Comment by ApolloFortyNine
3 days ago
>Lucas’s son-in-law, Chris King, told the Lake and McHenry County Scanner that news of the video made his family “hold our loss tighter to our hearts”.
>“We … will continue to pray for what the driver must be going through,” King reportedly said. “We are trying to find our ways to live, without someone we cherished so much.”
Damn, I wouldn't be saying anything like praying for the driver after something like that.
Thats the christian ethos
As a Christian turn Buddhist, agree +
Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhammapada
or, just being empathetic to the guilt the driver must be feeling, as well as the lifelong ptsd they get to look forward to carrying the memories of taking someone's life
or, sometimes, you just don’t want to make harsh public statements after a loss of a loved one.
2 replies →
I'd wager that the driver isn't feeling much guilt or PTSD. A lot of these kinds of blatant bad actors seem wholly disconnected from the concept of self accountability. Otherwise, they tend to get knocked down a few pegs before such a serious incident.
1 reply →
Truth, but we need to consider road safety. Lock the lady up, and lock all other texters up. Motorcyclists all over the nation would agree.
[dead]
In this case quite literally suicidal empathy.
Praying for somebody doesn't mean you have to let them continue their action? You can throw them in jail.
Literally suicidal? Does that mean that other reckless drivers will find out about the empathy and will thus start hitting them on purpose?
We don't know the full circumstances of the accident. She may have been distracted, but it's also possible the pedestrian crossed unexpectedly right in front of the car. Hopefully the facts come out and justice is served fairly.
Have you opened the article?
> the person driving while on TikTok “wasn’t paying attention to the road because she was reading comments and grinning at her phone”.
One doesn't exclude the other. The fact that she was distracted doesn't necessarily mean the accident happened because she was distracted.
5 replies →
source: reddit comment
> She may have been distracted
It seems clear that one fact we know is that she was paying attention to her phone at the time. Frankly unforgivable in my opinion.
Forgiveness only counts when you believe the crime to be unforgivable, yet forgive the criminal anyway. "Forgiveable crimes" are just crimes you merely tolerate.
“There is a limit to human charity," said Lady Outram, trembling all over.
"There is," said Father Brown dryly, "and that is the real difference between human charity and Christian charity. You must forgive me if I was not altogether crushed by your contempt for my uncharitableness today; or by the lectures you read me about pardon for every sinner. For it seems to me that you only pardon the sins that you don't really think sinful. You only forgive criminals when they commit what you don't regard as crimes, but rather as conventions. So you tolerate a conventional duel, just as you tolerate a conventional divorce. You forgive because there isn't anything to be forgiven.”
― G.K. Chesterton, The Complete Father Brown
Surely there must be some conception of forgiveness outside those of sin and charity. I'm not even sure what it really means for forgiveness to "count".
I think you’re reading too literally into the words sin and charity. Sin in this case just means a transgression or wrong to you or your community. Charity here is used in the philosophical sense, meaning an openness to tolerating transgressions.
For forgiveness to mean anything at all you need to forgive an actual injury. “Forgiving” someone for doing what you don’t mind them doing anyway is not forgiveness, it’s tolerance.
2 replies →
[dead]
[flagged]