Friday, August 18, 2006

Can They Ever Present A Point Of View Without Demeaning Opposing Views?

"There are people who think that every tree should be named and hugged before being cut and then taken out with pallbearers," said Mark Rey, Undersecretary for Natural Resources and the Environment, to a regional council in Montana yesterday.

Why does the rhetoric have to always be something like the above, where it goes beyond the realm of decency? If you disagree with a particular point of view, there's no need to slander and marginalize the opposing idea through name calling of the adherent. It's never just a simple, "well, I beg to disagree with Tom, Dick and Harry." It's always, "Tom, Dick and Harry are lilly livered, scum sucking, terrorist loving, left wing, liberal mother fuckers," (or any one of many different variations on the same theme). Granted, the above is not an example of the most extreme name calling, but it's unjustified name calling just the same.

I'm so tired of the disgusting right wing rhetoric.

1 comment:

Bob said...

That's a "truism" "....a claim that is so obvious or self-evident as to be hardly worth mentioning, except as a reminder or as a rhetorical or literary device." Of course it's true. It's also true that there's people who eat their own shit. But it's even more widely true that there are incompetents & idiots at the highest levels of government, with the biggest idiot of all at the top.