This Evening
Julian Baggini's latest Bad Moves column is an excellent one. It is about selective quotation which is perhaps more commonly known as quoting out of context. This particular quotation is one I saw repeated over and over again on the pro-war sites. They often used it as a springboard for a little French Bashing. The problem is they were quoting out of context they were leaving out two little words. Were they important words? You be the judge. The two words were "this evening" Chirac was talking about their position that evening. Now go and read it, and if you're one of those that misquoted Mr. Chirac head back to your blog and print a retraction and an apology, or do what you usually do and dismiss it as not important. Place whatever spin on it you like. Nobody will be surprised.
Bad Moves: Selective quotation By Julian Baggini
"My position is that, regardless of the circumstances, France will vote 'no'."
Jacques Chirac, President of France, 10 March 2003What he actually said, in full, was: "My position is that, regardless of the circumstances, France will vote 'no' because she considers this evening that there are no grounds for waging war in order to achieve the goal we have set ourselves, i.e. to disarm Iraq."
Indeed, Chirac explicitly does not rule out the eventual use of force. "France isn't a pacifist country," he said, and it "doesn't refuse war on principle. France considers that war is the final stage of a process."
Comments
Of course they won't retract or apologise, they never do, but they sure like to demand apologies from the left - that is when they're not busy trying to stifle opposing views altogether by implying that opposers are traitors.
Come on Norm... Doug used some pretty sweeping generalizations in that comment... Break out the logical fallacies book!
You're correct Vinny, a statement such as "they never" is a sweeping generalization and unlikely to be true. When Doug says "they sure like to demand apologies from the left" he is pointing to their hypocrisy. This of course is not argument in support of the premise that they never retract or apologize. The statement "when they're not busy trying to stifle opposing views...and implying that opposers are traitors" is an ad hominem attack that even if true does not support the premise. I'm afraid however that you don't get off the hook either. Your addressing the comment and not the point of the post commits the fallacy of diversion. You fail to address the issue by diverting attention away from it with an attack on Doug and his comment. So the point remains if you are one of those who misquoted Mr. Chirac you committed the fallacy of "quoting out of context" and I would think that you would want to correct the record.
Ahhh... But 1, I never quoted Chirac on anything, mainly because I was tired of the "French Owe Us..." mentality, something you might remember reading on my site...
And 2, contrary to Doug's accusations, I never hesitate to apologize when I'm wrong, write a retraction, an apology e-mail, or take some other corrective measure, as you are well aware.
No diversion there. Just nothing in the argument for me to address except the wild claims made therein :-)
In your March 13th Post The French Do Not Owe Us Anything you said,
[emphasis mine]I'll be looking forward to your post apologizing to Jacque Chirac for your mis-characterization of his position.
Guess I did say it. But I have to tell you, I did some reading...
With all due respect, my piece (which by the way did not use an exact quote) was never proven wrong, either in the interview cited in your article, or another speech by President Chirac, here. In reality, the words "this evening" could have applied to any evening, up to and including the evening the military action started, and their position was the same throughout. They took a position that they would not support a war, and that was the end of their discussion on the issue. Regardless of the reason quoted to assume they aren't opposing the war on principle, they did, up until the last minute.
In fact, their position didn't change until the talk of reconstruction started and they wanted in along with Kofi and Vladimir. In my opinion, in order for the word "this evening" to mean what you're making of it, he would've had to have demonstrated, in some way, that he was open to the alternative to talking. Nothing gives me any indication that he was. And since I based one line on this whole thing, and it wasn't even an exact quote, I don't think an apology or retraction is necessary.
You been studying up on your Rummy logic, Vinny? "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
not to mention, Chirac's statement that there was no need to wage war to disarm Iraq has been proven true (although it was obvious to many beforehand).
Also, sweeping generalizations aren't meant to be true in the sense that they will apply to everyone, everytime. They are meant to point out a trait or characteristic that is pervalent. Vinny is, apparently unwittingly, supporting the "truth" of Doug's statement.
What proved it true? The link to Al Qaeda that's been documented? The regime change that happened? The chemical weapons (including mustard gas) that was dumped in the euphrates river?
That's proof that Chirac was right?
You must've voted for Clinton.
HaHa. THEY all have this odd quirk about Clinton, too.
Guess I was right.
Vinny, with all due respect, i.e. none, you don't have a freakin clue.
Yeah... This from someone who thinks Al Qaeda meeting with Saddam vindicates Chirac.
I don't need your respect, because frankly, it means nothing to me anyway, so when you say none intended, it's about as offensive as calling my hair brown.