<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Kevin Graeme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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.
Huh? First, that sentence doesn't parse gramatically. But I think I
understand what you are trying to say. Second, I wasn't the one that
posted the transcript that was discussing the criticism of the
technique. You did. You brought it up. I was simply commenting on the
efficacy of the technique.
But I'll agree with your statement that I'm discrediting the
technique. And it's not just me. I'm talking not from a political
perspective at all here, but from the abstract perspective of
forensics (the art or study of formal debate). There are certain
techniques which are accepted as counter-productive to meaningful
dialog. Things like polemic arguments, straw-man arguments,
non-sequitors, etc. They are extremely useful at persuasive speaking
because their very intent is to obfuscate the truth and confuse the
listener in order to sway their opinion. They are extremely useful at
that and they are the techniques which Rush, O'Reilly, et al use to
great effectiveness. And I give them credit for that.
But when there is a discussion of the issues, and someone resorts to
citing people who use these techniques, it's not surprising that
people discredit them because their techniques are DESIGNED to avoid
talking reasonably about the issues.
I would hazard a guess that Rush isn't always wrong. The funny thing
is that people who think in the polemic style are often unaware of the
logical fallacies it can introduce. So they are honest in their
beliefs that they are making logical arguments. The problem is that
because of how people like Rush use these techniques, they wantonly
interweave truth and fiction. So the only option is to dismiss it all
since the methodology itself can't support the conclusions.
-Kevin
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
