Well Bush does.
No he doesn’t.
What he is calling sophistry is the distinction you are making between valid political criticism and verbal attacks. Neither of those relates to the issue of someone’s right to criticize or verbally attack someone.
And, on preview, i see that DtC got there ahead of me.
Earlier I said:
“If I say “DTC, I believe you are incorrect because…” than I am disagreeing. If I were to call you an “asshole,” I would be making a verbal attack. The distinction is between disagreement and insult, and I’m sorry you see that as sophistry, but it’s not.”
you said distinguishing between these two examples is “sophistry.” Now you say it’s not.
Which is it?
If you substitute “the usual suspects” for “Gollums”, you will be less bewildered but no more enlightened. Shodan has not, unlike some of his equally conservative brethren, accepted that those to the left of his viewpoint have perfectly valid criticisms. I’m not, of course, using “valid” in the sense of “correct”, but rather in the sense of “disagree”.
He does seem to class everyone in range from moderate-to-marxist as a usual suspect. I have never seen him exempt anyone who disagrees with him from the “usual suspect” charge.
Can you really be that obtuse?
He has not changed his position. He still thinks the distinction you drew between disagreement and insult is sophistry. What he is now disagreeing with is your response to Orual, in which you claim that DtC was saying that any distinction between insults and denial of rights is sophistry. You can insult someone all you like for their choices, and that in no way suggests that you would take away their right to make such choices.
I have not “now” said that it is not. One more time…there is a real distinction between recognizing the RIGHT to say something and being able to criticize what is actually said.
That has nothing to do with whether what’s being said should be categorized as “diasagreement” or “criticism” or “verbal attacks.” THOSE distinctions – in THIS case – are entirely sophist because you (and the vet and Bush) are REALLY trying to pack all of the above into the last category AND because, all of the above is protected free speech. The President does not have a right not to be “verbally attacked,” is not injured by verbal attacks and the “attackers” are not enemies of the US.
Yes, I do.
I can’t control your interpretation, but I beleive it’s an incorrect one. I think most reasonable people will agree that some forms of verbal attacks can be meaninfully injurious. The law certainly recognizes this fact i.e. slander.
You think a fucking pussy who can’t tolerate dissent or political criticism or “verbal attacks” is fit to lead the free world?
Slander is a civil tort. If he’s been injured by slander, he can sue somebody.
How about if I call him Chimpy the Assclown? Is he injured by that?
You said it was before. You said there is no distinction between insult and disagreement. I gave you a clear example of a distinction and you said it was sophistry.
Do you still feel that’s the case or do you retract that.
Before we get into rights we need to agree on simple definitions. If you claim that there is no distinction between insult and disagreement (as you have repeatedly here,) I simply can’t bother to talk to you. No insult intended, we just don’t have enough common ground on simple definitions.
By your definition this very disagreement right now is just the same in your eyes as if I’d called you a “motherfucker.”
If that’s the way you feel, we can’t communicate. Period.
This is untrue. I’ve been arguing the opposite, that there are distinctions. The examples I gave you have nothing to do with Bush, yet you insisted they are sophistry. And, slander is not protected free speech, to give you an example of a verbal attack which is injurious and which one has no right to make against another.
The President has a right not to be slandered, is injured by slander and one who slanders the President of the country may, in some cases, be construed as that coutnry’s enemy. Slander can be a verbal attack.
So, what you are saying is not true.
No. That’s why I gave him complete and seperate examples and asked if any distinctions between the two were sophistry. He said they were.
Do you think he’s right? Is the fact that we are disagreeing now the same as if we were calling each other “motherfuckers,” or is there a distinction?
I’ve been thinking about that. I think it’s mostly bullshit. The original epigram from which this sentiment is founded goes something like: “I may hate what you do, but I will defend to the death your right to do it.”
But to verbally assault someone because you disagree with what they do or say is an attempt to limit or influence their choice. For example, look at the whole Imus thing. He no longer has the same choices he had before his racist comments. The verbal assaults at him was clearly targetted at taking away his job, and it succeeded. He no longer has the choice to say what he said to that same audience.
Let me be clear. I’m not arguing that it shouldn’t have happened that way. I’m just saying that verbal attacks against someone are more often directed to eliminate behavior one finds undesirable. They can be very powerful in that effect.
As it pertains to criticism of Bush, it’s pure sophistry. It’s also a distinction you aren’t really making yourself, since you are really trying to insinuate (and what this phony citation insinuates) is that all criticism of Bush is “attack.”
Even if I were to accept your manufactured distinction (which I don’t), it’s still an irrelevant distinction because even “verbal attacks” are protected free speech.
