Sylvia Browne, psychic charlatan, is dead. (nydailynews.com)

atheism

374 ups - 91 downs = 283 votes

201 comments submitted at 03:12:37 on Nov 21, 2013 by NickelFish

  • [-]
  • rebelscumcsh
  • 58 Points
  • 03:18:16, 21 November

good.

  • [-]
  • Azureheart
  • -21 Points
  • 04:47:47, 21 November

No, a human being died. Despite the fact that I cannot stand psychics and wholly reject what they practice, I don't see how it's "good" that someone died.

Please don't list off what she's done, either. I'm fully aware how shitty she was. However, celebrating someone's death? That's a different kind of shitty, to me.

  • [-]
  • rhytnen
  • 37 Points
  • 04:59:24, 21 November

This is just silly. Not every human life is a special snowflake. Some are entirely detrimental to the human race. She caused a net suffering in the world and we're better off without her.

  • [-]
  • MichaelMaverick
  • 5 Points
  • 10:49:43, 21 November

"She caused a net suffering in the world"

Many ordinary people have. Nice to see you being so confident that you haven't.

Everyone downvoting Azureheart is a total fuckwad. I'd have trouble considering anyone so venomous a decent person. Karma-lynching someone who would dare disagree with you by being even slightly merciful is no different from the religious hatefulness this subreddit stands to oppose.

  • [-]
  • rhytnen
  • 9 Points
  • 13:24:54, 21 November

Oh you're offended? So what.

  • [-]
  • Azureheart
  • -12 Points
  • 05:02:20, 21 November

No, it really isn't silly. Not every human life has to be a "special snowflake" to not deserve death. Most people have a mixture of good and poor qualities.

She lived a long life and was a foolish woman, fair enough, but to say it's "good" that she died? That's not just silly but is rather distasteful.

  • [-]
  • Diddo97
  • 11 Points
  • 10:24:29, 21 November

Remember that time when she said that a kidnapped girl was dead, and she turned up alive a few years later?

  • [-]
  • Corrinth
  • 12 Points
  • 05:45:31, 21 November

She wasn't just foolish. She constantly lied to the families of kidnapping victims, claiming to have knowledge of their loved ones' fates. And she profited from this practice quite handsomely.

The woman was a vulture and the world is better off without her.

  • [-]
  • Azureheart
  • -8 Points
  • 05:59:46, 21 November

And? Families did not have to listen or partake in her advice or "readings." I'm sorry, but she was delusional, not some heartless evil witch who's death we should be glad about.

That's a really callous and meaningless way to approach humanity.

  • [-]
  • NickelFish
  • 12 Points
  • 06:40:31, 21 November

I don't think she was delusional. If she really believed she was psychic, she would probably have jumped at the chance to prove it in James Randi's tests.

I wonder if there are any ethical parallels we can draw. If a corporation sells pills they say will hasten the recovery from a cold, fully knowing they're sugar pills and believers will attribute any recovery to that pill (confirmation bias), is it the consumer's fault that they believed the advertising? To protect against snake oil salesmen, the FDA is charged to be the watchdog. We recognize as a society that the consumer may not have all the information on the efficacy of a drug. So we create protections. There are no such protections in place where psychics are concerned. This is a prime place for predators.

  • [-]
  • Azureheart
  • -8 Points
  • 06:51:36, 21 November

Denial can accompany delusion, to be fair. She may have been nervous or worried that she wouldn't be a psychic and it would demean her "powers" or even stain her reputation. (The latter is a given.)

True. You're right. You have no reason to put forth arguments of psychics being shit. I've established I've agreed with that so let's stay focused.

The bottom line? Her tricking people and lying is horrible. However, I just don't think it is enough to consider her death a good thing. As I've asked, where does that end? Where do we draw the line? If a man steals a purse, or even dozens of purses, he's interrupted the livelihood of someone else. Is it good if he dies? If he no longer exists? I cannot support that, even for a psychic.

