4 ms·
The point is that there are plausible cases where you run into these kinds of issues where it’s not as easy as just saying “let’s evaluate the situation solely
by reducesuffering 6y ago
The point is that there are plausible cases where you run into these kinds of issues where it’s not as easy as just saying “let’s evaluate the situation solely on the basis of what the info is.” This ignores the who, when, why, that are extremely relevant in this case, as they were this time 4 years ago.
- fareesh 6y agoIs your stated standard ever applied for other negative stories? There are military generals who have served under multiple administrations. When they decide to go to the media and talk about some negative story about one administration, by your reasoning, it means they're telling a selective truth - unless you choose to believe that they only ever had differences with one administration. There are whistleblowers from the State Department, DOJ, EPA and all kinds of bureaucracies. Are their stories ever met with this standard - i.e. "you're saying the W. Bush administration did this unethical thing, but you aren't telling us what the Clinton administration did". Was there ever a "I'm sorry Mr Deepthroat you may be right about Nixon but you have not told me what LBJ did, and for all we know, that may be worse"