[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
wrong.
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.
Beornheard