Opps, my mistake. I missed the beginning of the quote.
RUSH: ...They say that the modern era of conservatism
has descended into harshness and other things.
MR. BUCKLEY: Well, that's a weapon. People use that
when they want to be anti-Limbaugh. They will say,
"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?
> 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?
There you go again. Rather than debating the issues,
disqualify and discredit the voice, then, is the
technique.
-sm
> 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]
