4 ms·
Of course it is not an admission of guilt. It is very clearly used as such. 'Being defensive' is meant to be bad thing; it's never used in a neutral or positiv
by Confusion 16y ago
Of course it is not an admission of guilt.
It is very clearly used as such. 'Being defensive' is meant to be bad thing; it's never used in a neutral or positive way. That's why the analogy from nature fails: 'defending yourself from a lion', in whatever way, is a morally neutral act. 'Being defensive' is not intended to be morally neutral.
- swombat 16y agoBeing defensive is seen as a bad thing because you're only defensive when you perceive a serious enough threat. Occasionally, lies can be serious threats, but when it comes to scandals like this, the most serious threat is, in fact, when the scandal does in fact have a solid basis in reality. So, the defensive reactions by both Dave and Ron indicates that there is probably substantial and threatening truth behind Michael Arrington's post.
- Confusion 16y agoSo, the defensive reactions by both Dave and Ron indicates that there is probably substantial and threatening truth behind Michael Arrington's post. False rumors, false accusations, slander, etc. can be pretty threatening things that need to be defended against, because they can ruin you. People do not seem to consider that option at all and the only evidence that is given is that the reaction is 'defensive'. I wouldn't like to be a defendant in their court. If you keep silent, you are guilty, because you are hoping it will blow over. If you deny the accusations, you're just doing what you were expected to do and the force of the accusation doesn't wane. When you defend yourself, you're being defensive, which is an admission of guilt, because it acknowledges there was a threat. A sad state of affairs, reminiscent of the witch hunts.