Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
You literally said, "his tweet was wrong, how would you like it if I called you a sexual deviant?" There's a difference between calling someone bad at their job and actually inventing facts about them, and that difference is important enough that you can only be sued for one of them. So maybe if you're going to be analogizing, make it one that's an apt analogy.
I mean, damn, calling me out for using logic? That's a new one... along the same lines, how would you like it if I tore off both your arms? Pretty much the same thing, I think you'll agree.
|
Who cares how apt his analogy was. Don't make a career out of butting into exchanges between two people and criticising some random aspect of the conversation that really has absolutely no bearing on the validity of the points being made to anyone but you, who nobody is attempting to make the point to. Like me! I just did it right now! Sorta.
Yes there's a difference between the two things you mentioned. No, for the purposes of us all having interesting conversation on the forum we like, does it remotely matter what the difference is. It's just distracting from the conversation that actually matters, which is:
It's not appropriate to fire off damning tweets that are based solely on opinion, 'technically' libel or not,
when you're the president-elect of the United States of America and your opinions, thanks to your reach and status, are as good as stone-cold facts to a lot of people.
I think it's a great point, even though his analogy was basically the text version of the human centipede. Know what I mean?
