On Thursday 18 Dec 2008 12:46:17 am Perry E. Metzger wrote: > All that said, people seem to be taking you to task for ignoring the > fact that terrorism is a very small killer which is very hard to > address, and much bigger killers which are cheaper and easier to > address go unanswered. Do you have a good answer for them?
Well I need to explain what you have yourself done just in case you are doing this without realizing it Let me explain You word a question in the following manner: 1) "X is bad, but Y is worse" 2) "Do I have a "good" answer for why anyone should bother about the lesser problem X" This sort of tactic comes naturally to people in political debate and is the stuff of rhetoric and dialectic. The question removes the focus of discussion from terrorism, by saying that something else is worse. It then piles up conditionality on the answer by saying "Do you have a "good" answer?" The final judgement of what is a "good" answer and what is not a good answer is left to the person asking the question. In other words the question is worded so at to: a) to take the focus away from the point of discussion b) Leave a door open to declare any answer as "not good" No reply can be given to this sort of question. It is not meant to be a serious attempt at discussiong something. it is an attempt to dodge and fudge. A lot of people just learn to do this by trial and error and imagine that they are well informed debaters. Those who learn to do it deliberately are deadly opponents in a debate when arrayed against those who are innocent of such tactics. Which of these groups do you believe you belong? The accidental rhetorician or the deliberate one? shiv
