Concerning the wide-spread inclination of people to insult certain people.
Whereas every human being deserves a certain level of respect; and
Whereas name-calling and fun-making are forms of disrespect; and
Whereas politicians and public leaders are human beings,
Be it resolved (as it were), that insulting public figures and government leaders (former and incumbent), such as Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Rice, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and former Secretary of State Powell, without clear reasons and proof shall not be done.
Where do you stand and why?
I firmly believe in the above. I see no reason why one should make fun of another just for the sake of it. It is rude, childish, disrespectful, and uncalled for. Unless a person would not mind him- or herself being treated in a like manner, such acts are wrong. It’s more than a matter of good manners (which I think should be sufficient reason as it is): it’s a matter of allowing every human being the certain amount of respect and honor he or she is due.
Whereas every human being deserves a certain level of respect;
When someone takes uppon themselves a higher level of respect than they deserve, no hateful insulting of that person becomes fair and reasonable behaviour. Without this peoples egos might run ammock which I think would be a far worse situation.
I prefer the contrary position: No human is immune from disrespect.
Bascially, I’ve too much respect for individual opinion to suggest it be stifled. Simple politeness might suggest the occasional holding of one’s tongue, but if you’re determined to be a loudmouthed miscreant, knock yourself out, provided you can take it as well as you dish it out. If you can’t, than what you deserve most is ridicule.
I agree for the most part. It’s a much better way to have people who don’t agree with you listen to what you have to say. On the other hand regarding your comment about proof. If I think the president is a liar then I can express my opinion without waiting for proof. I don’t make statements to disparage people without some rational reason for believeing as I do.
Treating everyone with respect promotes good will and good communication.
Whereas disrespect is (often) used in unequal power dynamics; and
Whereas politicians and public leaders have sought to draw attention to themselves and put themselves above others
This coin has two sides, you cannot dispose of only one side of a coin. I would only accept the banishing of insults if we also banished insults opposite (praise?).
WRS:I see no reason why one should make fun of another just for the sake of it.
I agree that such remarks don’t belong in a serious debate, but does the author of insulting remarks ever really feel that s/he’s being insulting “just for the sake of it”? What seems gratuitous to the reader (especially the ideologically opposed reader) probably seemed fully justified to the writer.
Example: I don’t consider myself a “Bush-basher”, and I try to speak of the President in a respectful way even when I’m strongly criticizing him. However, in a recent budget thread I deliberately let fly with some cracks like “loony” and “wacko”. I explained why I thought that was fair in this particular case, but probably some Bush supporters would have considered my expressions uncalled-for and mean. Who gets to decide?
Add to the above, then, “and Senator Clinton, former President Clinton, Bush, Carter, Michael Moore, etc., of all political ideologies.”
Kimtsu: I still hold that calling President Bush “loony” or “wacko” - without proof that he is certifiably insane - would be uncalled for. “Misguided,” “deliberately misleading,” or what have you - provided one has arguments to back the use of such terms - would be better. (Thank you, though, for your sentiments otherwise. )
Of course, no one is perfect. If one does insult another, one ought to apologize and correct one’s words insofar as possible.
Just because someone has authority over another justifies the indiscriminate slinging of abuse and insults? I say not.
I agree that syphocantic praise is quite distaseteful, but one sees much, much less than that.
I don’t see how this a debate. Who’s going to disagree with the statement, “No one should be insulted unless there’s due cause”. We are all taught that name-calling is mean and rude. However, that does not mean that name-calling is always unjustified or rude.
I personally believe that Bush is a non-thinking, lying hypocrite. I think he deserves a modicum of respect–the same level of respect I’d give to any other non-thinking, lying hypocrite. But I’m not going to refrain from calling him names just because it’s mean and disrespectful. Not when his policies have ended up in the killing of thousands of innocents. Not when I believe he’s sending our country down the tubes.
I give people respect by default. I believe people’s foibles should be viewed with compassion and perspective. But a person who shows their ass on a regular basis deserves to be ridiculed, at least behind his or her back. If their ass-showing is affecting my quality of life, then damn right I will call that person names.
Wow, it seems like one particular group of people is particularly sensitive right now. I am actually in strong agreement with Bryan Ekers on this one, particularly if you are arguing that calling some public, third-party figure “misguided” is okay but “wacko” is not. Sheesh, when did conservatives become so concerned about being politically correct? And so sensitive?
