Well, I picked a fine time to go for a swim! But I'm now all scrubbed and powered and ready to respond.
She has so often been horrid
X has, IMO, a very sharp tongue. I can see why those who have been on the receiving end might dislike her and want to lash out at her with insults. If brees had characterized X as mean and nasty, terms I have heard applied before, and you had called that conclusion harsh but accurate, I would not have questioned your assertion.
to those that profess an attachment to truth, justice, and principles
It seems to me, as well, that the typical targets of X's sharp tongue are those who argue that there is a package of fixed human truths, values, principles which has been established by a deity. She argues that those things are human constructs, subject to change by humans. She doesn't argue against values, etc. in general or even against most of the particular ones that the targets hold dear. She has talked often of her own personal ones. My observation is that she mainly challenges the assertion that theses things have an absolute basis.
Brees stated that X has said that values, etc. are distasteful to her. That's not at all the same thing. You obviously recognize that or you would not have used the qualifiers "self-evident" and "immutable." What brees said is not "accurate." What X finds distasteful is the assertion of immutability, not the values themselves. The reason I bring this up now when I've avoided comment before is because you have a good mind. Your conclusion that brees's statement is accurate gives a certain imprimatur to his words that I don't think is warranted.
Karen |
