Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to BULLSHIT

It's Not That Tough To Define, But Tough To Prove.
Mark Eby — (archived)

Common Robert. That's nothing but sophistry. Publicizing someone else's lies is not lying. Fact checking someone else's lies is not lying. Lying is a deliberate attempt to deceive.

Unless I've mistakenly interpreted party platforms of a party I frequently vote for there is nothing in the Democratic platform that supports Al-queida's main talking points. Blood for oil is one lie. Many who spout this are too ignorant to know otherwise and aren't being treasonous. Many know it's false yet still love the slogan value, that is treasonous. Al-quieda tries to portray America as wanting to run Iraq to loot it's oil profits. That's another lie. Use it out of ignorance and you are just ill informed. Use it strictly for political gain when you know it's false, that's treasonous. There are other examples, but I've been ignoring these kinds of debates for a while so they don't come readily to mind.

This is why the speeding ticket analogy applies. It's pretty hard to determine to a legal level of doubt who is just ignorant and who is deliberately spouting terrorist dogma for political gain by preying on the ignorant and ill informed. On the other hand it's not hard to get a gut feel about which camp someone is in and use your own powers of freedom of speech to strike back.

Willful ignorance is a tough call. What does it say about you that you steadfastedly refuse to consider evidence in your country's favor? Does it mean you set high standards of evidence? Seems unlikely when the bar does not seem so high in the other direction. I don't think such a condition is treasonous, but it is a cancer on our public consciousness.

An example of willful ignorance not covered above - "Bush lied about WMD". Many here repeat this claim and yet run like the devil from facing the fact that Clinton also believed Iraq had WMD. Sounds like at a minimum a double standard to me, likely willful ignorance or lieing. This example is probably more appropriately called dirty pool in politics than treason yet a case can still be made that it is aiding and abetting the enemy by cutting support for the presidents policies.

The problem is political gain is what all these acts are about. Is aiding and abetting enemies of the US any less treasonous for political gain than personal gain? On the other hand a free and open society should not give a president a free pass during wartime so there is a certain amount of aiding and abbeting the enemy that will naturally arise from a vigorous debate over wartime policy. This is why freedom of speech is essential in both directions. People should speak freely enough to vigorously evaluate a president's policies and supporters should be free to call those out who cross or come close to crossing the poorly defined line that constitutes acting primarily in the enemy's interest rather than trying to determine the country's best interest.

Regards,
Mark

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (282 posts)