Resolved that insulting without good reason shall not be done

Great Debates
21

[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.

22

Because it works?
The administration’s campaign of calling those opposed to invading Iraq traitors, America haters, Saddam lovers, and terrorist sympathizers was phenomenally successful.
It seems rather calculated on your part of to now ask for civility when right-wing insult campaigns fueled right-wing schemes that cost many Americans their lives, impoverished the nation, and dragged our honor into the gutter, especially when you can’t find it within yourself to enumerate a single lefty who is deserving of respect.

Putting a couple of God’s representatives on earth first on your list was a nice touch though.

23

That way, you’ll be a mile away before they hear what you’ve said–and, you’ll have their shoes.

The Lugburz Times is anti-Bush? I’d think you could have some input on that.

I would generally agree that in a formal discussion, hurling epithets and name-calling is counterproductive. My problem with the OP is that I grew up hearing that we had to show respect for the president and his administration–as he lied about his actions in Southeast Asia, used government law enforcement and spying agencies to harrass legitimate protests by citizens, even by legislators, reporters, and government officials, subverted the government, while he and his minions hurled their own epithets at people who disagreed with him.

As noted, above, I see a clear call to refrain from making snide remarks about right-wing ideologues (with a belated “oh, them too” thrown in toward centrist persons) with no corresponding call that those same ideologues were in any way wrong for hurling names like “traitor” or “coward” at their opponents.

You may want general civility to break out in the world, but you only addressed your opponents with that call. That tends to make the OP look just a wee bit self-serving.

24

I assure you, I’ve always given George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld all of the respect they deserve.

25

First: I do not see anything in the original post that in way permits conservatives to get away with insults. To believe this debate concerns only liberals’ behavior is an assumption, and an assumption that is wrong.

Second: where do we draw the line between someone who deserves respect and someone who doesn’t? If someone does something that one does not agree with, that person forfeits his right to the decency he/she is owed by virtue of being a human? I do not think this is proper at all. Just because one believes someone does not deserve respect does not necessarily mean that person ought not to be respected.

To believe one can judge another person is quite presumptuous. There is no way any of us can completely judge another person as that would necessitate a complete and thorough understanding of that person’s personality, which only that person (and God, if one believes in God) would know. An addition to this is the whole mile in one’s shoes bit.

This, of course, deals not only with conservatives but everyone. This includes Hillary, President Clinton, Michael Jackson, Yassir Arafat, and Michael Moore as much as it includes Pope Benedict XVI, President Bush, and Secretary Rumsfeld.

WRS

26

I think this thread is a fine example of what the OP is striving for. There have been many sides and disagreements in this discussion but it has been a civil one throughout. Not a single derisive remark or casting of doubt of anyone’s ancestry. Differing opinions without resorting to name-calling. I think that many (includeing myself) have gotten into the easy habit of falling into the verbal attack mode too quickly with far too little justification. Not that some in the limelight (or banned from this Board) were not deserving, only that many times manners and common courtesy are too quickly abandoned… on both sides.

27

It is not an assuption, it is an inference (or, perhaps, a perceived implication). You made a big deal of “respecting” people, then only pointed to people on “your side” whom you thought had been shown disrespect. You set the tone.

Now, I do believe that you are sincere in your intent, but you definitely sent this thread in a particular direction with your choices.

I am curious to know where you set the bar, however. “Be it resolved (as it were), that insulting public figures and government leaders . . . without clear reasons and proof shall not be done.” OK. We have many examples of lies being propagated from the White House over the last 12 years. Is it still acceptable to say President Bush or President Clinton is a liar in conversation, just not that either is a poopyhead? Or do you insist that any time a person refers to one of them as a liar, one has to include a footnote or a link to a post where his numerous lies have been documented (“clear reasons and proof”)?

Are you really calling for a taboo on all language that might be remotely perceived as insulting, regardless of its descriptive value? Just curious.

