Stop!
Toyin Falola
To repeat, please don't insult anyone but make your arguments.
There is no point to call anyone a liar. Present your facts and counter opinions and let us all decide.
PLEASE!
Moderator
Sent from my iPhone
Cornelius Hamelberg
Sir,
It is not a session of the British House of Lords - or the House of Commons where a constitutionally ordained speaker (somewhat akin to your Moderator's function Sir) maintains forum decorum/ etiquette, but we admit that expressions such as ”unmitigated stupidity” and the word liar is a pretty strong word with which to paint a friend, decorate an opponent or tarnish an enemy - even if he/she merits the title - as the Rev. Ian Paisley found out when he accused a fellow Hon. Gentleman in the British House of Commons of being a liar - for which he paid dearly.
Despite the predominance of the English Language as the vehicle of our polite exchanges and not discounting whatever pretensions we may have about Holy Westminster, we are aware that cultural considerations such as the respect due to elders, should also be observed (reasonably) here in this forum...
An uncertainty that gives no peace of mind : Could acceptable (accepted by whom?) euphemisms and circumlocutions such as Churchill’s “terminological inexactitude” pass thine blue litmus test?
Yours Sincerely,
Cornelius
Stop (blues)
The end.
Cornelius Hamelberg
Sir,
Forum decorum / school discipline, at least within the school premises. Reminds one of school days, the rascal, be patient; wait for him outside when school is over...
One can only be grateful to be hanging out here in cyberspace, safe from physical danger, because beyond the mere words that cannot break anyone's bones, some of the tensions that have gathered around discussions about the 1966 coup, the history of Biafra, the war against corruption and now the debates about whether or not it should be halal to name your okuru dog after the president of Nigeria or any of his relatives that bear the same surname – there's no guarantee that with passions getting out of control, such palaver could not have occasionally erupted into an exchange of physical blows, maybe, even gunfire. (You can take him out of the jungle but you cannot shake the jungle out of him) as we can see often happens in these places when emotions get the better of their masters…
On Sunday, 4 September 2016 16:12:01 UTC+2, Toyin Falola wrote:
Salimonu Kadiri
Cornelius, I am just wondering why it is considered a free speech to call a human being a dog while it is an insult to call a human being a liar. We all know that in China and Vietnam, dog meat is a delicious food. In Western Nigeria, dog is a known sacrificial animal to ÒGÚN deity. To me nothing can be more degrading to a person than to be ranked as a delicacy in the pot of soup of the Chinese or a sacrificial animal to Ògún deity, not even when the person barks like a dog in responding to every speech directed to him/her.
To call somebody a liar can only be an insult if there is no proof/evidence to show that the person has lied or is lying. To say one should not call a person, who has lied or is lying, a liar is just like granting to that person freedom to lie. Why should a liar not be called a liar? Even Presidents and Prime Ministers can be called liars when they lie. For instance when Blair and Bush invaded Irak militarily they told the world that they were going to war inorder to destroy weapons of mass destruction possessed by Saddam Hussein governed Irak. Tony Blair went to the extent of telling the world that Saddam Hussein could assemble his nuclear arsenal within 45 minutes. The war started 20 March 2003 and ended 1 May 2003 which means that the war lasted, roughly, 42 days or 60, 480 minutes. Saddam Hussein was not captured until 13 december 2003. If we follow Tony Blair's alarm that Saddam Hussein could assembly his nuclear devices in 45 minutes, it would mean that Saddam Hussein had 1, 344 minutes to his favour since the war did not end within or after 45 minutes. After the war, Blair and Bush were unable to show captured weapons of mass destruction from Irak. In that situation, it could not be an insult to call George Bush and Tony Blair liars, even though they were President and Prime Minister respectively, because they lied that Irak under Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. It may be it feels better for some on this forum if they are addressed as not telling the truth than calling them liars.
S. Kadiri
Skickat: den 4 september 2016 17:17
Till: USA Africa Dialogue Series
Kopia: USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
Ämne: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Stop!
