# The Douchebag of Liberty has passed on. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 18, 2009, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-douchebag-of-liberty-has-passed-on/506859 "2009-08-18T16:47:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-douchebag-of-liberty-has-passed-on/506859/141 "2009-08-19T13:26:58Z")
> [@5que](#): > > > [@Scylla](#): > > > > That’s how I think of some of you. I wonder if you are actually alive. If you were the empty dead spirits of hateful fanatics forced to haunt the internet and spew your hate as parodies of your formally living selves, it would explain your one-dimensional bitterness better than to consider you were an active part of humanity. > > I’m \*totally \*taking this for my eHarmony description. There’s no need, because I am now in love with you. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-douchebag-of-liberty-has-passed-on/506859/142 "2009-08-19T14:24:05Z")
> [@Bayard to someone else (can't recall whom](#): > > I’m sure **Biggirl** can speak for herself, but as I review this thread I don’t see her forgiving or even addressing the issue of Ellsberg. She objects to your attempts to divert attention from Novak, but she does not offer an opinion on Ellsberg, as far as I can see. But I disagree that it is a diversion of attention. The attention was on the acts committed by Novak, which means that analogous acts committed by others is fair game. She wasn’t complaining about Novak’s greedy capitalism, for example. She was complaining (or the complaint arose) that he leaked sensitive information. The comparison to Ellsberg was appropriate, even if you disagree with the minutiae of the analogy, because it dealt with the same predicate that has been assigned to Novak. That’s not a diversion anymore than a thread of Bush’s handling of terrorism is diverted by comparing what he did to the far superior job that Obama is doing. Predicates matter. They’re what gives the sentence its meaning. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-douchebag-of-liberty-has-passed-on/506859/143 "2009-08-19T14:35:25Z")
> [@bup](#): > > Bzzzt. > > The comparison you raised is a fair one; however, concluding that someone finds one a traitor and the other not because of party affiliation is dishonest. If that had been my initial assumption, I’d agree with you. My initial intent was to, assumption-free, simply discover what she meant by “traitor.” I’m reminded of a passage in Feynman’s autobiography. Noted as a physicist, he describes attending a philosophy class out of curiosity and applying his own analytical methods: > [@](#): > > A student gave a report on the chapter to be studied that week. In it Whitehead kept using the words “essential object” in a particular technical way that presumably he had defined, but that I didn’t understand. > > After some discussion as to what “essential object” meant, the professor leading the seminar said something meant to clarify things and drew something that looked like lightning bolts on the blackboard. “Mr. Feynman,” he said, “would you say an electron is an ‘essential object’?” > > Well, now I was in trouble. I admitted that I hadn’t read the book, so I had no idea of what Whitehead meant by the phrase; I had only come to watch. “But,” I said, “I’ll try to answer the professor’s question if you will first answer a question from me, so I can have a better idea of what ‘essential object’ means. Is a brick an essential object?” > > What I had intended to do was to find out whether they thought theoretical constructs were essential objects. The electron is a theory that we use; it is so useful in understanding the way nature works that we can almost call it real. I wanted to make the idea of a theory clear by analogy. In the case of the brick, my next question was going to be, “What about the inside of the brick?” – and I would then point out that no one has ever seen the inside of a brick. Every time you break the brick, you only see the surface. That the brick has an inside is a simple theory which helps us understand things better. The theory of electrons is analogous. So I began by asking, “Is a brick an essential object?” So, too, here. There are many defensible reasons for calling Novak a traitor, as I cheerfully conceded above. But I have noticed that many people who view Novak’s acts with disdain also consider Ellsberg a hero, and this becomes an easy way to quickly uncover the root definitions of ‘traitor’ being used. I could have asked if Novak was a brick, but I didn’t think too many people would get the reference. > [@](#): > > If my moral compass says that publicizing classified information is OK if I believe it will save lives, and repugnant for a lesser reason, I find Novak to be a traitor and Ellsberg “guilty with explanation,” or however you phrased it. Absolutely. And such an answer then leads us to explore if either Ellsberg or Novak reasonably thought their acts would save lives, a perfectly acceptable direction for the debate to take. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-douchebag-of-liberty-has-passed-on/506859/144 "2009-08-19T14:42:50Z")
While I think **Bricker** is right that in general people will tend to be inconsistent in the manner he describes, I think I’m with **biggirl** as regards to this particular discussion. The problem here is that **Bricker** has not taken a stand on his own position. If **Bricker** introduced an actual argument, and then called on the Ellsberg comparison in support of that argument, then that’s a perfectly justified tactic, for the reasons he gives. But what he’s asking is for **biggirl** (and others) to respond to a comparison in support of an argument that he’s not actually made. I don’t think that’s justified. By his logic, any time someone said anything, anyone else could just toss out 50 comparable situations, and force the other to take positions on all of those, without committing himself at all. I don’t see that as valid. ---
