A person that claims to be
science literate and then asserts that a member of the genus Homo is in the genus
Equus has made two errors.
First, they do not understand biology (science), and that error throws great
doubt on their claim of understanding science.
The bottom line is that one
should not claim to understand science and then issue an attempt at an insult
that contains a factual error. History tells us that donkeys
and particularly the male “jacks” have been one of the most valuable service
animals to mankind. Anyone that knows history, knows that calling someone a “Jackass”
is a great complement. Donkeys bray when they have been mistreated. Calling someone a "Braying Jackass" implies that the person is a beast of burden that has been mistreated.
Claiming scientific and historical literacy and then using “braying jackass” as a slur is silly. Who is that dumb? That would be OttawaGuy – a mod over on the Ravelry Rubberneckers group.
I sent him a personal message (pm) - about what I do - it was polite, factual, but firm. His response was to claim scientific and historical literacy and then call me a "Braying Jackass".
I posted a new topic on Rubberneckers discussing the virtues of donkeys -- nothing rude or unpleasant. OttawaGuy then locked me out of Rubberneckers and sent me a pm
"FUCK OFF"
No, I do not think OttawaGuy intended a complement when he called me a "Braying Jackass". If he intended "Braying Jackass" as a slur, then we can prove malice and thus, LIBEL (in previous posts).
.jpg)
4 comments:
I think you have misunderstood what constitutes "libel." Libel is written defamation. Defamation is "a false and unprivileged statement of fact that is harmful to someone's reputation, and published...as a result of negligence or malice." Sadly, calling someone a "braying jackass" just doesn't meet the definition of defamation. (See Vogel v. Felice, Cal Ct App 6th Dist (3/24/2005), finding that an epithet that essentially meant 'contemptible fool' did not convey a provable factual proposition sufficient for a libel claim).
Other non-libelous terms include epithets like local loser, chicken butt, big skank or son of a bitch. In fact, your term "boss cow" is exactly the kind of epithet that is not libelous. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has an excellent and concise article about these situations (from which I drew my examples). You can read it in further detail here:
https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation
I hope that helps you better understand the concept, particularly since some of the comments you have made over the years on this very blog about the intelligence, skills and capability of certain members of the fiber world may skate the fine line between opinion and defamation. It's something that every blogger who puts his opinion out on the internet should be mindful of.
Good lord. Are you really so literal as to claim someone cannot hold knowledge of science because they indulge in a little metaphor?
I find it so interesting how strident you are about being banned (for breaking rules - Rubberneckers only allows threads in certain formats, but you clearly didn't bother to read the rules or, if you did so, you ignored them).
You could, however, learn the difference between complement and compliment, they're/their/there....
You may know a lot about knitting, a lot about Science, but not much else.
Science is about ideas - does it work or not. Is it real, or not?
If someone puts up a concept or technology, and then science demands a discussion of the idea, not the author.
When someone puts up a 500 year old idea that was used commercially for for 300 years, it is real, and it works. Any criticism is not science, it is politics, or religion or commercial interest.
If one makes errors in their science, then the errors may be elucidated by others. Once the errors have been pointed out, then repeated errors indicate that the works containing the errors of fiction, politics, or religion or commercial interest.
The stuff I do, works very well. I can do it anywhere including in front of judge/jury, a lawyer taking a deposition, or classroom full of students. Anyone who thinks that it does not work is making deep errors in their science and technology. I have pointed these errors out. If they still cannot understand, that is not my problem.
Post a Comment