I would suggest that calling other people's ideas an "abomination" is really not the best way to get started with intellectualism.
You wish to qualify people's intent, and I haven't criticized your idea or that of others, however, I would also proffer the danger in imposing an unqualified view of what the intent of others is or providing …
I would suggest that calling other people's ideas an "abomination" is really not the best way to get started with intellectualism.
You wish to qualify people's intent, and I haven't criticized your idea or that of others, however, I would also proffer the danger in imposing an unqualified view of what the intent of others is or providing commentary on their "character". It seems, you wish to decry Tripp based on your belief of her as a person, rather than accept or discuss my observation that they served similar roles in the last two presidential impeachments.
The Facts are: Tripp and Vindman produced key evidence towards their respective cases. As I explained, this resulted in great polarization (but no real outcome) followed by political retribution (which still seems to linger, hence this dialogue).
Lastly, I don't believe it is fair or right to proclaim some folks as "better" than others; that is really a road I don't rally upon. Sorry.
In textual analysis, which is what this thread is partly about, 'author intent' has long been superseded by 'reader response' and other critical approaches.
I care nothing about your intent.
My response to your statement, is that linking those two names, those two persons, is an abomination. On the level of language and in the context of history and of society.
My response above is to our friend, Joan, who discussed "intent". Please try to stay focused and perhaps let other folks determine (and contribute towards) what this thread is "about"...
If we are discussing the innate worth of a person as a human being, yes, we are all equal. Some people’s actions are demonstrably better than others. To offer an example within the constrained arena of elected Republicans in Florida: Sen Rick Scott condemned the NeoNazis’ hate rally in Orlando. Governor Desantis not only refused to criticize Nazi hate, his press person twice suggested it was unfair to ask that of him. Therefore I regard Scott’s behavior as morally better than that of his governor.
I would suggest that calling other people's ideas an "abomination" is really not the best way to get started with intellectualism.
You wish to qualify people's intent, and I haven't criticized your idea or that of others, however, I would also proffer the danger in imposing an unqualified view of what the intent of others is or providing commentary on their "character". It seems, you wish to decry Tripp based on your belief of her as a person, rather than accept or discuss my observation that they served similar roles in the last two presidential impeachments.
The Facts are: Tripp and Vindman produced key evidence towards their respective cases. As I explained, this resulted in great polarization (but no real outcome) followed by political retribution (which still seems to linger, hence this dialogue).
Lastly, I don't believe it is fair or right to proclaim some folks as "better" than others; that is really a road I don't rally upon. Sorry.
In textual analysis, which is what this thread is partly about, 'author intent' has long been superseded by 'reader response' and other critical approaches.
I care nothing about your intent.
My response to your statement, is that linking those two names, those two persons, is an abomination. On the level of language and in the context of history and of society.
My response above is to our friend, Joan, who discussed "intent". Please try to stay focused and perhaps let other folks determine (and contribute towards) what this thread is "about"...
If we are discussing the innate worth of a person as a human being, yes, we are all equal. Some people’s actions are demonstrably better than others. To offer an example within the constrained arena of elected Republicans in Florida: Sen Rick Scott condemned the NeoNazis’ hate rally in Orlando. Governor Desantis not only refused to criticize Nazi hate, his press person twice suggested it was unfair to ask that of him. Therefore I regard Scott’s behavior as morally better than that of his governor.