Since those categorizations are too subjective to be meaningful in relation to political criticism of a President (ANY President), then as it pertains specifically to the President (ANY President), then no objective categorization is really feasible and those distinctions can’t help but be self-serving.
I’m not the President, but in point of fact, your side tends to categorize any and all dissent with Bush to be insulting and treasonous, so why should I recognize any distinction that Bush himself refuses to recognize?
And even that still misses the point that it’s all protected free speech anyway, the President cannot be injured by it and the practioners of such speech are not (by virtue of their speech alone) enemies of the US.
Is that the best you can do? Claim the President has been slandered? By who? Why hasn’t he sued? Slander is a civil tort, not a crime. If he’s not suing, he must not feel he’s been injured.
Is that really what you think the bogus citation is for? That it’s an award for being civilly damaged by slander? What are his damages and why hasn’t he sued? And what is the evidence that these damages have come from enemies of the US?
Any and all verbal disagreement or argument can be said to an attempt to influence or change the behavior of others, political speech especially.
Incidentally, Imus lost his job because he lost his sponsors. That’s capitalism. It was a natural consequence of his OWN speech, not anybody else’s (and for the record, I think the public response to Imus was a little overheated and out of proportion. Not that what he said wasn’t offensive but it wasn’t like he was screaming the N word or anything).
Oh, and “targeted” only has two t’s in it.
The examples I gave you have nothing to do with Bush. It’s a simple question. Does any distinction between the two examples I gave you represent sophistry? Yes or no?
Please don’t tell me what I’m “really” trying to do. You don’t know. I specifically gave you examples that had nothing to do with Bush to see if you really beleived that any distinction between disagreement and insult was sophistry.
You said it was. Do you still hold to that?
No. Not all. Slander isn’t.
Patently false. I distinguish between these two statements:
“George Bush’s evangelical nature is unfriendly to non-christians in that he imposes his particular belief system onto others through the office of the President to an innapropriate degree.”
and
“George Bush is a motherless dogfucker and a pedophile.”
You apparently don’t.
I don’t think I’ve heard anybody make that argument. You’re putting simplistic arguments into your opponents’ mouths.
That doesn’t follow.
Yes.
I’ll give you an example: Bill Clinton’s reputation, and his ability to govern and execute the office of President was damaged by the allegations against him and the impeachment that resulted. Had Bill Clinton not had an affair with Lewinsky and not lied about it under oath than he would have been slandered.
Accusations can be very damaging regardless of their merits. We should be able to agree on that fact.
As to why he hasn’t sued, I can guess. Slander is one of the most difficult things to prove, and the very fact that Bush would challenge an accusation gives that accusation credibility and attention beyond which it otherwise might have and gives the person making it attention as well.
If you are a public figure and you say “George Bush has ordered his army to kill all Muslims,” and riots in Iraq result from that statement and 25 serviceman die as a result of those riots, than I would argue that your actions have made you an enemy of the US.
Would you disagree with that specific hypothetical?
The distinctions are still subjective enough to be meaningless, but my accusation of sophistry pertained specifically to criticism of the President.
When it comes to political criticism of leaders, I believe that.
The President has not claimed he’s been slandered.
Neither does George Bush.
I’m just observing how they’ve reacted for 6 years to any and all criticism of their master.
Ok, by who? And what were the damages?
Kudos on finding a way to get Clinton’s blow job into the discussion, but I asked you what BUSH’S damages were, not Clinton’s.
Of course. What I’m trying to ascertain is exactly what kind of slander BUSH has been damaged by, and what are his damages?
Can you give an example of how YOU think he;s been damaged by slander?
I would disagree. It would make him an asshole but he didn’t attack the US.
Can you give a specific example of how an enemy of the US has damaged Bush by slander (or how a slander against Bush has damaged the US? I’m willing to accept something similar to your above hypothetical as an example).
You cannot commit slander if you believe what you say to be true.
I think failing to recognize the validity of the basic distinctions between simple disagreement and pure insult removes the possibility of a meaningful discussion between us on this subject.
Is that right?
I’m no lawyer, but while i know that truth is a solid defense to a charge of libel or slander (in the US), i wasn’t aware that you also got a free pass for ignorance. Are you sure that’s really the case?
Yes. He’s correct.
Yeah, in order for it to be slander you have to know it’s not true. That’s one of the reasons it’s so hard to sue for.
Well, since we all agree on that fundamental point, then it must necessarily follow that I am, in fact, the Queen of Romania. Quod erat demonstrum