Monday, July 06, 2020

Liberals: a personal attack is not a valid counter-argument  

Jun 16. 2019
Facebook Twitter
Seeking to impress, Dr Frank resorts to phrases such as “total entropy”, “slavishly chauvinistic”, and “hagiographical apologies” in an unconvincing criticism of Donald Trump (“No amount of adulation will make him ‘greatest’”, Letters, June 15-16).

A simple reference to relevant facts would suffice in garnering readers’ respect. And by the way, a fact is not another critic’s slur or a Trump quote taken out of context. Straightforward expression is a measure of conviction worth noting. Irony and sarcasm is frequently a sign of ego run amok. 

Similarly Lungstib resorts to attacking JC Wilcox rather than composing a rational counter-argument in a civil manner. Our liberal friends, frequent contributors to this precious public forum, habitually resort to this belittling, name-calling strategy. 

Where is the cogent policy outline demonstrating the merits of socialism which proves its historical superiority to Trump’s agenda? 

Having visited Venezuela, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Portland or Seattle, do any of Trump’s critics hold these examples up in support of their point of view? In fact their only resort is slander because their ideas do not benefit anyone except Democrats seeking re-election.

Free education, debt relief, free healthcare, a complete fix for climate change, perfect equality, safe spaces, free housing, the nationalisation of the means of production, censorship of competing points of view, and open borders do not work as policy if freedom and human development are the intended outcome. I welcome a counter-argument, but calling me a crackpot will not qualify. 

Michael Setter

Facebook Twitter
More in Lifestyle
Editor’s Picks
Top News