  • [-]
  • NickelFish
  • 6 Points
  • 07:25:31, 21 November

There may be another grey area not yet discussed. What if the mode of her death was different? What if Sylvia Browne had been murdered instead of dying of natural causes? I don't think her misdeeds would warrant murder or any other death. Someone may think "Oooh, too bad. I know she was a charlatan but she didn't deserve that!". However, she died of natural causes and at a pretty old age anyways. The natural ending being benign and adding the charlatanry, people may be relieved that the scourge is gone.

  • [-]
  • Azureheart
  • 2 Points
  • 07:27:47, 21 November

Oh, of course. I don't think anything, barring a few rare and extreme exceptions, warrants murder. Perhaps you're right. A scourge, though? Seems a bit overboard! Haha.

No, I understand where you're coming from and I appreciate your input. You've been decent to talk to, as opposed to everyone else in this thread who tried to go for my throat.

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • rhytnen
  • 4 Points
  • 06:26:19, 21 November

Its practical to like improving the human condition even when it means a harmful individual is gone. And are you are really going to victim blame here? You have no evidence she was delusional. Most psychics are very aware of the con game they are playing. Or do you want to claim she wasn't doing the standard tricks like cold reading?

  • [-]
  • Azureheart
  • 0 Points
  • 06:39:58, 21 November

You have no evidence she was aware, though. Most psychics believe what they believe because they're genuinely acknowledging their "mystical" powers.

It's practical? I'm sorry but trying to enforce saying someone dying is good by saying it "improves the human condition?" My lord, I'm so done. This is just preposterous.

  • [-]
  • NickelFish
  • 3 Points
  • 08:09:26, 21 November

I'm not sure about the part with most mystics believing what they believe or being genuine. This is a case where concrete proof is unavailable so we have to rely on our understanding of what motivates people. There are politicians who feign belief because it will further their career and admitting any skepticism would be detrimental. So it can be said they 'Believe in Belief'. It's impossible to really prove someone believes something based on their own testimony. If they have a vested interest in your belief, and in Sylvia Brown's case, it was to the tune of around ten thousand dollars per diem, I assume it's more likely she's scamming.

Having seen videos of faith healers and the leaked radio transmissions between backstage and the pastor's earphone, hearing testimonies from 'psychics' who told the secrets of the cold-read, etc., I look at all of them with a jaundiced eye.

  • [-]
  • Azureheart
  • 4 Points
  • 08:16:51, 21 November

Well, to be fair, that's just how I feel about the issue. I was, in no way, making an objective statement, especially with such a lack of evidence.

The problem is, they don't have to be intrinsically separate. She could be scamming but still believe she has "powers" or be delusional, whether that's the case less or more of the time.

Fair enough, as do I. I've seen several cases of what you've mentioned and I've seen the other side of the ugly coin that is psychics. I've seen then STILL profess on about how it's legitimate and how they believe in their capabilities, even after exposure. I can't help but thinking that a lot of this is legitimate delusion, combined with selfishness and deception.

  • [-]
  • rhytnen
  • 4 Points
  • 06:46:24, 21 November

They are acknowledging their mysticism. Wtf.

The evidence of her fraud is that she uses standard con techniques. I.e. she was aware that she had to game her victims through known techniques and employed them. She intentionally avoided proofing situations.

She was a typical, not particularly gifted fraud.

  • [-]
  • Azureheart
  • 1 Points
  • 06:48:08, 21 November

I don't know why you're surprised, though. There are psychics, in existence, who believe they have capabilities or powers that are beyond standard human measure. She may have as well.

There's no evidence she was aware that it was a con. E.G., it may not have been a con to HER. That's the point of delusion, rhytnen. You're not aware of it.

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • Corrinth
  • 3 Points
  • 06:32:11, 21 November

>Families did not have to listen or partake in her advice or "readings."

