It is adding insult to injury to claim that I or someone else would have more credibility if I didn’t write for a “right-wing site.” This is an extraordinarily important way that the debate is being narrowed and dummied up. First, of course, I would never make a parallel argument. What matters is whether the claims have credibility. Does it make sense? Is it internally consistent? Does it correspond with otherwise known information? This is the path of logic, of the Enlightenment. Reputation of the author might be a useful factor, too. An argument from al-Qaida can be quite correct regardless of where it comes from. Thus, this approach is part of the de-rationality of Western thought today. It is a weapon: disregard everything that comes from a source that disagrees with you on other issues. Second, if I wanted to write about the so-called demographic threat (which I can prove in five minutes is nonsense) or write that Israel must make peace right away I can publish it in the NY Times. So first they bar certain arguments from the mass media and then they say that it proves that these are biased because of the few remaining and smaller places it appears. In other words, first you bar people and arguments; then you say that the fact that they are barred proves that they—not you—is the biased one. If you want me to talk about the so-called demographic threat let me know.
Posted on: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 14:57:59 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015