Letters to the Editor
cabdriver
Published Letters: 342 Editor's Choice: 7
-
@Historybuff1
[Read the article: What John McCain didn't learn in Vietnam]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Historybuff, I've had something like 30 years of seeing what "reasoning" ungrounded by evidence does for people- it makes fools of them.
I've also long been appraised of the Power of Persuasive Speaking- an ability that has nothing to do with whether someone knows what they're talking about.
Hence, I know better than to be taken in by pompous lecturing like the fatuous drivel you're spouting-
Facts, you say? I love them. But facts can be easily 'spinned' as you well know. And frankly, quantity of attribution has nothing to do with quality of attribution. Use facts that are universal, not facts that are useful to only one side of an issue.
Your statement that "quantity of attribution has nothing to do with quality of attribution" is worthless.
I realize that a slick talker can employ that sort of homily to pass for common-sense wisdom to the people he's trying to con, but unpacked, there's a subtext that an audience can easily be led to agree with: only believe something if the right people tell it to you. Magical thinking.
If I'm wrong, I invite you to re-phrase the statement
quantity of attribution has nothing to do with quality of attribution
for clarity and tell me, in different words, exactly what you mean by it. Because I find it nebulous. Maybe it means something- it sounds like it does- but I don't know what that "something" amounts to.
Real-world examples would be helpful. (Or "references", as it were.)
Furthermore, it's like this, buff: facts are always universal, whether only one side of a debate likes what they say, or not.
At any rate, you've made no effort to offer either "quantity" or "quality" "of attribution"- as part of the process of evading any return to the historical questions we were previously addressing, in favor of your please-to-meetcha speech.
Of course, you kick that off by having the gall to hold up the ideal of "thinking for yourself" as if that's what you're all about. And that therefore that somehow immunizes you from anyone demanding that you back up your statements with facts.
You're a cheap hustler, man. That isn't an ad hominem, that's a description of your modus operandi.
If you want to state what other's think, reference them; If you want to state what you think, say it - then defend your reasons.
You sound like you don't know the difference between a fact and an opinion. As a rule, I'm not interested in someone referencing someone else's opinions. When I ask for references, I'm generally seeking factual confirmation. And a given fact cannot be spun all by itself, despite your contention (with flattery on the side- "as you well know...") An unethical person with an interest in partisan advantage rather than the truth can interpret or "put a gloss" on a set of facts, in service of an agenda- selectively leaving some out, over-emphasizing others, insinuating associations that upon closer examination and a wider context disappear into the land of fantasy (or slander and libel), and a host of other tactics. But however common that practice may be in some circles, there's always a place for someone who just wants to find out what's really going on, as the chips fall where they will.
And when those people ask for someone to back up their statements with a command of facts- to provide evidence that they're honestly knowledgeable about what they claim, and not simply talking through their hats- someone like yourself may not find nearly as much room to "spin" as you're used to getting.
Attributes were important in English 201 - this is political persuasion 501.
Actually, buff, you've stumbled into the wrong class. This is Phenomenology 25A.
And once enough people learn how to operate a search engine on the Internet- and learn the basic set of Fallacies of Informal Logic in order to immunize themselves against con-men trying to play the Power of Persuasive Speaking- your credibility will reach the level where it really belongs. Once and for all.
-
Semiautodidact
[Read the article: The unbearable whiteness of being]
[Read more letters about this article: Here](no @- it's too white!)
You're giving the game away.
Start your own website.
-
@kickstarts
[Read the article: The unbearable whiteness of being]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]No, you are no longer white.
-
on Webb
[Read the article: What John McCain didn't learn in Vietnam]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]At this point, James Webb's position on the Iraq occupation interests me more than his historical take on the Vietnam war.