Of course they didn't. But it's not like she was showing up on peoples' doorsteps offering her services. These people sought her out, because they believed in her. And she took advantage of them. She was a liar and a thief and a conman. Conwoman. Whatever.

  • [-]
  • rhytnen
  • 12 Points
  • 05:16:26, 21 November

Why? Because you say so? Your sense of taste and ethics is THE definition?

So deserve to live or die isn't a thing. People die. The entire world is better off because she died.

So I can't be happy the entire planet just got a little better? There are lot of people whom I'm sure you would make the exact same statement about. To be almost to the point of farcical, aren't you glad polpot is dead? How about Ted Bundy?

Hey, this is r/atheism right? So let's point out that over a billion people rejoice with vigor at one particularly brutal death.

  • [-]
  • Azureheart
  • -6 Points
  • 06:03:40, 21 November

I didn't say that so save your loaded question for someone who'll put up with logically fallacious nonsense. I'm not that person.

I'm not happy that Ted Bundy is dead. I have no reason to be. I don't get "glad" when human beings die. It's why I don't support the death penalty, amongst other things. Death is never pleasing.

Why can't I point it out? Everyone is making it out like I've made it a big deal because I expressed it's tasteless to be happy about someone dying who lied to people. Christ, this isn't Hitler or Genghis Khan we're discussing. It's a delusional psychic who lied to people that voluntarily sought her advice.

  • [-]
  • Corrinth
  • 13 Points
  • 06:39:15, 21 November

>I don't get "glad" when human beings die.

Perhaps you should, if it's someone who brought a tremendous amount of pain and suffering into the world.

>I'm not happy that Ted Bundy is dead.

Why not? Earlier you said that it's okay to celebrate the death of Hitler. But not Ted Bundy? What's the difference, other than body count? Where do you draw the line?

  • [-]
  • Azureheart
  • -3 Points
  • 06:44:21, 21 November

>Perhaps you should, if it's someone who brought a tremendous amount of pain and suffering into the world.

I don't think this would be helpful towards alleviating my suffering. In fact, I think it would have no worth. People bringing pain and suffering is horrible but wishing pain and suffering on them and/or being happy that they suffer or go through pain (E.G.: Die) seems vengeance-esque and a bit barbaric.

>Why not? Earlier you said that it's okay to celebrate the death of Hitler. But not Ted Bundy? What's the difference, other than body count? Where do you draw the line?

Body count is important. Don't get me wrong, it's not good that Ted Bundy killed people at all but I see a difference between 30 and almost 12,000,000.

  • [-]
  • rhytnen
  • 11 Points
  • 06:57:14, 21 November

So how many bodies then?

Also stop moving the goal post. Who wished pain and suffering on Sylvia? Were glad she's dead so she can't hurt people anymore.

  • [-]
  • Azureheart
  • -6 Points
  • 07:14:24, 21 November

I didn't say anyone did. Drop the loaded questions and drop using terms you half understand. Notice the "and/or?" I don't want to have to spend most of my time having to clarify everything for you and responding to nonsensical, illogical crap. Try to argue more efficiently. Honestly.

There isn't a specific amount but I'm almost certain there's a strong difference when two men have twelve million bodies separating them and there's circumstance to why it's a positive thing (good) that one died and that the other didn't.

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • Corrinth
  • 5 Points
  • 07:07:17, 21 November

>I don't think this would be helpful towards alleviating my suffering.

I never said it would. It's good that she's dead because it means she won't be able to inflict that suffering on more people, not because it will lessen your own suffering.

>Body count is important. Don't get me wrong, it's not good that Ted Bundy killed people at all but I see a difference between 30 and almost 12,000,000.

Certainly Hitler inflicted more suffering on the world than Bundy did. But I fail to see how you think 30-something murders is not worthy of Bundy's death being considered a good thing in the scheme of things.

