bring discourse to boilSlacktivist on schoolhouse logic:
strain substance and set aside
garnish with discord
...Mikey, one of your students, comes running into your office, visibly upset. You ask him what's the matter.From Nate over at Dan Gillmor's -
Mikey tells you that one of the other students, George, beat up his little sister as part of a racket in which he's been stealing lunch money from the first graders.
"I hate that guy," Mikey says, looking like he means it. "He oughtta be expelled."
So you send Mikey back to class and you call George into your office to confront him point blank about the accusations.
"Who told you that?" George asks, "Mikey? You can't trust what he says about me. He hates me. He thinks I oughtta be expelled."
...
If you're a good principal, you'll realize that you can't sort this out sitting at your desk pondering abstractions and getting "balanced" quotes from both sides to ensure fairness. The issue is not who said what, but the substance of the charges.
It's a common dishonest argumentative technique, used by all sides in all contexts when you don't have an answer for the key issues, to pick on small errors on the edges while ignoring the elephant in the middle.From Busy Busy Busy, the Shorter Charles Krauthammer on The Democrats' Smear Race:
That's what the anti-[X] crowd is doing. Unable to face up to the [elephant], they are reduced to waving their hands and saying, "Oooh, look at this error over here."
I've seen this technique used over and over again. The most effective rebuttal is either to ...keep on pounding away with facts ... or confront...with variations of, "Yes, but you ignored the main point of the article. Please respond to that."
Democrats ruthlessly critique Mr. Bush's policies and actions, making him look bad, yet they say Republicans are mean!Name that religion -
Andrew Sullivan shares the spiritual teachings of Mel Gibson
(and, speaking of spiritual teachings...)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Welcome, and thanks for caring enough to donate your time and thoughts toward greater collective wisdom...
Terms of engagement:
* Please be civil.
* * * * Please do not post anonymously * * * (I'd remove this choice if I could, and I may remove your comment if you do) - instead, do this:
Click on the 'Name/URL' radiobutton, then enter your real name (if you're brave) or a pseudonym (if you're not). (You can leave the "URL" field blank.)
Or go ahead and click "Anonymous", but put your name in your comment.
* The Management reserves the right to delete comments (Moderation Certificate can be found here). You can always post it on a blog of your own.
If you run into technical difficulties, please a) accept my apologies, then b) email your comment to aherror2011 at gmail.com with "Comment for [name of this blog]" in the Subject line.
New policy re climate contrarianism comments as of 11/11/2009:
Comments questioning the climate science community's understanding of climate change (97% of active climatologists now believe that the earth is currently warming and that it's human-caused - link) will be deleted unless the commenter:
a) is local
b) uses his real name
c) provides link(s) to substantiate his claim(s)/inference(s)
d) is willing to collaborate on constructing an argument tree, to get us past the usual sterile point-counterpoint-countercounterpoint.
(For people who can't read the above, a summary:
1) Be civil;
2) Don't post w/o giving at least a pseudonym;
3) Don't espouse climate-denial crankery unless you're local and willing to stand behind it.)
Caveats:
1. Comments could be delayed: they are being moderated, and I'm sometimes away from the computer for a day or more.
2. : Perfectly legitimate comments are sometimes miscategorized (by the blogging platform) as spam, & not published. If this happens to yours, please notify me, else I might not notice for a day or two.