I just saw this and saw red: More heat than light
We cannot allow institutions like the World Bank to impose ill-conceived carbon-based energy reforms on developing nations.
Not so much with what was being said, but the presumption of the way it was laid out, and how that played with me and hence mmight with others... such as those who may well need to be persuaded to rethink.
Whatever the merits (or not) of the subsequent piece and its arguments, I would have to opine that anything that starts 'We cannot allow...' rather sets up a few issues of sensible negotiation practice.
Such as who the heck is 'we'? And who put 'you/(or is it presuming...)us' in charge? And in what way are 'we' in a position to 'allow' anything? And doesn't it all rather suggest a mindset that is 'our way is the only way' which doesn't establish a very helpful basis to effect change?
I'll go read it now.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I believe in freedom of speech. But I also don't like bullies on blogs, even verbal ones, as they can drive away those with something valid to say... or offer.
Subjective is fine, but well argued and substantiated is even better. Calm and polite tops. Anything that crosses my personal line will not go up. There may be reasons given, but not guaranteed.
I'm not too keen on 'Anon' as a handle (and the content usually explains why), so if that's what you opt for it may not make it. Sorry.