I apologize, I was not making myself clear. I was not trying to define the word liberal, though I can see why you would assume that I was. I'm not a skilled writer. What I was trying to say is that the meanings of words change and evolve over time. My point is to say that it will have a different meaning depending on the context of the w…
I apologize, I was not making myself clear. I was not trying to define the word liberal, though I can see why you would assume that I was. I'm not a skilled writer. What I was trying to say is that the meanings of words change and evolve over time. My point is to say that it will have a different meaning depending on the context of the writing. I don't agree that "Glenn speaks in absolutes." That's a pretty broad statement that seems like it would be difficult to back up with evidence. I always understand the meanings of his words in terms of the context of the writing. In my opinion, it's not necessary to have a strict definition of a political/philosophical term when you have context and when you're speaking to an audience familiar with current political and societal events. It's a weak criticism.
You are right that the [popular] meaning of words changes overtime, all the more important to make sure that people know what you're talking about. And I would add that it can occur to the point that words can lose any specific meaning other than being used as a scapegoat tool for demagogues, like calling people a "witch." I strongly disagree with your conclusion that Glenn doesn't speak in absolutes. In fact, he does it much of the time and using undefined words as he does is part of that process.
Right, I can see your point about precision of language. I can also see how he speaks in absolutes regarding certain values, like freedom of speech and due process in particular. I guess I don't see that as a negative, but I take your point.
I support the right to tell lies as part of free speech, too, except as narrowly defined by libel and slander laws; but, I think it's still ethically wrong for a journalist to do that, even in the supposed defense of free speech and due process, which is sort of an oxymoron, right? I also support the right to speak or write in absolutes and engage in other logical and factual fallacies, so carry on by all means.
I apologize, I was not making myself clear. I was not trying to define the word liberal, though I can see why you would assume that I was. I'm not a skilled writer. What I was trying to say is that the meanings of words change and evolve over time. My point is to say that it will have a different meaning depending on the context of the writing. I don't agree that "Glenn speaks in absolutes." That's a pretty broad statement that seems like it would be difficult to back up with evidence. I always understand the meanings of his words in terms of the context of the writing. In my opinion, it's not necessary to have a strict definition of a political/philosophical term when you have context and when you're speaking to an audience familiar with current political and societal events. It's a weak criticism.
You are right that the [popular] meaning of words changes overtime, all the more important to make sure that people know what you're talking about. And I would add that it can occur to the point that words can lose any specific meaning other than being used as a scapegoat tool for demagogues, like calling people a "witch." I strongly disagree with your conclusion that Glenn doesn't speak in absolutes. In fact, he does it much of the time and using undefined words as he does is part of that process.
Right, I can see your point about precision of language. I can also see how he speaks in absolutes regarding certain values, like freedom of speech and due process in particular. I guess I don't see that as a negative, but I take your point.
I support the right to tell lies as part of free speech, too, except as narrowly defined by libel and slander laws; but, I think it's still ethically wrong for a journalist to do that, even in the supposed defense of free speech and due process, which is sort of an oxymoron, right? I also support the right to speak or write in absolutes and engage in other logical and factual fallacies, so carry on by all means.
You certainly are a smart ass Mr. Earl.
Your disingenuous rhetorical sophistry places you squarely in the position of a disinformant.
Greenwald is one of the finest and most honest journalist in this era. Your critique is slovenly and transparent bullshit.
\\][//