Does the end justify the means with regards to fearmongering?

[Foxfyre]

I'm sorry. You did not understand my post. Limbaugh is wrong about Liberals. Limbaugh tells you what you want to hear about Liberals and you lap it up with a spoon. Limbaugh takes the darkest possible rationale and expands upon it to make it more palatable for you to believe.

If I said Conservatives are motivated by greed, lust for capital and ignorant of all the harm they leave in their wake while amassing more and more riches, I would be fear mongering. It would be a palatable message for anyone who is Liberal and unwilling to unearth the truth for themselves. But, by your own definition of fear mongering, I would be inserting a dishonest toxic element into a concept or issue or news item in order to sway public opinion.

So your definition of fear mongering is being wrong?

Or you say (said earlier) that fear mongering is Limbaugh saying what liberal are motivated by. Here you are saying what I want to hear and what I lap up with a spoon. Are you fear mongering when you tell me what you think about me that way? Or are you simply expressing your opinion of me?

It would be fear mongering to tell untruths about conservatives in order to persuade people to fear them or create a distrust in them. But if you believe your definition of conservatives is accurate and that people should distrust them, is that fear mongering?

So again, if Limbaugh is wrong about liberals but believes he is right, is he fear mongering? If Limbaugh is right about liberals and tells it like it is, is he fear mongering?

I think you so far have been framing everything or everybody you don't like as fear mongering.

Everything you don't like or disagree with, however, is not fear mongering, Fear mongering is framing your argument in a way to dishonestly generate fear. It's like telling your kid that if he does that, Santa Clause won't come even though you know that's a lie. That's fear mongering. It's telling somebody if they touch something they will be poisoned or electrocuted when you know it isn't true. That's fear mongering.

Telling people an untruth about somebody or creating a false impression about somebody so that the person will be despised or distrusted or rejected is fear mongering.

Tell people an untruth about a philosophy or theory or action to generate alarm and opposition to it is fear mongering.

Telling the truth as you see it is NOT fear mongering.

 

[Foxfyre]

Personally, since conservatives have become smarter to more effectively deflect or counter the stupid accusations about racism and being racist, fear mongering has become the new code word for liberals to use to attack conservatives.

(I suppose I'm 'fear mongering' just saying that. )

 

[Nosmo King]

I'm sorry. You did not understand my post. Limbaugh is wrong about Liberals. Limbaugh tells you what you want to hear about Liberals and you lap it up with a spoon. Limbaugh takes the darkest possible rationale and expands upon it to make it more palatable for you to believe.

If I said Conservatives are motivated by greed, lust for capital and ignorant of all the harm they leave in their wake while amassing more and more riches, I would be fear mongering. It would be a palatable message for anyone who is Liberal and unwilling to unearth the truth for themselves. But, by your own definition of fear mongering, I would be inserting a dishonest toxic element into a concept or issue or news item in order to sway public opinion.

So your definition of fear mongering is being wrong?

Or you say (said earlier) that fear mongering is Limbaugh saying what liberal are motivated by. Here you are saying what I want to hear and what I lap up with a spoon. Are you fear mongering when you tell me what you think about me that way? Or are you simply expressing your opinion of me?

It would be fear mongering to tell untruths about conservatives in order to persuade people to fear them or create a distrust in them. But if you believe your definition of conservatives is accurate and that people should distrust them, is that fear mongering?

So again, if Limbaugh is wrong about liberals but believes he is right, is he fear mongering? If Limbaugh is right about liberals and tells it like it is, is he fear mongering?

I think you so far have been framing everything or everybody you don't like as fear mongering.

Everything you don't like or disagree with, however, is not fear mongering, Fear mongering is framing your argument in a way to dishonestly generate fear. It's like telling your kid that if he does that, Santa Clause won't come even though you know that's a lie. That's fear mongering. It's telling somebody if they touch something they will be poisoned or electrocuted when you know it isn't true. That's fear mongering.

Telling people an untruth about somebody or creating a false impression about somebody so that the person will be despised or distrusted or rejected is fear mongering.

Tell people an untruth about a philosophy or theory or action to generate alarm and opposition to it is fear mongering.

Telling the truth as you see it is NOT fear mongering.

Your argument in defense of Limbaugh is: even if it's a lie, if Limbaugh believes it, he's not lying.

Limbaugh tells his audience lies about Liberals and his audience either whole heartedly agrees with him out of sheer ignorance or lack of intellectual curiosity. Limbaugh sells his audience lies because lies are a tasty dish if prepared properly. And it remains to the audience to either seek out the truth or accept Limbaugh's bill of fare. Limbaugh creates his success by fear mongering lies about Liberals and those rewarding him for the effort have not the guts nor the brains to see they are being lied to.

It's your definition. I copied it right from your post. I still have it. See:

inserting a dishonest toxic element into a concept or issue or news item in order to sway public opinion

Limbaugh's stock in trade is a dishonest, toxic element designed specifically to obfuscate his opposition's point of view, beliefs and motivations.

 

[Foxfyre]

And back to the question whether fearmongering is ever a means to justify an outcome. I would say yes.

If I can stop somebody from jumping to his death by telling him he'll go to hell if he does that, I am definitely fear mongering, but wouldn't that be justified to save his life? Does the end justify the means?

If I can stop somebody from pulling the trigger and murdering somebody by telling him there is a gun barrel against his head when there isn't, I am fear mongering, but it would be worth it to prevent a tragedy. Does the end justify the means?

If we can persuade a terrorist to tell us of planned mass destruction plots or where the dirty bomb is located by threatening him with some form of torture or death, is it worth it to save dozens, hundreds, thousands of lives? Does the end justify the means?

There really are times when honesty is not the best policy.

But I do not think it is ever justifiable to use fear mongering to increase one's own status, prestige, fame, fortune, influence, or power. It is never justifiable to lie about somebody just to hurt or marginalize them to punish them or because you don't like them or for one's own gain.

This is one case where I think situation ethics do apply.

 

[lizzie]

Limbaugh tells his audience lies about Liberals and his audience either whole heartedly agrees with him out of sheer ignorance or lack of intellectual curiosity. .....Limbaugh creates his success by fear mongering lies about Liberals and those rewarding him for the effort have not the guts nor the brains to see they are being lied to.

Examples of these lies please?

 

[Foxfyre]

It is obvious that Nosmo despises Limbaugh.

But which of the two is fearmongering here?

Does Limbaugh ever tell an intentional untruth about somebody to evoke an action or conclusion related to that person? I haven't caught him doing that. And if he does misrepresent somebody's position on something, he has always been good to lead the very next program with a correction. He is very specific and detailed in the conclusions he reaches.

Nosmo has been saying a great deal of uncomplimentary things about Limbaugh though without giving a single illustration in context of a lie or misrepresentation. Is that to evoke contempt of Rush Limbaugh? If he cannot back up his accusations of Rush with hard evidence, could he be accused of fearmongering?

Or is Nosmo just expressing his personal contempt for an individual without attempting to influence others?

And if we accept that Nosmo is doing that, is it reasonable that this is what Rush also does? And neither is engaging in fearmongering?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Limbaugh indeed is a demagogue. The next time he is talking about a particular Democratic failure (and it may well be), do see if he is talking about himself as well.