Comments Posted By politically lost
Displaying 1 To 2 Of 2 Comments
REDEFINING THE ALREADY DEFINED
Help me out here. Jacoby's definition is the only one that applies, or does Greenwald's definition have no merit because he says it shouldn't apply to people who support wars they don't fight in?
Comment Posted By politically lost On 25.07.2006 @ 22:49
PLEASE ELIMINATE THE WORD "ELIMINATIONIST"...AND THOSE WHO USE THE TERM
Moran said:
"Accusing a liberal of “treason†or of being a “traitor†may be hyperbole but it is not hate speech. I find it fascinating that liberals would be so touchy about being tarred with these epithets seeing that they find they words “patriotism†and “patriot†so problematic, “the last refuge of scoundrels†being a common add-on whenever the terms are used."
If find your reasoning 'problematic' (as you say). Saying those that you disagree with are traitors, I think, starts to fall under the definition of this word you don't believe exists. Because, what is the punishment for a traitor?
I agree it's not hate speech. I don't really think that hate speech should be any less protected than any other speech actually. But, if I disagree with anyone on a particular issue (your GitMo example serves aptly), and you call me a traitor (and I wouldn't be surprised if you did) you are calling for my elimination. In effect it is calling for that person who disagrees to be eliminated from political discourse, from voting, from citizenship. Because their opinion, as a traitor, should not be allowed, right?
So, I disagree. Should I not then be punished and hung by the neck until dead as traitors should?
Comment Posted By politically lost On 21.07.2006 @ 19:42
