Slander and Degrading

[Star_Pixels]

In my short lifetime, I have seen people come and go with philosophies and moralities that differed from such extremes to wearing all black formless clothing to actually wearing tee-shirts that claimed "I'm a lesbian - wanna kiss and make out?"

But the one thing everybody seems to agree on is that degrading your foe is the only way to win.

In verbal arguments, I've heard people try to personally attack others (even as young as 12 years old!) to make the insulter seem like a wiser and more knowledgable person, and therefore more trustworthy on important issues such as whether or not Bush is a good president.

It's getting to the point that even opinion, such as whether or not you prefer black or blue, has resulted in several "flame wars".

So I must ask now, and answer the questions honestly...

Do you believe in slander? What purpose does slander serve? How does it help benefit the slanderer? How does it help benefit the slandered? How can we stop it? What's wrong with being wrong in the first place?

 

[Gracchus]

Slander and Degrading

Main Entry: 2slander
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English sclaundre, slaundre, from Old French esclandre, from Late Latin scandalum stumbling block, offense -- more at SCANDAL
1 : the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation
2 : a false and defamatory oral statement about a person --

(emphasis mine)

In my short lifetime, I have seen people come and go with philosophies and moralities that differed from such extremes to wearing all black formless clothing to actually wearing tee-shirts that claimed "I'm a lesbian - wanna kiss and make out?"

You think black clothing is extreme? I think that opinion is extreme. As for the tee-shirt: Defiant of some self-appointed authorities, it certainly is, but not extremely so.

But the one thing everybody seems to agree on is that degrading your foe is the only way to win.

Do you think it is the only way to win? I think that very few people think it is the only way to win. Some might think that you can't really win that way. At the very least specific cases determine what constitutes victory conditions.

In verbal arguments, I've heard people try to personally attack others (even as young as 12 years old!) to make the insulter seem like a wiser and more knowledgable person, and therefore more trustworthy...

Will that fool anyone who isn't willing to be fooled?

... on important issues such as whether or not Bush is a good president.

Who put that slug in the pea soup? Are we to take it that the original post was not about pea soup (slander and degradation), but slug soup (politics) all along?

It's getting to the point that even opinion, such as whether or not you prefer black or blue, has resulted in several "flame wars".

I think you meant "red or blue" if this is about slug soup.

So I must ask now, and answer the questions honestly...

Why would you assume anyone would bother to lie to you?

Do you believe in slander?

There is such a thing. I mistrust it as a tactic, as I doubt any lie ever really best serves a good cause. You might be inclined to argue that ends justify means, but I would maintain the means determine ends.

What purpose does slander serve?

It makes us appreciate truth and righteousness.

How does it help benefit the slanderer?

It is well to know the symptoms of a disease before attempting a cure.

How can we stop it?

KJV Matthew 7:3

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

What's wrong with being wrong in the first place?

I submit that if being wrong causes harm to others, and if we could, by simple inquiry and exercise of prudence and care, have been right, then we are culpable when we are wrong.

Now eat your slug soup. I don't care for it myself.

 

[Star_Pixels]

Yes, slander is false statements to degrade others. I already knew that.

Slander and Degrading

You think black clothing is extreme? I think that opinion is extreme. As for the tee-shirt: Defiant of some self-appointed authorities, it certainly is, but not extremely so.

Whoever said that black clothing was extreme? I said black formless clothing, as in the kind that several Muslim women wear to go with their face masks.

Do you think it is the only way to win? I think that very few people think it is the only way to win. Some might think that you can't really win that way. At the very least specific cases determine what constitutes victory conditions.

No, I don't think it's the only way to win. Slander and degrading people is very bad. However, that was a generalization that included simply the majority. If you will notice the seems in what I said, you'd perhaps catch what it was I was saying.

Will that fool anyone who isn't willing to be fooled?

Obviously, yes. It happens in politics all the time.

Who put that slug in the pea soup? Are we to take it that the original post was not about pea soup (slander and degradation), but slug soup all along?

What are you talking about? I was quoting from several arguments that arise, such as the current ones about homosexuality, islam, and Bush. Hence why I specifically targetted those issues.

Why?

Because those are the ones that most people tend to slander in and about.

Not only that but to show the variations in the topics that are flamed, such as politics, sexuality, and personal preferences (like whether or not black or blue is better).

I think you meant "red or blue" if this is about slug soup.

You are spending WAY too much time in politics, brother, if you believe everything has to be about them.

Why would you assume anyone would bother to lie to you?

What on Earth...? Most people will not answer any of these questions honestly in fear that it might harm their reputation somehow all thanks to the recent inclination towards the slander and degrading.

There is such a thing. I mistrust it as a tactic, as I doubt any lie ever really best serves a good cause. You might be inclined to argue that ends justify means, but I would maintain the means determine ends.

Thank you for finally answering a question.

KJV Matthew 7:3 I submit that if being wrong causes harm to others, and if we could, by simple inquiry and exercise of prudence and care, have been right, then we are culpable when we are wrong.

What has that to do with anything?

Now eat your slug soup. I don't care for it myself.

What the...? What are you getting on about now? Honestly!

 

[Gracchus]

Yes, slander is false statements to degrade others. I already knew that.

I was merely pointing out that truth is a defense against a charge of slander.

Whoever said that black clothing was extreme? I said black formless clothing, as in the kind that several Muslim women wear to go with their face masks.

Ah! You were referring to Muslim women but not satanists, clergy, or street gangs. So you were trying to say that some Muslim sects go to extremes of feminine modesty.

Then you said:

But the one thing everybody seems to agree on is that degrading your foe is the only way to win.

