3 ms·
I’m not familiar with the source material you’re alluding to. Maybe it’s more nuanced than your analogy suggests. If that’s the case, you basically set up a str
by jakelazaroff 6y ago
I’m not familiar with the source material you’re alluding to. Maybe it’s more nuanced than your analogy suggests. If that’s the case, you basically set up a straw man for your own argument.
The point I’m making is that the way in which one makes an argument can reveal more than a strictly logical reading of its premises and conclusion. So it’s possible that even if Scott wrote his whole FAQ and came out against whatever it is, people are still justified in thinking he’s more sympathetic to it than he lets on.
- civilized 6y agoIt's possible, but it's misrepresentation to take what people may possibly be justified in believing and externalize it into an action Scott took, of "aligning" himself with Murray. That's dishonest.
- jakelazaroff 6y agoI mean, the reporter may be one of those people. Like, to use your analogy, if I were writing an article on someone and they threw references to Hitler into otherwise innocuous topics like vegetarianism? Maybe I wouldn’t describe it as “aligning themselves”, but I’d probably find it suspicious enough to include.
- civilized 6y agoFine, but would you say the author had aligned himself with Hitler? Because that would be dishonest. The reporter didn't just mention the material, he imposed his own opinion on it without informing his audience. It doesn't matter if you think yourself justified to read between the lines. Reporting should be factual, otherwise it's just your opinion, people can't trust you to help form their opinion, and they have to go to the source material themselves to see what it really says.