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.
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.
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.
\\][//