> ...Those throwing stones who have lied
> about information they had and have tried to lay
> traps are the ones accusing him of "moral
> charlatanism"...they see fit not to apply
> this same phrase to Vyse. Apparently the entire
> British government was corrupt in the early 1800's
> and Vyse, being the mindless sheep that he was,
> simply did as everyone else did and so his
> reputation is untarnished. Or so their story goes.
> What he did was illegal at the time, but HE is not
> labeled a criminal. This is not only a very low
> standard for politicians it is also a double
And that seems to be the catastrophic flaw in their argument. By accepting Stower's characterization of Vyse being "...far less egregious and relevant offence of behaving very much like other parliamentary candidates in the early decades of the 19th century", are we, therefore, to attribute that same level of egregious behavior to other politicians involved in the narrative?
What is meant by "less egregious"? What shocking and bad things constitute such egregious behavior? Did "parliamentary candidates" have a monopoly on such egregious behavior or might such a tendency have been more widespread? What about that letter from Palmerston's office notifying Forshall that the crate was supposedly loaded onto the Beatrice? Are we also to consider that suspect as possibly egregious behavior of the time? Was that just a playful white lie that anyone in politics back then would have committed without blinking an eye? After all, what's the harm in offering such a gratuitous platitude?
Is their argument "Sure he was a bit shifty, but everyone was a bit shifty back then!"...and yet we're expected to subscribe to Vyse's veracity despite such ubiquitously shocking and bad behavior that apparently ran rampant at that time? What's going on here?
Sounds like a double standard.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 31-May-16 18:19 by Origyptian.