[quote=WeRSauronFurthermore, 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?[/quote]
How we can judge anyone? We judge all the time. We call people who kill needlessly “murderers”. We call people who rape people “rapists”.
We call people who lie “liars”. You don’t have to be a mind-reader to know if someone has lied. You can compare what they’ve said in the past with what they are saying now and put two-and-two together.
I don’t believe I would have authorized an immediate invasion into Iraq based on the contradictory intelligence Bush received. This forms the basis of my deep disappointment, anger, and frustration with the current president and his administration.
An insult is a defense mechanism, and sometimes it works. If someone is bullying you and ignoring doesn’t stop it, sometimes a caustic tongue will.
If someone is doing something wrong, but most of what they hear is praise and adulation, it may give them pause to hear someone lay it all out. A well-placed, well-formulated insult may shame someone. Maybe they will stop whatever they’re doing.
I agree that treating others with respect in general usually brings respect back to you, but this isn’t the case with people who don’t deserve respect. People who have done bad things do not need to be labeled with polite, warm-and-fuzzy terms. If they have lied, they need to be called a liar. If they have engaged in corruption, they need to be called corrupt. If they have shown themselves to be unethical, morally bankrupt, and compassionless, then they need to be called all of these things. I don’t know why anyone should have to wait until some imaginary verdict has been read out before bad-behaving people are met with the scorn they deserve.
Do you disagree that insults are always bad? Don’t you ever think they are justified?
I’m kinda confused about what you’re arguing because, as I said earlier, it doesn’t seem like what you’re advocating is very controversial.
I don’t see why it should matter what others think. I mean, a bunch of people don’t think having sex with children is wrong, but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t call a pedophile a “pervert”. I’m not fully cognizant of a pedophile’s circumstances. But that doesn’t mean I can’t judge his actions and label him based on those actions.
I think Bush has done some illegal, unethical things. Perhaps when his tenure is over and people can look at his successes and failures more objectively, a verdict will come out and we all will be able to better judge him. But as far now, I stand by my contention that our president is not a nice guy. I don’t know why I should have to feel restricted by etiquette in expressing this feeling.
What does saying anything accomplish? An insult is just a way of expressing one’s opinion about someone. For instance, “incompetent” is the best word that–IMHO–describes a man who’s done the things the president has done. “Misguided” or “easily confused” don’t cut it for me (and they are insulting too, btw). I don’t know why I should have to swap out one bad descriptor for a lesser one when the former expresses my anger and frustration more aptly.