  • [-]
  • Azureheart
  • -3 Points
  • 07:20:33, 21 November

>I never said it would. It's good that she's dead because it means she won't be able to inflict that suffering on more people, not because it will lessen your own suffering.

No, I was speaking generally because you said "if it's someone." I was referring to anyone, including her, who would bring suffering. The "my" wasn't specifically focused on myself literally.

I don't know if the "suffering" she caused is enough to warrant her death being good. These people sought her specific type of "work," remember. These aren't necessarily all people that were "duped." There's a lot of circumstance surrounding why I don't think it was enough suffering to warrant her death being good.

>Certainly Hitler inflicted more suffering on the world than Bundy did. But I fail to see how you think 30-something murders is not worthy of Bundy's death being considered a good thing in the scheme of things.

As I said, he was in prison, murdered YEARS after his killing spree came to an end. I have no REASON to think it's good, in the sense that it ended suffering, was positive, etc.

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • rhytnen
  • 5 Points
  • 06:22:17, 21 November

No, they act like its a big deal because there is no basis to your claim and you sound like you've lost critical context by saying assinine things like you can't be glad when some one like Bundy or Polpot is gone.

  • [-]
  • Azureheart
  • -5 Points
  • 06:30:12, 21 November

Basis to my claim? Have you gone mad? I'm not trying to empirically prove something here. I just think it's tasteless personally and I expressed that, as I'm entitled to. I hope you fully understand this before any continued melodrama.

Asinine (Yes, one "S" only) how? Perhaps it's asinine to express how awesome/good/amazing/whatever-the-hell-else it is that Browne is dead. Yes, how great. A psychic lied to people and it's so good that she's dead. Come on, get off of it. What she did was disgusting but do you understand how it, even then, may not make it good that a human being died?

I just don't think it's a "good" thing. I don't think it enters such a realm. I didn't say people COULDN'T so get off of that shit.

  • [-]
  • kamikazewhovian
  • 2 Points
  • 12:37:09, 21 November

If it means anything by this stage, I fully respect your view on this and your attitude towards the death of people, even if they were disliked or detrimental to society.

Despite your downvotes (which you pushed through), you held strong to your moral code, and that should be commended.

Also, I think this is a good time to point out to everyone that votes are meant to help good discussions thrive, not to show what opinion is the agreed one. Even if you disagree, if the point is made well and contributes to the conversation, why not upvote? Or at least leave neutral. This is how the 'hivemind' problem happens.

  • [-]
  • Azureheart
  • 0 Points
  • 14:12:26, 21 November

Real talk. This and r/gaming are definitely two problematic subreddits where this happens. It pains me, really. Upvotes don't mean "helpful or non-helpful" to most. The mean "I agree or disagree." It's too bad.

  • [-]
  • rhytnen
  • 6 Points
  • 06:35:13, 21 November

I used ass on purpose. You started by making a claim about the value and sanctity of life. Then you victim blamed people she scammed. Then you decided some people are OK to cheer their death and others not.

So yes you DO have to have a basis now. You had to anyway or your opinion is made up garbage. So when I asked you why and you dodged it, you immediately look exactly like a christian apologist.

Your answers are self ritcheous and unfounded.

  • [-]
  • Look_Deeper
  • 5 Points
  • 06:48:40, 21 November

the ass thing was funny, but I think you actually misspelled righteous

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • SequorScientia
  • 4 Points
  • 05:20:11, 21 November

Don't get so hung up on people saying it's "good" that she died. Everyone will die someday. Complaining that people are calling it "good" is a little immature. It's neither good nor bad, it's just a fact of life.

I won't be celebrating her death, but I will say that nothing of value was lost, and we're better off without her. That is all.

  • [-]
  • Azureheart
  • 1 Points
  • 06:01:09, 21 November

No, it's really not immature. That's a rather aimless classification.

