Comments by "andy99ish" (@andy99ish) on "CBS Evening News" channel.

Maybe. However more relevant are these facts: Brazilians drink Caipirinha for breakfast and think about sex all the time. Yet they build sturdy planes, like the Embraer.
3
@LW13rc Not really. The press made it sound as if the world allegedly united against Russia would not deliver them weapons or as if these weapons would be of no value. More generally media by and large subscribed to the cherished myth that Russia is about to collapse soon. BTW - that is a myth persisting since some 400 years. Napoleon and Hitler firmly believed in it. No one knows how this conflict will end. Yet it is very unlikely that Russia will lose. A draw is a much more likely outcome.
2
@matthewvaughan8192 You are correct. Another example is the use of "epic" to qualify the survival story, as used by the commentator. A plane crash is a dramatic occurrence, an episode, not an epic. Besides, the commentator uses "epic" as an adjective - as far as I know it is solely a noun.
2
Oh, you are so absolute. What about the USA being based on genocide of native Americans ?
1
@KH_FYM Error. Under freedom of speech I can qualify things said by others as bad and wrong, no matter how "society" sees these things. The US constitution protects freedom of speech, but not speech of person A from being criticized by person B. Are you from North Korea ?
1
@KH_FYM "The first Amendment protects every single statement that you said." Wrong. What is protected is his freedom to say things. But what he says is open to qualification of others. They also have the right to free speech, you know.
1
@KH_FYM Well it does. As you have stated that even qualifying other speech as being bad or wrong is somehow impermissible. But the issue in this case is rather if firing someone for his/her political views is impairing free speech. To my understanding it is. My reasoning is as follows: If speech is to remain free it cannot be punished by disproportionate consequences (nor be allowed to be punished by employers etc.). Now that one's speech will be criticized by others is an acceptable consequence (and actually the very essence of free debate). But firing someone is not an acceptable consequence. As that comes close to systems in which one can say what he wants but will be jailed for doing so. Hardly free speech. So I am with you that there is a tendency to impair free speech and that this tendency is worrying.
1
@KH_FYM My understanding is different from current legal thinking, but not wrong. I hold allowing the right to fire for exercising free speech as impairing free speech and I have good reasons to do so. As legal positions are not fixed forever, maybe some day legals thinking will arrive at the same conclusion. Legal thinking generally tends to lag behind reality. The reality being a world which is a) constantly narrowing the scope of what "correct" thinking is and b) of concentration of employers. The modern number one threat to constitutionally granted freedom of speech is therefore the employer, not government.
1
Do you suggest that criticizing actions of the state of Israel constitutes hostility towards US citizens of Jewish origin ? If so, then be aware that under this logic criticizing Rwanda for not preventing massacres would constitute harassment of US citizens of African origin. That seems hardly reasonable.
1
@larryhorowitz6690 I am not really convinced. As there are many phrases which also have a dark side, like "Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité" , "Go West, young man" or "Mission Accomplished". Shall we ban them all, as they might imply chopping off dissenters' heads, eliminating Natives or starting an illegitimate, even illegal war ? Do we really want to have a country in which individuals are pressured to have "The Correct Opinion" about the French Revolution, the conquest of North America, the Iraq War of 2003 ?
1
mOejOe33 Now yours t is a statement so easy to be refuted that it is like shooting a lame duck from a distance of 10ft. Yet I will: According to your fabulous logic all Europeans who settled in the USA instead of "fixing their countries" were weak and lame. Is that your position ?
1