demonization and similar manners of argument support

Politics and Ideology at Coyote Blog:

But what I have no tolerance for is the demonization of opposition as a substitute for fact-based rebuttal, and even better, working to understand what differences in core assumptions lay at the heart of the disagreement. The healthiest possible discussion is to trace competing arguments back to the point where both sides can say, yes, here’s where we diverge. I would like to think my climate article last week was a good example of doing this.

The stimulus was “an article for attempting to summarize the climate debate.”

The related topic for today seems to be about Republicans wanting to starve old folks or something similar. Same phenomena. Same problem with intellectual integrity. Same wondering why anyone would buy such irrational argument. The climate article at Forbes was a good example of proper clarification of a troubling issue to serve for comparison and contrast.

Comments are closed.