4 ms·

The Guardian did not issue a correction about Hersh's words. There was nothing to correct about them: the quote from Hersh is accurate. The Guardian issued a fo

The Guardian did not issue a correction about Hersh's words. There was nothing to correct about them: the quote from Hersh is accurate. The Guardian issued a footnote/amendment (in their words), and here it is from the Guardian that you're referring to, as context: > This article was amended on 1 October 2013. The original text stated that Hersh sold a story about the My Lai massacre to the New York Times for $5,000 when in fact it was the Times of London. Hersh has pointed out that he was in no way suggesting that Osama bin Laden was not killed in Pakistan, as reported, upon the president's authority: he was saying that it was in the aftermath that the lying began. Finally, the interview took place in the month of July, 2013. Note that from this footnote that Seymour Hersh does not admit that he misspoke. He claims that he never suggested that Osama bin Laden was not killed. This is plainly a straight lie, given his claim that the White House's statement did not contain one word that was true. If he wants to state that he misspoke in this interview: fine, then he should do it. But to state that he didn't make this claim is itself misinformation. Edit: You're accusing me of bad faith. Can you please explain how my argument is deceptive or a lie? If anything, Seymour Hersh has acted in bad faith in this ordeal, lying about his own statements. And people should be suspect of him for that.

boomboomsubban 4y ago
Saying an amendment isn't a correction seems silly. When your entire argument is "this one sentence when taken literally with no context can be considered crazy," I don't think you're arguing in good faith.
boomboomsubban 4y ago
>. Can you please explain how my argument is deceptive or a lie? You condensed an entire book/section of a book that Hersh wrote into one sentence and then attacked it as if it were the argument he presented. It's not. It's something he said offhand in an interview about the book, and which he immediately clarified was not meant in the way people were taking it. You're taking the worst possible interpretation of what he said and arguing he clearly meant that. Hence, not arguing in good faith.
- beebmam 4y ago
  That's not the definition of a bad faith argument. Here's a definition of bad faith according to Wikipedia: "Bad faith (Latin: mala fides) is a sustained form of deception which consists of entertaining or pretending to entertain one set of feelings while acting as if influenced by another. ... Some examples of bad faith include: ... a prosecutor who argues a legal position that he knows to be false" Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith I have not engaged in deception in the statements I've made in this thread a single time. However, it is important to point out that Seymour Hersh has indeed engaged in bad faith in his statements about Osama bin Laden, by refusing to acknowledge that he either originally misspoke, or he changed his claim about the White House's statement. In either case, he is being deceptive in his statements as I've demonstrated above, exactly what it means to argue in bad faith.
  - boomboomsubban 4y ago
    And now you're making your rebuttal hinge on the exact definition of a term I never used. You aren't arguing in good faith. You aren't trying to be fair, open, and honest. Like your repeated claim that Hersh saying he in no way was suggesting that bin Laden was not killed in Pakistan is him refusing to acknowledge he misspoke. Or your constant ignoring of anything Hersh has said on the matter besides the one sentence you object to. Neither of those things are fair, or honest about his argument.
    - beebmam 4y ago
      Okay, so if I'm understanding you right, and correct me if I'm wrong, you are claiming that your definition of "bad faith" differs from Wikipedia's definition. Is that correct? Would you be willing to offer a definition of what you mean by "not in good faith"?
      - boomboomsubban 4y ago
        I said you aren't arguing in good faith, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith Maybe you aren't being intentionally deceptive, I can't say. But as I pointed out you are not being fair and honest about Hersh's argument, which is more nuanced than the one sentence.

boomboomsubban 4y ago

Saying an amendment isn't a correction seems silly. When your entire argument is "this one sentence when taken literally with no context can be considered crazy," I don't think you're arguing in good faith.

boomboomsubban 4y ago

>. Can you please explain how my argument is deceptive or a lie? You condensed an entire book/section of a book that Hersh wrote into one sentence and then attacked it as if it were the argument he presented. It's not. It's something he said offhand in an interview about the book, and which he immediately clarified was not meant in the way people were taking it. You're taking the worst possible interpretation of what he said and arguing he clearly meant that. Hence, not arguing in good faith.

beebmam 4y ago
That's not the definition of a bad faith argument. Here's a definition of bad faith according to Wikipedia: "Bad faith (Latin: mala fides) is a sustained form of deception which consists of entertaining or pretending to entertain one set of feelings while acting as if influenced by another. ... Some examples of bad faith include: ... a prosecutor who argues a legal position that he knows to be false" Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith I have not engaged in deception in the statements I've made in this thread a single time. However, it is important to point out that Seymour Hersh has indeed engaged in bad faith in his statements about Osama bin Laden, by refusing to acknowledge that he either originally misspoke, or he changed his claim about the White House's statement. In either case, he is being deceptive in his statements as I've demonstrated above, exactly what it means to argue in bad faith.
- boomboomsubban 4y ago
  And now you're making your rebuttal hinge on the exact definition of a term I never used. You aren't arguing in good faith. You aren't trying to be fair, open, and honest. Like your repeated claim that Hersh saying he in no way was suggesting that bin Laden was not killed in Pakistan is him refusing to acknowledge he misspoke. Or your constant ignoring of anything Hersh has said on the matter besides the one sentence you object to. Neither of those things are fair, or honest about his argument.
  - beebmam 4y ago
    Okay, so if I'm understanding you right, and correct me if I'm wrong, you are claiming that your definition of "bad faith" differs from Wikipedia's definition. Is that correct? Would you be willing to offer a definition of what you mean by "not in good faith"?
    - boomboomsubban 4y ago
      I said you aren't arguing in good faith, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith Maybe you aren't being intentionally deceptive, I can't say. But as I pointed out you are not being fair and honest about Hersh's argument, which is more nuanced than the one sentence.