Not of value to you, though. I don't consider someone's life invaluable because she was a foolish individual who lied to others. As I said, I couldn't stand her but I'm not happy that she died, nor do I think it's a "good" thing.

  • [-]
  • Aquareon
  • 1 Points
  • 09:34:02, 21 November

>"invaluable"

That word....I do not think it means what you think it means.

  • [-]
  • Look_Deeper
  • 2 Points
  • 06:46:37, 21 November

I wholeheartedly agree, but it seems this lady was pretty horrible

  • [-]
  • Azureheart
  • 1 Points
  • 06:54:44, 21 November

Oh, I don't disagree.

  • [-]
  • rydan
  • 3 Points
  • 10:10:44, 21 November

It is good because she predicted she'd die at a different time and was obviously wrong again. Consider it her final prediction.

  • [-]
  • dumnezero
  • 3 Points
  • 14:26:27, 21 November

The situation reminds me of this Bill Hicks bit

  • [-]
  • Corrinth
  • 6 Points
  • 05:47:01, 21 November

Should we not have celebrated Hitler's death?

  • [-]
  • Azureheart
  • -6 Points
  • 05:58:35, 21 November

Whoa, are we relating this woman to Hitler? Honestly?

  • [-]
  • NickelFish
  • 8 Points
  • 06:05:10, 21 November

As I see the argument, not relating her to Hitler but questioning where the line is between acceptable or unacceptable public displays surrounding news of a death.

  • [-]
  • Azureheart
  • -4 Points
  • 06:06:52, 21 November

Those are dynamically different people. Hitler is an absolutely separate class from Sylvia Browne. If we are defining lines here, those two are miles apart. Really. I mean, I end up invoking Godwin's law as much as the next chap but come on.

  • [-]
  • NickelFish
  • 6 Points
  • 06:24:54, 21 November

I agree they are nowhere near the same. The point is though, it seems there is a point where it's okay to celebrate. We've defined some extremes. I wonder where the line becomes grey. Perhaps there's a continuum of extremes that can be whittled down.

  • [-]
  • Azureheart
  • 1 Points
  • 06:26:15, 21 November

Perhaps you're right.

  • [-]
  • rhytnen
  • 4 Points
  • 06:31:12, 21 November

Dont bullshit. Hitler is OK, Bundy is not. Own and tell us whose worthy of life and death.

  • [-]
  • Eye-Licker
  • 3 Points
  • 12:17:24, 21 November

They're miles apart for sure, but Hitler might have genuinely thought he was doing what was best for the world, whereas there is no way this woman actually thought she was psychic. She was fraud, a con, and emotionally exploited people for money.

If Hitler did believe he was doing the world a favor (no way to know) then I'd say Sylvia Brown is the worse of the two, in a way.

  • [-]
  • rhytnen
  • 7 Points
  • 06:28:02, 21 November

It looks like you have to own up and define your classes of people whom we celebrate the deaths of. Let's here it then...own your position.

  • [-]
  • Azureheart
  • -2 Points
  • 06:37:47, 21 November

No, I didn't mean celebrate in the literal sense so try not to attach yourself to that. I'm discussing the "good" aspect and Hitler dying is good, in my opinion. A physic lying to people and believing/practicing something false is a bit of a different class than someone who was responsible for over a dozen million people dying.

What happens if I decide to lie tomorrow to my girlfriend? My parents? When do I cross over into the realm of my death being "good?" Hell, let's say I become religious and believe/practice something false. I qualify then, right?

Rhetoric aside, I honestly think, despite the psychic's nonsensical practices and deeds, it's not good that she died. She may have had family members or had done things that held value or merit in her life. To say it's good because of a handful of incidents, along with her being delusional? It's weak.

Notice how you, and others, have had to bring some of the most AWFUL people into the picture to support this function. It's because it's easy to say it was good that Hitler or Pol Pot died. For me, a deluded psychic doesn't qualify and I think it's tasteless to assume she does.

