A) Can these errors in the document be debunked and shown to be inccorect
B) Can this be reviewed and debated without anyone resorting to use of "birther" or any other derrogative term used to describe anyone who raises questions about presindet Obamas birth certificate fiasco? I call it a fiasco because regardless of what the truth is it has been a mess that could have been avoided from the very start had the choice to do so been made.
So is this Bunk (and if so how) or does this raise valid issues that need to be addressed?
Thanks to all who can post without resorting to obvious logical fallacies.
Last edited by BlueCollarCritic; July 18th, 2012 at 01:48 PM.
First off thanks for taking the time to reply. Second, thank you for doing it without resorting to logical fallacies and using derogative terms like “brithers”. I say that not because you normally do respond with logical fallacies and derogative terms (you don’t) but a few others do.
That said, here’s the problem with the article you provided and that applies to any similar debunking piece. Joe Arpaio, regardless of what you think of him is acting in an official manner as a law enforcement officer. Any act of willful distribution of knowingly false information by an officer of the law is very different from news (and news like media) doing the same. The Court ruled a few years back (I don’t; recall the case or exact date but it involved the 2 former FOX News investigative reporters who did an expose on Monsanto) that the news was not required to be truthful. That’s not the exact wording of the decision because I am doing this from memory but that’s the net effect. Yes the news can still be held liable for slander but that’s very different from being required to tell the truth.
As an officer of the law Joe Arpaio is required to be truthful and honest in any investigation. The cops can lie to suspects and people they are interviewing to try and trick them into providing information that they might otherwise have withheld but willful distribution of knowingly false information to the public that is slanderous or that accuses someone, especially a public figure can get the officer in serious trouble. Yes it’s possible that all possible parties that could go after Joe Arpaio have decided not to do so but that’s very unlikely.
I admit I have no proof that the debunking piece is wrong but I do know that they could be wrong and not get in trouble whereas the same is not true for an officer of the law.
I find the argument that "because he's a cop, it's more likely to be true" rather suspect. Anyway, he could easily just say that he believed it to be true, and he'd be off the hook. But either way, it's not really a good argument. The actual facts speak for themselves. Arpaio is simply wrong, and rather obviously just riding his 15 minutes.