4 ms·
1. I am not demonising, I am criticising. There is a fundamental difference. 2. It is based on much more than "rhetoric". 3. The group being criticised is not
by sailormoon 17y ago
1. I am not demonising, I am criticising. There is a fundamental difference.
2. It is based on much more than "rhetoric".
3. The group being criticised is not "informal and nebulous". I was, of course, speaking of the small, well-defined group of people who, against all evidence to the contrary and placing haste and ideology firmly above caution and even-handedness, championed and rammed through the current establishment consensus.
So that's 0 for 3.
- blueben 17y ago1. Calling people "irrational single-interest zealots" hardly constitutes critical thought. 2. If not rhetoric, then what do you base your "criticism" upon? What evidence demonstrates to the rest of us that "they" are irrational single-interest zealots? (I'm particularly curious to see what kind of evidence proves any particular human irrational or zealous) 3. Who, exactly, are "they"?