Of course, the LCV drew first blood by likening Sen. Johnson to a Holocaust denier.
Here’s the LCV page calling for action against “climate change deniers,” including Sen. Johnson.
And here’s the LCV’s manufactured outrage.
Of course, the LCV drew first blood by likening Sen. Johnson to a Holocaust denier.
Here’s the LCV page calling for action against “climate change deniers,” including Sen. Johnson.
And here’s the LCV’s manufactured outrage.
Anyone using the phrase “climate change deniers” has no business complaining about the rhetoric of others.
Howdy tadchem
It’s worth noting that, if we wish to use Logic, we’d better use some Rhetoric as well. Rhetoric without logic is all too often effective but reversing the polarity works poorly.
I was schooled in both Logic and Rhetoric – separately, of course. Both are used to persuade people who have not already made up their minds that your position is valid. When you have the facts to back up your argument you tend to use Logic – the Science of Proofs. When you lack the facts to make your case, you tend to use Rhetoric – the Art of Persuasion.
People who accept the rhetorical arguments find them emotionally satisfying for the moment, but eventually are dissatisfied when the ‘Reality Check’ become due and payable.
Oooh, I like that one.
I heard it as “stuck pig squals loudest” but I like your version too.
Sen. Johnson: “My sincerest apologies to the Islamist Jihadist I may have offended. It was not fair of me to compare you to environmentalists as you are at least honest about the purpose of your efforts.”
My grandmother used the phrase “bit dog always hollers” to describe some comment that was uncomfortably true. I’ve been on the LCV mailing list for a long time. Mr. Johnson was too nice.
The phrase “jihad” for “progressives'” causes rather works for me. Like the Islamists, the “progressives” claim to be more concerned with spiritual values and inward struggle, but really they are out to control the rest of us. Like Islamists, they enjoy the conflict and would be empty without an “other” to attack. And like “jihad”, it’s in the service of things that must be taken on faith because they can’t be proven with science or experience.
It is ironic that environmentalists really enjoy playing dirty. Offensive rhetoric is their stock-in-trade. We need to push back hard against this.