I think he does know what it means. I remember him writing on this issue before:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=459031&highlight=literally
Edit - I don’t mean this an attack on Diogenes the Cynic. It is probably just a minor slip up.
Why not?
Am I obligated to honor every artifact that some group of humans declares is ‘holy’ or ‘sacred’? Wouldn’t be too many normal object left, at that rate.
Charles Manson & his family think that the Beatles song * Helter Skelter* was a sacred prophecy foretelling the future. Personally, I consider it one of their more mediocre songs, and often skip over it when listening to the White Album. So am I committing a crime by dishonoring it that way? Ridiculous!
[Moderating]
Omegaman was just told not to make comments like the one you are responding to. There’s no need to try to debate it with him.
Please stick to the factual aspects of this question.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
There was no slip up. I meant “literally” in the dictionary sense. The civilian “contractors” (i.e. mercenaries) were quite literally given license to do anything they wanted without the possibility of prosecution or consequences. If anybody wants to try to seriously argue that there’s any semantic difference between “license” and “immunity,” they can have it, but I don’t expect it to be very convincing.
There is a difference between being given license and being given a license.
No there isn’t.
If we say “a,” we have to be referring to a specific thing unless we modify the thing. In this case, there is no specific permission being given. The government just created a situation where tacit permission has been given, but there is no specific license of permission.
My apologies. It won’t happen again.
In my opinion, this is the purest sophistry.
I have always considered Thrasymachus to be a personal hero.
And the point is moot since the law changed several years ago.
As an American and a free soul, I have license to offend, create art, and make an ass of myself in public.
As a Californian, I have a license to drive automobiles on public highways.
The first case speaks to a general freedom to, the second case specific permission granted by a government agency.
Yeah, we better cut that sophistry will some illusion and cynicism, someone might overdose.
Cite? The immunity was still in effect as recently as last October. When did it change?
I did. Upthread.
FY2007 which means Oct 06.
Cite for the latter as the exclusive definition of “license” (not that I recognize a significant difference beetween “freedom” and “permission”)?
2007 was not “several years ago.”
Sorry went back and reread. It was for FY2007 which begins in October 2006 but the change went into effect 1 Jan 2007.
That is incorrect.
We are four months from FY 2009. I thought it went into effect at the beginning of FY 2007 which is actually in 2006. Thats why I said several. I’ll change it to a couple of years if that will make you happy.
I’m sure that I don’t need to cite the dictionary that these are both definitions of ‘License’.
I’m speaking to the difference between ‘license to’ and ‘a licensse to’.
The definate article connotates a specific, rather than the general sense.
But If you’re a strict denotation kind of guy, or just feeling stubborn, this argument will fall on deaf ears, and I beg you disregard it.
The limits of such rules are generally well established in legal precedent, and as has been pointed out, “Conduct unbecoming” rules generally are viewed in light of standing and general orders.
A soldier posted to Iraq is almost certainly under orders to be appropriately respectful of Iraqis and the Islamic faith, and has doubtlessly been ordered to conduct her/himself in a manner that will command respect. By doing something this stupid, the soldier in question has doubtlessly violated several standing orders and has disgraced himself and brought the United States Army into disrepute in a quite reckless manner. He’s not going to be shot or anything, but he’ll be punished appropriately.