<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So Rush Limbaugh interviewed William F. Buckley Jr.
> the other day and I thought you might like this a bit:
HAHA. William F. Buckley Jr. defending Rush and O'Reilly. That's
classic. Did you hear the one about Goering saying Hitler wasn't all
bad?
Okay, that's a low blow. But really, having people of the same opinion
defending each other's bias isn't really worth much.
> MR. BUCKLEY: ... "Well, Limbaugh belongs in that
> school of polemical thought which really should be
> excluded." They do that to Bill O'Reilly and, of
> course, they've done it to me in the past. I'm not
> saying that that criticism cannot be leveled.
> Sometimes it can be leveled, but to level it with the
> license that they use against you and O'Reilly speaks
> to me of a different motivation. They want to argue
> with you by simply outlawing your voice on the grounds
> that it is eccentric and extreme. It is, as I say,
> simply a polemical device.
>
> RUSH: Rather than debating the issues, disqualify and
> discredit the voice, then, is the technique?
>
> MR. BUCKLEY: I think that's true. I think that's true.
Ha! Now that's funny. You do realize right, that they're whining that
people discount their arguments because their arguments are one-sided
and irrational?
A polemic argument, by definition is about taking an extremist and
divisive opinion. By its very nature, it's antithetical to reaching
consensus and understanding. It is about dogmatically attacking
someone else's opinions instead of trying to get them to understand
your point of view.
Saying the polemic style should be excluded from a rational discussion
that is trying to reach consensus is not trying to outlaw Rush or
O'Reilly. It's just saying that you can't use the polemic style in
such a discussion because they are counter-opposites and as such it is
counter-productive.
-Kevin
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
