (age 17) car accident?

How about trying to block windmill construction because they "defiled" his yachting area.
 
*Thread summary from my end

Teddy is dead, oh well
Teddy = drunk, killer, power hungry
Me = hate Teddy (not just because of incident, also politics among other things)

okay I'm done. Feel free to twist words or make assumptions for things that I never said.

Where is all this bitterness and anger coming from? Do you have a personal vendetta against Ted Kennedy? :confused:

Frankly, what's the point? Hating on a dead guy is the lowest of low blows.
 
Eh, who knows? Accounts vary, and we're all known for making good decisions following stressful events. It's nice to know that one decision defines a person, instead of things like creating federal systems to help kids get food, poor people get medical care, and making workplaces safe. Kennedy authored 2500 pieces of legislation in his career, and there are folks who choose to define him through things like this. Whatever helps you to sleep at night, I guess.

The incident doesn't define him. The incident merely overshadows the other stuff because he got away with something that if you or I were to do, we'd be put in jail. Oh well, I guess we all can't be gifted with insanely rich and famous relatives.
 
The incident doesn't define him. The incident merely overshadows the other stuff because he got away with something that if you or I were to do, we'd be put in jail. Oh well, I guess we all can't be gifted with insanely rich and famous relatives.

Something about being pre-med just infuses people with bitterness. I don't understand it.
 
The Kennedy case I am familiar with and condemn. The Bush case I am not as familiar with, but the same standards are still being used. I don't see how a second standard was introduced anywhere. The reports I read about the Bush incident seemed like an accident. If those reports are not accurate and it was not an accident then I would condemn it just the same. No separate standards are being used anywhere.

Familiar how? Personal experience? Articles you've read? Pundits to whom you've listened? If you only have second- or third-hand reporting, you're not likely to be getting much more than that particular person's retelling of events. There is just as much ambiguity regarding the circumstances of the Bush accident as the Kennedy accident, which makes it inappropriate to condemn one but forgive another. Does being a distracted teenage driver make something more accidental than making a wrong turn? Sources conflict about his actions afterward (attempts to rescue, actions taking immediately afterward, etc.), just as they conflict about the circumstances of her accident. The point is that you probably don't have good information for either case, so it would be mistaken (and a double-standard) to excuse or rationalize one but not the other.

Ride Big Sky said:
I agree that too many people blindly believe TV personalities, but the fact is I don't even have TV so I got nothing from them really. Also, Kennedy's opponents and supporters will both define him through his incident and his tenure. Opponents will say he's a killer and will not agree with his politics. Supporters will say he was strong for being able to overcome the incident and agree with his politics. Either way you look at it the incident is a defining moment in his life/career.

And there are those who will use both to define him, indicating that he, just like everyone else, had both good moments and bad moments. And those who insist on only one historical filter are those who are accidentally or willfully ignorant.

Ride Big Sky said:
Much of Ted's behavior pattern was not favorable. It was not only his incident that bad, much of his politics and his methods were equally bad.

Specifics? Was it bad to oppose Vietnam and Iraq? Was it bad to write the SCHIP, Medicare, and OSHA bills? You are painting with broad strokes here. I can get that you disagreed with them, but the "they were bad" line seems rather unjustified.

Ride Big Sky said:
*Thread summary from my end

Teddy is dead, oh well
Teddy = drunk, killer, power hungry
Me = hate Teddy (not just because of incident, also politics among other things)

okay I'm done. Feel free to twist words or make assumptions for things that I never said.

When I start to twist your words or make unjustified assumptions about you, let me know. I've discussed general trends in the responses I've seen (both here and elsewhere) without making specific claims about you, I've responded to your inferences about what I've been saying, and I've explained why your political affiliations may bias you towards one position or another (and your disclosure of your political position lends justification to the claims I've made). Throwing a dismissive wave while maintaining vague opinions without disclosing specific justifications for them isn't really making a coherent point.
 
Last edited:
You guys really are ridiculous- enough said.
 
Cheating on your wife can be forgiven. DUI can be written off as lapse of judgment or mistake. Killing someone accidentally and taking responsibility and showing remorse afterwards can be semi-forgiven.

Driving drunk with an aide, crashing into the river, abandoning the sunken car with the passenger, not reporting the accident to emergency services, and then using your family's influence to get out of the crime is scummy. Ted Kennedy is a scumbag, and it's good he is dead.
See how this differs from Laura Bush's (age 17) car accident?

See how your recollection of events is shaping your judgment of the accident, the man, and the entirety of his career? See how your sympathies lie more with one than the other, and how this shapes your ethical analysis? See how I can ask rhetorical questions, too?

Would you be as willing to forgive a teenager who kills your daughter because she was texting? Because she was talking on her cell phone? Because she (like *waaaay* too many drivers) was doing something other than paying attention to the several thousand pounds of metal traveling at a high velocity under her control? The very things she promised not to do when getting licensed?

*Everyone* makes bad decisions in life, and sometimes these bad decisions have horrible, horrible consequences. I doubt sincerely that anyone wanted her dead, and I strongly suspect that were he able to travel back in time and undo that mistake, he would. But the blanket condemnation you are putting on him is simplistic and dishonest, and calling him a "scumbag" assumes that he was exactly the same person on the day of his death as he was when the accident happened, and that's just willfully ignorant. We all change throughout our lives, regret our mistakes, learn from them, and do other things. To choose to define the entirety of his political career with a handful of things with which you personally agree or disagree is dishonest. Don't think that I'm a fan of Kennedy's - I'm well aware that he had his share of personal and professional problems, and I don't agree with everything that he's done.

However, I do make a distinction between disagreeing with a politician and his choices and conflating their personal and professional lives. Should I judge Ted Haggard just by the hypocrisy of his sexual escapades, or the entirety of his career? Should I judge Martin Luther King by his plagiarism, or by the full body of his accomplishments?

YeOldeMan said:
How about trying to block windmill construction because they "defiled" his yachting area.

A bad and selfish thing for him to have done. Unlike SCHIP, Medicare, and OSHA.

EDIT:

And on that note, I'm off for the day. Have fun discussing this.
 
How can some people be so mean. A man just died. Can't you think of his family.

I'm sure they're surfing the SDN forums eagerly awaiting his name to be mentioned.

"I'm just reading every high-school newspaper in America to see if I'm mentioned." - Luke Perry in Family Guy
 
Top