It seems that journalism has died.
No.
It sucks that despite learning the truth, BrainGlutton and elucidator reacted by blaming me for the sin of defending Arpaio. And it sucks that only two people in this thread have pushed back against them for that.
Defending him against an unproven charge. Sheriff Joe is a public figure, a fact of his own relentless and unswerving efforts. He represents and embodies everything I find repulsive about old bigots with a gun and a badge. That is his doing, not mine.
Am I obliged to offer him the standards of criminal defense, of proof beyond a shadow of a doubt? No, I am not. If this were a trial, and I were on the jury, I would be duty bound to return a verdict of not guilty, because the evidence isn’t there to meet the standard demanded. Nonetheless, my opinion of Sheriff Joe would not have been altered much at all.
We are not in a court of law, Counselor, but in the arena of opinion. You may insist that your standards must be met, if you like. Given your pristine and spotless reputation for non-partisan truthiness…well, perhaps the less said the better. In my opinion, Sheriff Joe is a blot and a stain upon honest law enforcement. That opinion is unchanged. That my fellow lefties have lept to a conclusion that could not be sustained in a court of law merits a shrug, at most.
Jesus, but I am getting tired of the usual “he would not be convicted in my hypothetical courtroom, therefore he is spotless” schtick.
Who said that?
I believe that is a jab at **Bricker’**s arguments in favor of voter ID. Namely that it is necessary to take action not because voter fraud occurs, but because the public is worried about voter fraud. In other words he has argued we should take actions not because a real crime is happening, but because there is a general impression the crime is happening.
Ha! Yeah, that one, too.
Give them time. You are Vulcan. Humans require time to acknowledge errors they have emotional investment in.
**BrainGlutton **and **elucidator **argue in good faith.
Is that the schtick here? It seems that the ‘facts’ in the article are incorrect. I’m all for getting the torches and pitchforks, but it would be nice to be right.
Right now, the only one we could tar and feather is the reporter and editor for not doing their jobs.
There’s so much wrong with this that it’s difficult to know where to begin. The two main areas:
-
This has nothing to do with a conclusion that “could not be sustained in a court of law.” That phrase suggests there was evidence for the charge, but not enough evidence to satisfy a court’s exacting standards. Here, it seems pretty clear the accusation was simply wrong, period.
-
This is not about the lefties jumping to a conclusion – their conclusion was very justified by the article. It’s about what happened when it became apparent that the article was wrong. Rather than say, “Well, I relied on the article, and it was wrong, and now I see that,” or some similar statement, you and BrainGlutton attacked me for being a bigot, the evidence for this charge being my “defense” of Arpaio – a “defense” that was in fact correct. So this is about reacting to the conclusion being proven wrong by attacking the person who proved it wrong.
Why? Yes, yes, Arpaio’s a “repulsive … old [bigot]… with a gun and a badge.” That can’t mean, can it, that you feel it’s OK to say anything, true or false, even in your court of opinion… can it?
And in your court of opinion, someone who corrects a factual error is subject to attack as a bigot, if the uncorrected error hurts the “repulsive … old [bigot]… with a gun and a badge.”
Is that how your court of opinion works?
elucidator seems to be saying that in his court of opinion, it’s perfectly fine to spread a falsehood about someone, as long as that someone is already repulsive.
And he seems to be saying that in his court of public opinion, it’s perfectly OK to attack someone as a bigot for refuting such a falsehood.
This, by you, is arguing in good faith? Really?
I didn’t speak at all until the second page, and three posts since. None of them remotely say what you claim I said, unless the weasel word “seem” is given an enormously generous definition. So, it “seems” that you are a two-faced, hypocritical, lying sack. Of course, maybe it just seems that way.
I used the word “bigot” precisely once, in direct and unmistakable reference to Sheriff Joe. So where do you get this shit, you lying sack?
You jumped into a conversation that used the word bigotry, and argued against statements I was making against the use of that word.
But this is why I said “seems:”
So clarify. I laid out your posts above, in the context of the thread’s conversation.
What did you mean when you said:
Objection! Counsel is badgering the witness!
Sustained! Keep your questions on the topic at hand please.
See? I watch law-talking TeeVee shows.
Pretentious prattle about “falsehood” from someone who knows so little about truthhood.
Your trivial little point here is clear, and I might push back for you, the trivial pointer, if you were worthy of any respect.
Instead, your knowledge is so selective, it’s fair for us to assume you know absolutely nothing about Sheriff Arpaio, beyond the “(R)” by his name. That “R” makes him a hero in your bizarre cognition; you’ll rant about evidence if anyone counters you with descriptions of Arpaio.
We still recall your long, prattling defense of Karl Rove in a thread, despite that you knew nothing of Rove’s biography (other than the “(R)”) and despite that you hadn’t even read OP. :smack:
You need to demonstrate at least a token bit of intelligence, knowledge and humility before you can hope to be taken seriously. Until you condescend to that, your posts are all just repulsive sophistry.
Including the posts in which I demonstrate a clear factual error? That, too, is repulsive sophistry?
What’s the topic at hand?
The problem with this “well, Arpaio’s an asshole, so it’s all good” philosophy is that levelling baseless charges undermines charges that have some basis in fact. There are plenty of valid reasons to criticize Arpaio, and running with an invalid one creates the perception that the others are invalid. It stops being a crusade and becomes a witchhunt.
So give Bricker his due and move on.