The definition of civility
dayan
Posts: 475
Because there seemed to be some confusion about it last night:
adhering to the norms of polite social intercourse; not deficient in common courtesy: After their disagreement, their relations were civil though not cordial.
Just because one believes what one says, it does not follow that one is being civil when saying it.
adhering to the norms of polite social intercourse; not deficient in common courtesy: After their disagreement, their relations were civil though not cordial.
Just because one believes what one says, it does not follow that one is being civil when saying it.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
By your standards, no one could call the acts committed on 9/11 terrorism because that would be uncivil.
http://m-w.com/dictionary/terrorism
4 : violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
The difference is that everyone agrees that 9/11 was an act of terrorism, while there is not the same concensus about Israel. In fact there is anything but concensus. You act as if you're just calling a spade a spade, but you're not. You're actually making a very hurtful and loaded argument.
so if i choose to disagree that 9/11 was an act of terrorism, suddenly not 'everyone' agrees and thus, by your definition, after that, anyone who calls it an act of terrorism is acting uncivil.
is that correct?
no.
because it's bullshit.
So you can only hold an opinion and express it if it's widely accepted or else you're being uncivil? Bullshit. Israel's acts very often fit the definition of terrorism.
How are the acts on 9/11 terrorism but Israel's somehow not?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde