[Previous] Obligations | Home | [Next] this is important

i'll kill you good

Frank (IMAO) joked that Rachel Lucas was dead. He then asked if he'd gone over the line. In comments, Emperor Misha I said in effect: Frank should not have made the joke because it distressed me. Even though I knew it wasn't true, I care about Rachel, so it was distressing to imagine her hurt.

The problem with this analysis is that it just assumes Misha's distress was right. But was it? He shouldn't find it distressing when he knows it's not true. That's irrational!

And if the distress was irrational, then we can't blame Frank. And if Frank's not at fault, then the whole basis for objecting falls away.

PS Note that Frank's joke was a *cause* of the distress, but was not responsible for it.

PPS Note that the word "responsible" refers to morality.

update: I misinterpreted Misha. See comments.


Elliot Temple on February 23, 2004

Comments (6)

Ah, I must not have made myself clear. Yes, it did distress me, but I thought I made it clear that that wasn't Frank's "fault", it was just a result of who and what I am and I certainly don't hold Frank responsible for my emotions.



And I didn't say that Frank shouldn't have posted it either, I just said that I wish I hadn't seen it.



Sure, I know that sounds like the same thing, but it really isn't :)


Emperor Misha I at 6:41 AM on February 23, 2004 | #478

I understand the difference. My apologies.



Though if we pretend you meant it the other way, it still makes a good example :)


Elliot at 6:58 AM on February 23, 2004 | #479

No apologies needed. I re-read my entry and it's not in the least bit difficult to read it like you did. As a matter of fact I'm not even sure what I said anymore ;)



But thanks :)



And you're right, it DOES make for a good example and it's also true. Emotions are, by their very nature, irrational.


Emperor Misha I at 9:11 PM on February 23, 2004 | #480

I don't see why emotions have to be irrational by nature. If something good happened, and I was happy about it, I think that's rational.


Elliot at 7:38 AM on February 24, 2004 | #481

i'll kill you good

Blaming Frank suggests to me that he should have known someone would be distressed by what he joked. Perhaps he could have worked that out in view of the nature of the joke.

But then any comment could be distressing to someone. So do we have to think about every word we utter?

Also, how can distress be wrong? perhaps Misha had had experiences where people close to him had died, so he felt it very much when he thought that Rachel might be dead.

Jane

Anonymous at 1:25 AM on April 17, 2009 | #1753
what does ill kill you good mean?

Anonymous at 4:52 PM on February 17, 2016 | #4962

What do you think?

(This is a free speech zone!)