**Author:** ![Defensive\_Indifference](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/defensive_indifference/32/6502_2.png) [@Defensive\_Indifference](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Defensive_Indifference)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-douchebag-of-liberty-has-passed-on/506859/145 "2009-08-19T14:43:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > My initial intent was to, assumption-free, simply discover what she meant by “traitor.” A simpler way to get to that answer probably would have been a post like this: “I’m not sure Novak’s actions rise to the leave of treason. How are you defining the word?” Instead, you immediately found someone you assumed **Biggirl** admired and asked if that action was treason. Your post does not appear to have been an honest attempt to clarify definitions. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-douchebag-of-liberty-has-passed-on/506859/146 "2009-08-19T14:55:21Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > While I think **Bricker** is right that in general people will tend to be inconsistent in the manner he describes, I think I’m with **biggirl** as regards to this particular discussion. The problem here is that **Bricker** has not taken a stand on his own position. > > If **Bricker** introduced an actual argument, and then called on the Ellsberg comparison in support of that argument, then that’s a perfectly justified tactic, for the reasons he gives. But what he’s asking is for **biggirl** (and others) to respond to a comparison in support of an argument that he’s not actually made. I don’t think that’s justified. > > By his logic, any time someone said anything, anyone else could just toss out 50 comparable situations, and force the other to take positions on all of those, without committing himself at all. I don’t see that as valid. It’s all about pointing out hypocrisy and not dealing with the issues, which has become standard fare around here. Hell, around the nation. Bricker didn’t want to actually discuss Novak’s legacy (that would actually be dealing with an issue, making an argument, and contributing to the debate), it was simply a chance for him to try and portray someone else as a hypocrite. It’s what passes for “debate” nowadays. And it’s on both sides of the political spectrum. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-douchebag-of-liberty-has-passed-on/506859/147 "2009-08-19T15:03:27Z")
Look, if she said, “Yes, Ellsberg was a traitor too,” then how can I possibly argue the point? It’s almost definitional: unauthorized disclosure of classified information. But if she was using a definition that included Ellsberg but included Novak, then I’m entitled to point out the inconsistency in her position. Some time back, several posters undertook to point out an inconsistency in positions I held with respect to same-sex marriage, and after pages of debate, I realized I had been wrong in my earlier views. What a good thing that this method of argument was not simply dismissed as an attempt to point out my hypocrisy, eh? ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-douchebag-of-liberty-has-passed-on/506859/148 "2009-08-19T15:23:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > There are many defensible reasons for calling Novak a traitor, as I cheerfully conceded above. But I have noticed that many people who view Novak’s acts with disdain also consider Ellsberg a hero, and this becomes an easy way to quickly uncover the root definitions of ‘traitor’ being used. You concluded that her definition of traitor was based on party affiliation based on calling Novak a traitor and not Ellsberg. > [@](#): > > > [@bup](#): > > > > If my moral compass says that publicizing classified information is OK if I believe it will save lives, and repugnant for a lesser reason, I find Novak to be a traitor and Ellsberg “guilty with explanation,” or however you phrased it. > > Absolutely. And such an answer then leads us to explore if either Ellsberg or Novak reasonably thought their acts would save lives, a perfectly acceptable direction for the debate to take. And then you agree there are other methods by which you could conclude Novak’s a traitor and not Ellsberg. Essentially, you’re saying P-\>Q. And we have Q, therefore P. That’s faulty. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-douchebag-of-liberty-has-passed-on/506859/149 "2009-08-19T15:36:28Z")
I would also like to point out that **BigGirl** made no mention of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg either. What the fuck is wrong with her anyway? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-douchebag-of-liberty-has-passed-on/506859/150 "2009-08-19T15:40:13Z")
> [@bup](#): > > You concluded that her definition of traitor was based on party affiliation based on calling Novak a traitor and not Ellsberg. Well, it’s not so much a conclusion as a rebuttable presumption. > [@](#): > > And then you agree there are other methods by which you could conclude Novak’s a traitor and not Ellsberg. > > Essentially, you’re saying P-\>Q. And we have Q, therefore P. That’s faulty. No. If she deliberately chooses to avoid answering in the manner she did, first dodging the issue and then faux-proudly proclaiming she won’t, I’m entitled to draw an adverse inference: that she has no additional nuance to offer. If she did offer any of the other methods by which we could conclude Novak’s a traitor and not Ellsberg, and defended them, then we could say that the initial presumption has been rebutted. P -\> Q Q -\> R ∴ P -\> R ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-douchebag-of-liberty-has-passed-on/506859/151 "2009-08-19T15:41:23Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > I would also like to point out that **BigGirl** made no mention of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg either. What the fuck is wrong with her anyway? Wow, you ARE good. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-douchebag-of-liberty-has-passed-on/506859/152 "2009-08-19T15:45:02Z")
