The Energon Pub

We're in the middle of local government elections here and i've been following the "letters to the editor" in the local paper because of some comments made by one of those standing for council.

He made some comments about our recent town beautification and how it's made things dangerous (lots of plants planted). Knowing this guy all he needs to do is to learn to slow down at pedestrian crossings, but that's beside the point.

One woman responded to this letter and interpreted what he said as him stating that if he were to be elected he would rip out all the plants.

He countered this with comments like "half-witted" and "moronism". A number of people leapt to the woman's defense as they felt he had attacked her calling her a half-wit and a moron.

After a bit of back and forth the guy in question took out a good half page advertisement explaining how "educated" he and his family are when it comes to the english language and went on to explain that he did NOT call her a half-wit or moron, but rather that the LETTER was "half-witted" and suffered from "moronism" and that he apparently did no wrong of her.

So this is my question. If what he said was about the letter, is that still not insulting towards the author of the letter?

Because the way I see it, if you call a piece of written material "half-witted and suffering from moronism" that is an attack on the person who wrote it.

Well I'm glad to see self rightious polititians are infalable with retractable words all over the world and not just here.

In The US you get tased for doing that! Sad that the Goverment decided that the first amendment is fine so long as they wanna here it. Otherwise, ZAPP!

Still it could be alot worse.

In reguards of this situation, I feel reguardless of nation, polititians need to be reminded that they are civil servants, and start acting with more compasion and tact!

Burn wrote:Because the way I see it, if you call a piece of written material "half-witted and suffering from moronism" that is an attack on the person who wrote it.

I see it like this, two part answer here...

When you put your words to paper or text, you reap the results one way or another. You don't just get to state an opinion and seperate it from potential criticism or praise.

On the other hand, if you can't properly bring critique, and in doing so make yourself look like an ass, well then you reap the results of that too.

I'd be more upset that the politician was so clumbsy as to write like an idiot rather than he insulted someone who probably said something moronic.

Yes it is an insult against the author.

This guy meant to insult her, I'm sure. I think this guy tried to weasel out of his own words by playing the semantics card. Guysays a bunch of stuff, gets backlash, then tries to backpedal by saying people took it the wrong way when they actually didn't.

Truthfully, the politician would have a better case if anyone could hear his arguement over his rapid backpedaling.

Absolutely an insult! All he's trying to do is cover his own ass by stating he was talking about the letter and not the person who wrote it. That in itself is moronic!

It's still an insult, but I'd generally say that insulting someone's actions is fair-game, whereas insulting their physical condition, mental capacity, beliefs, etc. generally is not.

Plenty of brilliant people have done idiotic things after-all, so criticizing something one does is very different from offering blanket criticism of them as a person.

George W., for example, has ridiculous ears, but the American public generally refrains from making fun of him on that respect (although few reservations were held with regard to Perot), instead we make fun of him for screwing up his speeches and choking on pretzels.

Still, saying that the letter was half-witted or moronic is pretty damn weak compared to actually dissecting the fallacies, inconcistencies, and mistakes in the letter.

Although I'll admit, sometimes name-calling can make you feel better. Especially if you've already performed a verbal vivisection on the person.

Dead Metal wrote:Yes it is an insult against the author.

Couldn't have said it better myself; if a candidate here did that, I'd be looking into voting for his opponent.

Caelus wrote:George W., for example, has ridiculous ears, but the American public generally refrains from making fun of him on that respect...

You've apparently never seen an American political cartoon. I recommend the Washington Post

Thunderscream wrote:

Caelus wrote:George W., for example, has ridiculous ears, but the American public generally refrains from making fun of him on that respect...

You've apparently never seen an American political cartoon. I recommend the Washington Post

Exaggeration of physical characteristics is generally necessary for a charicature to be recognizable, as well as desired to maintain the comic tone, but it is seldom the focus of the cartoon.

A political cartoon typically has some other joke tied to it; it generally isn't just a picture of George W. with large ears, it's George W. with large ears being choked by a Terrorist Pretzel.

Yea it's an insult. But I find it funny how someone would consider the restoration of nature dangerous.

Because it's in the middle of town and does limit visibility near pedestrian crossings.

But when it comes to this guy, I just feel he and his 2007 BMW should just slow down. As a pedestrian (I work in town) and a driver, I know to take care near the crossings. I stop before stepping out just like I stop, or at least come to a near stop before the crossings when driving.

if the letter is half witted and moronic then it's a statment of fact, if it's just his opinion then its an insult.

Yeah I'm agreeing with those saying if you insult the letter, you insult the person (or sometimes persons) that wrote it.

And you should slow down near pedestrian crossings (or at least be ready to), even if you can't see anyone near them, it doesn't take much for someone to appear out of nowhere, though in that case they would be at fault, but still, as a driver you should always be paying attention to the road and around you.

I'm not sure how it is in other countries with pedestrian crossing, but here people tend to walk then look, so in a way i can understand what this guy is going on bout, but he shouldn't be such a dick-head bout it!

Person=/=action or product of actions.
Therefore he did not insult the writer.
I'm surprised at the number of people getting it wrong in this thread...

Nice to see not all the idiotic politicians moved to NSW then!

Seems like the wannabe pollie went too far trying to dig himself out of a situation that could have easily been avoided, instead he just dug himself a bigger hole.

And seriously, if the planting of vegetation slows people down when they come to pedestrian crossings in an urban area, then they are doing a service, and doing it well.

homelessjunkeon wrote:Person=/=action or product of actions.
Therefore he did not insult the writer.
I'm surprised at the number of people getting it wrong in this thread...

Oh, I disagree. An insult to the qualities of a thing created (especially when the insult is of this nature) is an insult to the creator.

He said the letter was moronic, possessed of the qualities of a moron. Since only one person created the letter, he is calling the person possessed of the qualities of a moron, since those qualities were imparted to the creation.

Similarly, I could say "this painting looks like it was splattered from the hindparts of an incontinent camel." I would be insulting the artist, unless that was, indeed, the creator's intent.

It doesn't matter now though, because he didn't get elected.

His last ditch ploy was the promise of a covered walkway in the middle of town and vowed he'd raise the money himself if he had to. It'll be interesting to see if he still pushes ahead with that idea or if it was a "i'll only do it if elected, if i'm not, screw you suckers" type thing.

Lorekeeper wrote:He said the letter was moronic, possessed of the qualities of a moron. Since only one person created the letter, he is calling the person possessed of the qualities of a moron, since those qualities were imparted to the creation.

How do you get "the person who wrote this is possessed of the qualities of a moron" from "this writing is possessed of the qualities of a moron"?

That's a huge leap in reasoning.
I can see why the writer might choose to take offence, but that's completely different from being deliberately insulted.