While I was hopeful [for a moment] that engaging fellow citizens via the blogging universe in an honest, civil debate might be productive and
fun, it sadly never got off the ground. The debate started and ended with assumptions about positions, name calling and unsubstantiated claims of demonization,
etc. Score another one to the: I am
right and you are evil model of debate that weighs down our public square(s).
The first complaint directed at me from Anonymous was
that I made announcements, offered opinions that I “automatically take as final.” So, I am left to imply from this
claim that you, Anonymous, believes every issue requires a fair and balanced
approach? I am left to assume that you
believe every issue has two equally worthy sides? This is the practice of false balance; the
best example of this is the evolution and intelligent design debate (sure this
won’t sit well with the Eden crew, but only one thing sits well with
them). Sorry Anonymous as this is
simply not possible all the time, not all positions are equal in each debate. So I stand by my “opinion” that your argument that all media, except for Fox News and talk radio, are liberally-biased is WRONG - not evil, just wrong.
And I will repeat, your liberal-media trope is actually a rhetorical bogeyman that is not
true (you want actual proof, evidence of this, read: Rich Media, Poor Country OR Manufacturing
Consent – end of story). I will repeat
for you one final time, this does not mean there are no liberal personalities or
editorial pages within this “media” you decry, but to say that all media is
liberal breaks down on so many fallacious lines, including but not limited to
the logical fallacies of bifurcation, sweeping generalization, faulty
cause/sign/dilemma, straw man, and so on.
The only actual bias is money, starts and ends there!
Next, your most prominent claim is that we lack “sources,
numbers, and backed-up statements.” Here
I cannot deny your claim, but guess what Anonymous, we had not even chosen a
topic for debate, let alone begun the conversation. If this debate had actually occurred, I assure you my
arguments would be grounded by this evidence you so closely cherish. But, this is a BLOG, much like a diary or
journal, and I am not sure how many journals have footnotes, but I am sorry my
post about cooking or a fictional remembrance of a night in Mexico were lacking
the evidence and support that validates human communication for you. Your love for numbers is quite troubling
since the same batch of data you treasure so much can easily be manipulated
to say just about anything (countless folks smarter than me have demonstrated
that statistical data can be problematic for so many reasons, including but not
limited to: loaded questions, biased questions, discarding of contrary data,
false causation, data manipulation, and on and on). But we love numbers, they are so easy to use in order simplify complicated issues and determine who is to blame for our
problems in life. And if you cannot see
and understand the biased, one-sided nature in so many of Eden’s sources,
there is nothing else I can say in this regard. But simply tagging articles to his arguments does not establish its validity.
And, finally, the uncritical eye you have brought to
Eden´s use of source material, well, I am not going to spend much more time on
this because it is a waste of time, my time because I have no belief that you
are capable of reading this with an open mind, and a waste of your time because
this blog post does not reinforce your beliefs already. Nonetheless I
encourage you to become an internet investigator of credible sources, here is a
link to questions you should ask for yourself when evaluating evidence, try reading
one of the following: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/588/02/;
http://help.library.ubc.ca/researching/evaluating-internet-sources/
Seeing how you never responded to my civil questions that
asked for clarification on your many claims against me and this blog makes this most likely a wasted blog entry, but it gives me a chance to regrettably close up shop for a moment on
the hope for civil debate among those that disagree. Instead of using this fundamental principle and practice as an example of our representative government, you and Eden can continue your child-like rants
of name-calling and Eden's violent hopes to befall some of our fellow citizens with statements
like “Obama is a fascist” AND “I just wish the rectum of every single liberal
could look like this ten year old boys’ does” AND “Barack Obama will be the
Antichrist’s most useful idiot” AND “The next time you see a
beatific mother lovingly holding her baby, kindly suggest to her that
she ought to instead pursue the liberal path and slam it on the ground
and bash its brains out.”[1]
No comments:
Post a Comment