If you honestly believe that "take a long walk on a short pier" is the same as saying "I hope you get AIDS and die", then clearly there's no reasoning with you. And trust me, anyone following this thread can see that too.
Go ahead and accuse me of being a leftist, liberal loving, conservative bashing, lemming, or whatever other ad hominem YOU have used in the past, I don't care. You are irrational, plain and simple. Anyone can see that. You will take that as an ad hominem, but sometimes words and phrases that hurt aren't ad hominems, they're simply accurate.
Go ahead and reply to this post to get your "last word" like I know you want to. I don't care. The rantings of irrational people do not affect me.
Evidence that the left has no monopoly on bizarre-analogy word games, convenient tone-deafness, and good old "everybody does it".
These threads have been pretty disturbing.
What about if he had simply said, "I hope you eat a sausage and choke on it?" Would that be as bad as get AIDS or worse than the long walk on short pier?
What is the standard? Is there a standard for rhetoric? Is there an objective way to determine which insult is worse?
Can we rank the insults?
"Take a long walk on a short pier" would be least bad.
Then, "East sausage and choke to death" would be a worse, except in the case that the person on the receiving end actually did eat a lot of sausage making the remark conceivably possible. Then it'd be worse.
"Get AIDS and die" would be the worst. Why? Because it might seem to most realistic given that the individual ostensibly partook in activity that could cause the scenario Savage hoped for.
You see how absurd this all is? Take a long walk on a short pier is not seen as bad because it is obviously figurative. But the get AIDS and die was just as figurative.
Can people say "drop dead" to crank callers? Is that bad and not tolerable.