[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Search Archives]

Re: Doggeral

On Tue, 23 May 1995, Uther (Brian Flynn) wrote:

> While I don't agree with the original ditty, neither can I agree with 
> this response to it.  What Beornheard is talking about is not about honor, 
> it's about questioning honor . . .

Sadly, I must disagree on two grounds.  First, when one calls into 
question the integrety of another, as this ditty has done, it is a 
"matter of honor" - and both honor and self-respect demand that if "I" 
call into question the honor of another person, I must be willing to risk 
my self in doing so.  Without that risk of self, there is no . . . danger 
in casting aspersion on another.  The risk of which I speak is not 
physical; it is the risk of being wrong and being accountable for that 

In anonymity there is no means to judge the veracity of the speaker.  And 
if a "truth" is so universally known that the statement of it is 
unchallenged, then there is no risk in saying it.

"Questioning honor" as Uther puts it, is an honorable act - if done with 
honor.  Done by other means, we call it slander.