1
   

The difference between dissent and disloyalty

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2003 03:06 pm
The notion that protesting the war amounts to giving aid and comfort to the enemy is ridiculous.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2003 03:24 pm
Scrat wrote:
The notion that protesting the war amounts to giving aid and comfort to the enemy is ridiculous.



Allow me to jump at the opportunity to enthusiastiacally agree with you here, Scrat.
0 Replies
 
Eva
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2003 03:36 pm
I can't believe it. I am in full agreement with Frank and Scrat. (shaking head...) Hell must be freezing over. Shocked Laughing Idea

Think I'll post this on the "what made you smile today" thread....

Thanks, guys!
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2003 05:21 pm
Visitor -- What is that in your avatar? Everytime it pops up I get a craving for a stuffed pepper.
0 Replies
 
Eva
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2003 05:29 pm
It's a rose. Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2003 05:44 pm
This may have been what Scrat meant, but just in case it's a bit different-- I believe the difference in dissent and disloyalty is intent.

Like Craven said-- You can screw up, misspeak, give away state secrets in error... and not be disloyal.

Disloyalty is intentional.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2003 03:09 pm
Sofia,

That is an interesting discussion. I had a related one with a friend last night.

Is a lie a simply falsity or it it an intentionally stated falsity?
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2003 03:43 pm
IMV, a lie is a statement you know to be false. Intent to mislead is a requisite.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2003 05:27 pm
I'd agree that your definition is the most relevant but the word means both:

Mirriam Webster wrote:
1 a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2003 06:26 pm
You know, if we accept the b. definition-- agreeing that everyone who has ever lived and lives now has made an incorrect statement-- The world has been populated since the beginning of time with liars.


Hell. I just realized that goes for definition a., as well.

This has been a very distressing day.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2003 06:37 pm
This is why the question "are you calling me a liar?" is unfair.

Everyone is a liar under both definitions.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 May, 2003 06:01 am
I'm stunned.

I would have bet huge sums that "lie" required an intention to deceive. But Webster does include the second definition.

Something just does not sound right about that.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 May, 2003 06:54 am
First definition in Oxford is "intentional falsehood."
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 May, 2003 12:42 pm
All the definitions in Concise Oxford (no it's not a pocket dictionary) require the perpetrator to know of the falsehood or intended deception.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 May, 2003 05:06 pm
Look up the noun, not the verb.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 May, 2003 06:47 pm
Sofia wrote:
This may have been what Scrat meant, but just in case it's a bit different-- I believe the difference in dissent and disloyalty is intent.

Like Craven said-- You can screw up, misspeak, give away state secrets in error... and not be disloyal.

Disloyalty is intentional.

I'm honestly not sure whether I agree or do not. I'd have to consider a lot more hypotheticals first, and my brain is being rebooted right now.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 May, 2003 12:02 am
Craven de Kere wrote:
Look up the noun, not the verb.


Craven, is this remark intended to be helpful, or funny?
Could you explain it?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 May, 2003 12:07 am
It's intended to be helpful. The definitions in question will most likely be found under lie the noun rather than lie the verb.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 May, 2003 08:47 am
Craven de Kere wrote:
It's intended to be helpful. The definitions in question will most likely be found under lie the noun rather than lie the verb.


Yes. Noun or verb, makes no difference to the argument, but it's easier in this case to think of the verb. And in which case, there is no doubt in my mind that there is implicit foreknowledge of the truth, for anyone to be able to tell a lie. I believe Webster is wrong in this respect.

McT
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 May, 2003 08:51 am
To smeg with your foreign dictionaries!

The Macquarie is clear:

lie: A false statement made with intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. Something serving to or intended to convey a false impression.

Mens rea!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND - Discussion by Foxfyre
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Fellow Bostonians: How many of us wished we had an assault weapon last night? - Question by maxdancona
What should be first on the agenda of the winner in November? - Discussion by Frank Apisa
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The difference between dissent and disloyalty
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/21/2024 at 09:49:22
▲ ▼