  • [-]
  • NickelFish
  • 4 Points
  • 07:00:31, 21 November

I wonder if being a public figure has anything to do with the perceived sum total of good/bad to society. Ted Bundy wasn't famous and to my knowledge had no followers, and he had a terrible but isolated effect on society. Hitler was a national leader who actually affected society as a whole. In the end, I might question what effect either death or life would have on society. I'm not advocating either way. Just pointing out that there may be things that affect where these two would be placed in the continuum.

  • [-]
  • Azureheart
  • 3 Points
  • 07:06:31, 21 November

Fair enough.

  • [-]
  • Corrinth
  • 4 Points
  • 06:55:18, 21 November

>"Hitler dying is good, in my opinion."

Hitler dying is good. Ted Bundy dying is not good. Explain yourself.

>"What happens if I decide to lie tomorrow to my girlfriend? My parents?"

If you're going to insist on the difference between Sylvia Browne and Hitler (which I readily admit; I never claimed they were the same), then you also need to acknowledge that lying to your parents or girlfriend every once in a while is tremendously different from what Sylvia Browne did.

>"To say it's good because of a handful of incidents, along with her being delusional? It's weak."

For starters, it wasn't a handful of incidents. She inserted herself into the middle of over 100 police investigations of missing and kidnapped people. She was able to provide helpful information that led to the cases being closed, exactly 0 times.

Family members of missing persons who wished to contract Browne's services were charged $850 for a 25 minute session.

And don't be naive. She wasn't delusional. She was a shrewd conman. Delusional people don't turn their mental illnesses into an entrepreneurial enterprise. If I thought she was delusional, perhaps I would be more sympathetic to her death and to your argument. But I'm convinced that she wasn't.

>"Notice how you, and others, have had to bring some of the most AWFUL people into the picture to support this function."

Only to establish that there are cases in which it is okay to celebrate the death of someone. Extreme examples were used since you seem to resistant to agree.

  • [-]
  • Azureheart
  • -2 Points
  • 07:04:40, 21 November

>Hitler dying is good. Ted Bundy dying is not good. Explain yourself.

I swear I just did. One person committed a substantially larger atrocity than the other. It's "good" in the sense that he needed to be stopped because he would have continued had he not been. Bundy had done his deeed (and killed less people. Like, a lot) and was killed years later while paying for it in prison.

There's circumstances and differences that make saying one is good more justifiable than the other. It's easy to ignore that in lieu of asking questions you think are helping your argument but I'd rather examine it.

>If you're going to insist on the difference between Sylvia Browne and Hitler (which I readily admit; I never claimed they were the same), then you also need to acknowledge that lying to your parents or girlfriend every once in a while is tremendously different from what Sylvia Browne did.

They are. That's the point of the rhetorical device. It was a mockery of your argument. It is tremendously different and that's EXACTLY the point.

>For starters, it wasn't a handful of incidents. She inserted herself into the middle of over 100 police investigations of missing and kidnapped people. She was able to provide helpful information that led to the cases being closed, exactly 0 times.

Yes, and a lot of those people said she hadn't helped at all. They voluntarily rejected her psychic practices. I don't see how this is so miserably horrid that it's "good" she died.

Yes, family members who willingly went through with it and paid money. They're partially responsible.

>And don't be naive. She wasn't delusional. She was a shrewd conman. Delusional people don't turn their mental illnesses into an entrepreneurial enterprise. If I thought she was delusional, perhaps I would be more sympathetic to her death and to your argument. But I'm convinced that she wasn't.

That's dependent on the enterprise and here's one that's befitting of being able to translate an illness into that. I'm sorry, but making money doing something doesn't eliminate that she may have been delusional. She was a psychic who believed that she could use ESP to assist people. That's delusional in a hand basket.

Her conning people isn't evidence that she wasn't delusional. We look at it as faux and a con, which it was, but she may not have thought that it was. That's the point.