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDial...@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialo...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
O O
Sent from my iPhone
Salimonu Kadiri
'O O', Bush and Blair did not need to act unilaterally outside the United Nation that had their inspectors under the leadership of Hans Blix in Irak. The United Nations inspectors asked Bush and Blair to tell them the place where weapons of mass destruction were located (hidden) in Irak so that they could go there and destroy it according to the mandate given to them by the UN but Bush refused. He ordered the UN inspectors led by Hans Blixt to vacate Irak within 24 hours on 18 March 2003. A mistaken CIA evidence was an invented story to cover the lie that Saddam Hussein's Irak had weapons of mass destruction. 'O O' may wish to know that there was United Nations resolution 687 adopted in April 1991 and which created UNSCOM, organization for weapon inspection in Irak after the Golf War. In that resolution Irak was forbidden to possess/manufacture weapons of mass destruction and she was asked co-operate with the UN inspectors to destroy such weapons in her possession and failure to abide by the resolution would cause UN to use military means to enforce compliance. The UN reported that the inspection's programmes were completed in 1998 even though the UN continued to have monitoring activities in Irak thereafter.
S.Kadiri
Skickat: den 5 september 2016 22:08
Till: usaafric...@googlegroups.com
Ämne: Re: SV: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Stop!
Cornelius Hamelberg
Dear Ogbeni Kadiri,
Cheers!
Maybe not in this series but just let the authorities google it and they will discover that re-baptising your good friend Tony B-liar – is now legal, standard fare elsewhere , almost everywhere else..
There's Burning Spear's lyrics manhandling Columbus's historical claim,
calling him the name...
Previously, in some other thread your have advocated the propriety of calling a spade a spade, and a thief a thief - as in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth but for some genteel, gentlemanly, well-bred navigators, co- pilots and crew, in the interests of maintaining good diplomatic relations with fellows human beings of the USA- Africa series, faithfully practice what they preach...
Which reminds me about this story:
“An elderly Jewish man who served his community as a religious teacher and butcher stood before a German judge who was known for his anti-Semitic views. During all the proceedings he never once called the defendant by his name but referred to him as Mr. Butcher, throughout. When the hearing was over, the judge asked the old man, “Mr. Butcher, do you wish to add anything to your statement?” “Yes Sir”, replied the old man, “ I would like to emphasize that to humans I’m a teacher and only to beasts am I a butcher.”
Unarguably, a thief is a thief is a thief and from the high moral mountain you have also advanced the theory in another thread, that thieves should be called by their proper names : thieves.
You hate the idea that liars should be made an exception or allowed to get away with their infringement of what Obi calls “holy facts”
Mind you , His Majesty legislated that the word liar or it's derogatory meanings should be struck from the dictionary or indeed, that the word liar - as an accusation should never more surface in any of our discussions or disputes about matters of “facts”
That's the way it is Ogbeni Kadiri, the governor has spoken. In the free for all, people are at liberty to call our revered elder a “fascist”, throw bricks like “the devil” “psychopath” “ idiot” “ “believer” “disbeliever” but not “liar”
We are advised to avoid ad hominem approach and allow the facts/ counter-facts , arguments to be sufficient. To ban that sort of word or the disapproval it expresses would be tantamount to Monica saying, “The window of opportunity is open, but the door is closed.”
The tail-end of that your example ( “To me nothing can be more degrading to a person than to be ranked as a delicacy in the pot of soup of the Chinese or a sacrificial animal to Ògún deity, not even when the person barks like a dog in responding to every speech directed to him/her.) -
Chances are that if he growls like a dog, bays at the moon like a hound, and wags his tail faithfully at other times then , verily, to all intents and purposes / he / she/ it is a dog
is a dog
is a dog
Cornelius Hamelberg
Correction. Two missing words : Mind you , His Majesty HAS NOT legislated that the word liar or it's derogatory meanings should be struck from the dictionary or indeed, that the word liar - as an accusation should never more surface in any of our discussions or disputes about matters of “facts”
(Unlike the mischievous scribe in Rushdie's Satanic Verses, who would change some words of revelation and wait to see whether or not the prophet had noticed any alterations...)