Talk:Bad apples excuse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Origin seems wrong

I'm fairly certain the phrase "a few bad apples" and the view that it's a dubious excuse predates GW Bush by decades. Do the sources really support the more recent use? -- Kendrick7^talk 07:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Right, exactly, that phrase is as old as dirt as the quotes support, but the article isn't about that phrase in and of itself, it's about a new phrase in the context of deconstructing the excuse. The exact phrase "Few Bad Apples excuse" is recent and represents a more general, public awareness that organizations and communities attempt to distance themselves from marked lapses in accountability by framing them as the exception and therefore little reflection on the organization or community itself--rather fallaceous as we have come to see--although it can support an argument which actually addresses the issue of accountability, as the Sagan quote also demonstrates. Should I say so in the article? No, that would be OR. Should I cite the reams of blogs and newsgroups using the new phrase? They aren't sourceable. But try Google News to scan for the phrase prior to 2004... there's limited use previous to it, Olsztynski using it in reference to Enron et. al. and nothing before Sept. 1, 2002.

So no, one more thing that Al Gore can't take credit for inventing, but definitely another instance of him being on the cutting edge. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

After sleeping on it, I'll relent and just let the number of citations speak for themselves. ClaudeReigns (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Now the references to "few bad apples excuse" are chronological. Hopefully some more citations will make a more visible pattern without the raising of eyebrows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClaudeReigns (talk • contribs) 22:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It occurred to me over the holidays that the concept is actually present in the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus says:

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Just so, every good tree bears good fruit, and a rotten tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. So by their fruits you will know them."

The use of the apple as a placeholder for the generic fruit in the Bible (e.g. in the Adam and Eve story) goes back aways too. So while calling it the "Bad apple excuse" is new, the concept is ancient enough. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see you've got that in the quotes section already. Nevermind, we're on the same page here I guess. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and hopefully the other wikizens won't single me out as a "fruitcake" for this. :| I'm not exactly sure why there isn't a related Murphy's Law or logical fallacy. I'm unsure why there isn't a whole category/listing on evasion tactics of modern organizations/leaders. It's as though this should link directly with non-denial denial and non-apology apology as well as plausible deniability. Maybe some public relations expert has already written the book on this, but seems to have "flown under the radar". ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For the love of Christ

LOL Kendrick, gonna revise this so you're not lynched. I used KJV not because it's the most modern but the least controversial. I know, I know WP:MOS won't let it stand, but you've made J.C. out to be an such an ignorant carpenter's son that he doesn't even know the stages of tree decay. We can't use your "translation". It isn't even a recognized translation of Luke 6:43 according to any of the texts at biblegateway.com. So I'm going to re-translate this at great risk of personal harm... Jack Chick will seriously fong me if I use anything remotely Catholic[1], and I couldn't possibly see myself using the New King James Version since rumor has it that the translation was commissioned by dominionists from the Council for National Policy. THEREFORE, I'll replace with the Darby Bible just to keep connotations as close as possible. (All other modern translations of this are as morally hard-hitting as a wet noodle). ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hah, OK. You guessed correctly that I was using the NAB.[2] I don't think there's going to be doctrinal issues with this one sentence, though I suppose any theological slant in a translation is as likely to be in the Sermon on the Mount as anywhere else. But I'm scared to think I'll be hunted down by Chick fans (sigh, again?), so I'm just happy with any translation not conjugating verbs using "eth." -- Kendrick7^talk 05:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Again??? You really know how to party [3] Kidding! =D ClaudeReigns (talk) 11:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)