And I inquired:

Do you think it is the only way to win?

Because if it seems to you that everybody agrees on something then you must agree.

You answered:

No, I don't think it's the only way to win. Slander and degrading people is very bad. However, that was a generalization that included simply the majority. If you will notice the seems in what I said, you'd perhaps catch what it was I was saying.

If we discard the "seems" qualification your statement becomes, "But the one thing everybody agrees on is that degrading your foe is the only way to win."

And even so you failed to see that you are included in "everybody". If we stipulate you were not including yourself in "everybody" then the indisputable implication was that you were claiming exclusive possession of the moral high ground in this matter.

I failed to appreciate that you said "everybody" when you meant "the majority". But perhaps you didn't mean "majority" and only meant that some people seem to agree that degrading your foe is the only way to win? If you want to be understood, take the time to say what you mean, and don't exaggerate carelessly and without warning.


Then you said:

In verbal arguments, I've heard people try to personally attack others (even as young as 12 years old!) to make the insulter seem like a wiser and more knowledgable person, and therefore more trustworthy...

To which I inquired:

Will that fool anyone who isn't willing to be fooled?

You replied:

Obviously, yes. It happens in politics all the time.

I submit that in politics people are willing to be fooled. It is the assumption that underlies and dictates much of the content of electioneering.

What are you talking about?

It seemed you were pressing the issue of Bush more forcefully than other issues.

I was quoting from several arguments that arise, such as the current ones about homosexuality, islam, and Bush. Hence why I specifically targetted those issues.

I saw no quotes. Even the references to the chadar and the tee-shirt were rather obscure. I didn't see what those had to do with slander.

Why? Because those are the ones that most people tend to slander in and about.

Not only that but to show the variations in the topics that are flamed, such as politics, sexuality, and personal preferences (like whether or not black or blue is better).

You are spending WAY too much time in politics, brother, if you believe everything has to be about them.

You are the one who introduced Bush and politics into this thread. I have spent far more time on the Evolution vs. Creationism controversy. I have even spent more time in "Apologetics" than I have discussing politics.

What on Earth...? Most people will not answer any of these questions honestly in fear that it might harm their reputation somehow all thanks to the recent inclination towards the slander and degrading.

So, you are saying that even in a forum with a very high degree of anonymity, most folks are too cowardly to take a moral stand? I tend to agree.

Thank you for finally answering a question.

You're welcome.

I replied to a question of yours:

I submit that if being wrong causes harm to others, and if we could, by simple inquiry and exercise of prudence and care, have been right, then we are culpable when we are wrong.

What has that to do with anything?

It was apropos your question

What's wrong with being wrong in the first place?

which I interpreted to be an inquiry about the relation between "wrong" (moral lapse) and "wrong" mistaken.

What the...? What are you getting on about now? Honestly!

"De gustibus non disputandum est." This is often translated "It is useless to argue about taste." You "seem" to be fond of the "hawkish conservative" political position. The "slug soup" is a metaphor for that position, which I find, to say the least, disgusting. "Enjoy your slug soup." means that I hope you are not sickened or dismayed by the consequences of preferring that position. All clear now?

 

[Star_Pixels]

I was merely pointing out that truth is a defense against a charge of slander.

You're just being unreasonable.

Ah! You were referring to Muslim women but not satanists, clergy, or street gangs. So you were trying to say that some Muslim sects go to extremes of feminine modesty.

I say again, you're just being unreasonable.

Look, you are obviously way into your politics to even understand what this thread is about. Of course, given your responses, I'd say you're a firm believer in slander and that it is the only way you seem to think will get you to win.

So now I'm reporting your outlandish, extreme uncalled-for behaviour to a moderator.

And just so you know, my political stance is "Indy", I am an Independant. But of course you seem to believe that anybody who makes a thread about slander must be an extreme right-wing Conservative.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

Fear not, friend: slander is a useless tactic in the long run. It relies on what is false (slander is telling lies about someone), which ever exposes the slanderer to embarassment, the fear of embarassment, and the loss of reputation. Once lost, a reputation (and the trust it requires) is hard to regain.

The most effective weapon in the victim's arsenal is Christlikeness.

 

[Gracchus]

Look, you are obviously way into your politics to even understand what this thread is about.

I answered your original questions in my first post. But: This thread is not really about whether or not slander is good. Your not so subtle reference to Bush ("In verbal arguments, I've heard people try to personally attack others … make the insulter seem like a wiser and more knowledgable person, and therefore more trustworthy on important issues such as whether or not Bush is a good president.") betrays to everyone that the subject matter is not morality, but politics, else why that singular, unsupported example?

Of course, given your responses, I'd say you're a firm believer in slander and that it is the only way you seem to think will get you to win.

And you would be wrong to say so without evidence that what you say is true. In fact, (gasp!) you seem to be slandering me! Of course, you would never do that.

A gratuitous bit of advice: Giving free rein to your temper has deleterious effects on both your rhetoric and your reasoning. Moreover, it suggests an insecure coviction in the righteousness of your own position.

So now I'm reporting your outlandish, extreme uncalled-for behaviour to a moderator.

You should also report it to Homeland Security.

And just so you know, my political stance is "Indy", I am an Independant.

And just so you know, my moral stance is "Holy", I'm an archangel.

But of course you seem to believe that anybody who makes a thread about slander must be an extreme right-wing Conservative.

I am constantly amazed at the way things "seem" to you. It seems to me that you are launching a pre-emptive argumentum ad hominem tu quoque.

 

[rnmomof7]

This has become a discussion of posters not a topic. Flame bait