28

I feel the political satyrist (sp?) has been a force for good in democratic politics for a very long time. I also feel that gentle name-calling and fun making are some of the politest and least agressive ways to try and instigate a change in another person. True we don’t have any right to make people change, but we may well want someone to change and we don’t lack the right to try and make our wants become reality.
Telling someone privately that they need to pay more attention to their hair can feel far more rude and intimidating than saying “hay mate, did you have a fight with a lwanmower?” the humour involved in mild fun making helps deffuse any social embarissment.
When it comes to politicians it is fine to point out a regular misspronounciation, because politicians represent us, and their mistakes reflect uppon us. We should expect them to try and present themselves as well as possible. Satire when it works latches onto these things and if popular will get back to the politician themself who can try to improve their own presentation.
If Tony Blare wants to go speak with Bush, I want Blare to try and tone down his grinning smile that seems so forced and to try and keep his hair tidy, and I want Bush to try and pronounce Nuclear correctly.

29

Was this intentional or inadvertant? (Given the theme of the thread, and all.)

30

Are you insulting my Dyslexia? :slight_smile:
No I can’t spell for the life of me, is it Blair then or something else? (Don’t answer I can and will look it up).

31

I believe that every word one uses should have meaning. I do not expect people to footnote every attribute, but that if called upon to justify their choice of words one would be able to do so.

Calling someone a “poopyhead” - admittedly, perhaps only to me - seems immature, useless, and irrelevant. If someone has a disagreement with another person, they ought to express it and not hide it under meaningless insults.

And, again, lest anyone misinterpret the above, this applies to all people in all places.

WRS

32

I’m probably not the first person here to say this, but the term “good reason” is so elastic that it pretty much wipes out the rest of the idea.

To paraphrase Voltaire, that smelly twit, I may fight to the death to defend your right to state your opinion, but I will fight even harder to preserve my right to call you an idiot for it. Or for any other reason I feel like, especially if the reason is “it’s funny.”

Now, if we’re confining ourselves to trying to have open-minded debates and discussions a la an ideal form of GD, yes, insulting should be kept to a minimum because it tends to lead people away from the issues.

Public figures know what they are, and any public figure smarter than a box of wet hair - I’d say that’s about 3% of them - understands that anything he or she does is going to upset some people. That’s part of the territory and it’s really a small price to pay in most cases. I’m not afraid of hurting these people’s feelings. If we give public figures fame, power, money AND a great deal of respect, we’re probably giving them way too much. If anything, as a result of their ambition and effect on the world, public officials deserve insults more often than everybody else. You have to keep these people in check somehow.

All people get a basic amount of respect from me. It’s just not a large amount, because I have to have fun. The amount of respect I give them beyond that, or even in rare instances less than the original amount, is a result of their actions. No matter who you are, I don’t give you a free pass from being judged for what you do.

33

Am I the only one who feels the proposal in the OP smacks of (dare I say it)… Political Correctness?

34

I think it is worth noting that insult has a rich history in wit and political rhetoric. Clever orators of the past often engaged in the delicious quotable put-down.

The book Distory is a compilation of just such art.

35

Respect is not a God given right.

Respect has to be earned.

And in my opinion the Bush administration has not earned one iota of respect from me.

36

Perhaps the word you actually meant in the OP was politeness?

37

Sure thing. Now provide clear and comprehensive guidelines as to what constitutes “clear reasons and proof”. While you’re at it, how about a binding authority everyone can agree on to sit in judgement of these “reasons” and “proof” to determine when someone has met the burden and can therefore sling shit.

Also, slip “Osama Bin Laden, Kenneth Lay, Mohammad Atta, Worldcom CEOs and financial officers, Ahmed Chalabi, Pol Pot, and Kim-Jong Il” into your list and then see how it flies. Also be sure to get sign off from the population of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Ken Lay’s family, members of the INC, China, and North Korea into your guidelines and arbiter of what is valid justification to insult these human beings.

I suspect this will be an impossible task.

Enjoy,
Steven

38

Tap, tap, tap. Puff. Hello? Is this thing on? Tap, tap. Can you hear me in the back?

[Fatal Attraction]"I won’t be ignored, Dan![/Fatal Attraction]

39

Sorry, Hentor, I think my Joo Janta Peril-Sensitive Sunglasses kicked in there… :wink: