|« 22 January 2003 « - Back||Archives||Next - » 24 January 2003 »|
To me it highlights how deconstructionist the approach ('fisking') is. Instead of addressing the substance of an argument, one can: attack word choices out of context, over-interpret nuanced phrases as ridiculous absolutes, and spew bile at every turn since one conveniently starts from the assumption that the author is evil or stupid or both.
It's entertaining if you agree with the critic and maddening if you don't; what it isn't is actual, substantive argument that will convince anyone new.
A Modest Declaration
We hold these truths to be self-evidentThere's a lot more; check it out.
Being in a minority isn't evidence of being wrong; ask Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and Washington. Nor is it evidence of being right; ask, oh, Ross Perot or Trent Lott. So people who use being-in-the-minority as evidence against you in an argument aren't exactly arguing substance, they're just engaging in distraction.
Aside: Several commenters on Anil's site didn't seem to get the clear signals (like the title!) that the piece was sarcastic. Just goes to show, you can't underestimate some people.
Links, exploration and|
Photo by my wife
RSS Feed / Atom Feed
More Like This
Q Daily News
Laurel's TV Picks
Randall Bramblett: Thin Places
Doctors, Professors, Kings & Queens: The Big Ol' Box of New Orleans
Tears for Fears: Everybody Loves a Happy Ending
Ye olde Wishe Liste
|« 22 January 2003 « - Back||Next - » 24 January 2003 »|