>Only to establish that there are cases in which it is okay to celebrate the death of someone. Extreme examples were used since you seem to resistant to agree.

Pointlessly so. I had not implied it wasn't okay. You assumed I thought it wasn't, as opposed to asking. Resistant? What?

Oh boy. This is truly ridiculous.

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • rhytnen
  • 4 Points
  • 06:47:49, 21 November

Hot tip... Its a normal technique to test the validity of your argument by comparing it to edge cases. It is also devious but common to reword prior arguments to fit new claims...like adding 'I think' where before it was a hard claim.

  • [-]
  • Azureheart
  • 1 Points
  • 06:54:15, 21 November

No, it wasn't a hard claim before so don't try to enforce your earlier nonsense when you tried to tie objectivity to it.

It's astonishing that you're trying to claim I'm devious. How absurd. No, that's not normal to perform such extremes. It's logically unacceptable, honestly.

>I don't see how it's "good" that someone died. >It's a different kind of shitty, to me.

^ That was in my first post. Try again.

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • Kurosov
  • 4 Points
  • 12:07:03, 21 November

You're right, that's unfair to hitler.

  • [-]
  • Corrinth
  • 4 Points
  • 06:30:06, 21 November

No, I wasn't. But you put forth the argument that we should never celebrate the death of another person. So I'm asking, is there not one person whose death you would consider a good thing?

  • [-]
  • Azureheart
  • -1 Points
  • 06:32:32, 21 November

Actually, I didn't put forth that argument so try not to strawman if you intend on responding again.

Yes, there is. Hitler qualifies that, if I'm answering for the sake of argument. I don't think the psychic does. I don't think she comes close.

Pay very close attention to the portions of this response where I say "I think" before constructing your potential response.

  • [-]
  • Corrinth
  • 3 Points
  • 06:35:50, 21 November

>celebrating someone's death? That's a different kind of shitty, to me.

  • [-]
  • rhytnen
  • 6 Points
  • 06:39:22, 21 November

Absolutely. Azure isn't aware that hes in full on apologetics mode now. Its just self ritcheous bs.

  • [-]
  • Azureheart
  • 3 Points
  • 06:46:24, 21 November

I don't celebrate Hitler's death and, as I've mentioned, I didn't use that term literally. I was being rhetorical. Regardless, do I think it's good that Hitler died? I do.

If you're trying to expose hypocrisy or a contradiction here, you're doing a shoddy mock-up of it. Hitler is not the psychic. He ended lives and caused mass suffering. The psychic did not do such tremendous damage to justify her death as a "good" thing.

Also, someone =/= everyone.

  • [-]
  • Corrinth
  • 2 Points
  • 06:58:52, 21 November

>I don't celebrate Hitler's death

>Regardless, do I think it's good that Hitler died? I do.

This is a distinction without a difference.

  • [-]
  • Azureheart
  • 0 Points
  • 07:10:40, 21 November

It isn't. One is willingly going out of my way and expressing happiness at his death and the other is believing it was positive and just that his life expired.

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • Paperluigi987
  • 0 Points
  • 12:26:04, 21 November

I wholeheartedly agree with you. She may have been a total bitch her entire life, but she didn't directly KILL anyone. To say she deserved death is a bit... Excessive, and certainly in bad taste.

/r/atheism : the /r/gaming of religion(or lack thereof)

  • [-]
  • Azureheart
  • 0 Points
  • 14:09:27, 21 November

I couldn't have said that better myself. I'm starting to detest the two subreddits.

  • [-]
  • dumnezero
  • 2 Points
  • 14:31:30, 21 November

It's a shame reddit doesn't offer the possibility to unsubscribe from particular subreddits. How could they not have foreseen such situations arising?

  • [-]
  • xilez
  • 1 Points
  • 08:24:28, 21 November

maybe people are glad shes dead because thats what it took to take her out of business. if it happened before she died nobody would care about her death