Hmmm. The Rosenbergs were Jewish. **Big Girl** made no mention of them. Ellsberg was Jewish, and \*\*Big Girl \*\*made no mention of him. Just sayin’, is all. ---
**Author:** ![Defensive\_Indifference](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/defensive_indifference/32/6502_2.png) [@Defensive\_Indifference](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Defensive_Indifference)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-douchebag-of-liberty-has-passed-on/506859/153 "2009-08-19T15:45:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If she deliberately chooses to avoid answering in the manner she did, first dodging the issue and then faux-proudly proclaiming she won’t, I’m entitled to draw an adverse inference: that she has no additional nuance to offer. I don’t think she’s under any obligation to defend herself against an accusation of inconsistency that was made with no evidence to back it up. Is she required to prove her innocence of any charges lobbed her way, or is it your responsibility to offer real evidence of her inconsistency before expecting her to rebut it? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-douchebag-of-liberty-has-passed-on/506859/154 "2009-08-19T15:47:44Z")
> [@Bayard](#): > > I don’t think she’s under any obligation to defend herself against an accusation of inconsistency that was made with no evidence to back it up. Is she required to prove her innocence of any charges lobbed her way, or is it your responsibility to offer real evidence of her inconsistency before expecting her to rebut it? Look, it was not initially an accusation of inconsistency. Did you not read the Feynman passage?? ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-douchebag-of-liberty-has-passed-on/506859/155 "2009-08-19T15:57:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. If she deliberately chooses to avoid answering in the manner she did, first dodging the issue and then faux-proudly proclaiming she won’t, I’m entitled to draw an adverse inference: that she has no additional nuance to offer. I disagree. She could have other valid reasons for dodging the question, the stated one of which is “it’s **Bricker** ; he’s baiting me.” **Biggirl** , if you believe Novak a traitor, but not Ellsberg, what’s the reason? ---
**Author:** ![Defensive\_Indifference](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/defensive_indifference/32/6502_2.png) [@Defensive\_Indifference](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Defensive_Indifference)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-douchebag-of-liberty-has-passed-on/506859/156 "2009-08-19T16:00:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Did you not read the Feynman passage?? Yes, I read it. > [@Bricker](#): > > But I \*\*suspect \*\*it isn’t. I suspect it’s more than that, and this is why I ask about Ellsberg. If you respond that Ellsberg is ALSO a traitor, then you’re on solid ground and there’s very little I can argue with you about. But if you believe that Ellsberg is a hero and Novak a traitor, then it’s clear to me that there’s something beyond objective criteria at work here. My bold. You **suspected** that there was something “other than objective criteria at work” in the OP, presumably some kind of inconsistency. You loaded up a question to try to force **Biggirl** to prove that there wasn’t, and when she refused to play, you took that as an admission of her inconsistency. Feynman, by contrast, appeared to be trying to understand the term of art “essential object.” In that case, I probably would have said, “I do not know that term. Can you please tell me what it means before I answer?” But, that’s just me. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-douchebag-of-liberty-has-passed-on/506859/157 "2009-08-19T16:06:03Z")
> [@Bayard](#): > > My bold. > > You **suspected** that there was something “other than objective criteria at work” in the OP, presumably some kind of inconsistency. You loaded up a question to try to force **Biggirl** to prove that there wasn’t, and when she refused to play, you took that as an admission of her inconsistency. I started out neutral. By the time I made the post you quote, my suspicion was grounded in the responses - or lack thereof - that my initial question garnered. ETA: And by the way – there’s STILL no answer. So is Ellsberg a brick? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-douchebag-of-liberty-has-passed-on/506859/158 "2009-08-19T16:07:31Z")
Is someone who shoots an old man always guilty of murder? Doesn’t that suggest that two people that reveal classified information aren’t necessarily guilty of the same crime? Doesn’t the motive factor in? I’m not a lawyer, so can we have one answer that? In any case, there is the _according to Hoyle_ definition of treason in the law, and there is a vernacular, “that douchebag is a traitor.” It’s certainly possible that neither man may rise to the legal definition of traitor, but may be considered a traitor by a significant percentage of the population. And we can all agree that Bricker was being very shady by weaseling in the myth that Plame was not a covert operative. But for his failings, I’d say that Bricker isn’t a traitor. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-douchebag-of-liberty-has-passed-on/506859/159 "2009-08-19T16:08:00Z")
> [@](#): > > …my suspicion was grounded in the responses - or lack thereof - that my initial question garnered. He said, batting big, brown innocent eyes… ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-douchebag-of-liberty-has-passed-on/506859/160 "2009-08-19T16:10:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I started out neutral. Nobody believes that but you. Wonder why? [quote] ETA: And by the way – there’s STILL no answer. So is Ellsberg a brick? Take some fucking responsibility for what you say, just for once, willya? :rolleyes: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-douchebag-of-liberty-has-passed-on/506859.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-douchebag-of-liberty-has-passed-on/506859.md?page=9)