I tend to agree with WRS that often people fall back on the ever-faithful ad hominem attacks in leiu of actual facts. It is agreeably easier but not preferable. I also agree that everyone should feel free to express their support or disapproval of those “In Power” but often there is nothing constructive in the content. Mindless bashing may be a vent but serves no purpose to influence the informed opinion of readers.
Thank you WRS. Manners are never wasted but all too rarely used.
So, you do not believe that disagreeing with someone with dignity, respect, and good manners is possible? You believe that if you believe someone is not agreeable to you, you may call him names and insult him with impunity? I fail to see how this is not childish and rude.
Thank you, Nicodemos2004.
Yes, I am sensitive. Always have been. Welcome to the new WeRSauron. With manhattan’s departure, I am going to raise my voice and make myself be heard. No more sitting back.
With your remark about the legislative term, are you implying I am a puppet of the Party? that I have no other reason to be concerned about this?
Perhaps you misunderstood. Calling anyone anything is permissible so long as one has arguments to back one’s choice of words. One ought, in addition, to frame one’s word with respect. Calling a person “wacko” without being able to prove one is insane is not acceptable. Similarly, calling someone “misguided” without back-up is not acceptable.
I’m sorry, but I think this is namby-pamby BS. If Bush were to authorize another war tomorrow, calling him “misguided” would be the understatement of the year. Hell, calling him “wacko” wouldn’t be strong enough.
I’m all for being nice and polite. But if someone looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, well…
I think there’s a difference between calling someone a name based on an accident or harmless personality quirk, and insulting them for their deliberate actions. That’s why don’t I join in when people make fun of Condelezza’s looks or Bush’s stumbling tongue, but I do chime in with insults when the topic is about policy.
A lot of times constructive criticism can be taken as an insult. If I could sit down with Bush and present to him all the wrongs he’s intentionally done, I’m sure he’d be offended by it. No, I wouldn’t scream “LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE”, but I would say, "Look, Prez. In these cases, YOU LIED! In these other cases, YOU PANDERED AND EXPLOITED. And over here, YOU JUST WEREN’T THINKING. " Chances are, the guy wouldn’t appreciate it. But why should I apologize, when I’m only telling what I believe is the truth. The anger I feel is geniune…why, he should apologize to me! The truth will set you free, but I do admit it should be relayed tactfully as much as possible.
I think you also have to distinguish insulting a person versus insulting their behavior. “That was a bone-headed thing you did” hurts a little less than “You’re a bonehead for doing such a thing.” While both of them are rude, I think the first can be a effective (if not harsh) way of communicating disappointment and encouraging one to improve.
I’m wondering who’s arguing with you? Who’s going around saying it’s okay to insult people indiscriminately?
On this board, yes. But out in real life? I see a ton.
I disagree with most of the conservative posters on the board 9 times out of 10. And yet, I manage to maintain respect for them, and try to not be disrespectful when I’m debating with them. I can handle disagreement quite easily.
But I can’t handle unethical, illegal behavior, particularly when it’s disguised as something good and virtuous. I believe that people should be given respect by default, but one should feel free to take that respect away when a person shows himself to be “not a nice guy”. No one is deserving of respect “just cuz”. I don’t respect people who do bad things, period.
I don’t call Bush names simply because we have different politics.
Exactly. It’s all about how one deliver’s one message. Which also means that employing insults, name-calling, and the like are useless.
Furthermore, this is assuming one entirely understand what he did, was doing, was thinking, knew, was told, and all of the options that were open to him. Who is willing to say one knows all this? If not, how can one judge someone?
I firmly believe in the saying that one ought to walk a mile in a person’s shoes before one judges him/her.
I see no reason to insult at all. Treat others with respect, be treated with respect. Why resort to insulting at all? What does it do? Do people need it? If someone needs to insult, is that not a problem that person needs to work on and resolve? It doesn’t sound or look healthy to me.
Perhaps where you live. Where I live, support for Bush is virtually non-existant. The media is quite anti-Bush, anti-Republican, and anti-current-administration.
Thank you for your respect. Please note that I am not arguing with you, simply disagreeing with the opinions that are being presented.
But I can’t handle unethical, illegal behavior, particularly when it’s disguised as something good and virtuous. I believe that people should be given respect by default, but one should feel free to take that respect away when a person shows himself to be “not a nice guy”. No one is deserving of respect “just cuz”. I don’t respect people who do bad things, period.
I don’t call Bush names simply because we have different politics.
[/QUOTE]
This implies who are fully cognizant of his circumstances. To you it may be illegal, unethical, but it is not so to others.
And, again, why call him names at all? What does it accomplish?
)