I like to think of myself as a sifter.
There is no way I'd claim to be totally on the fence, every time, on every issue, but I do try and see all sides, and then be open to evolve my views as new facts, and circumstances, and arguments come to light.
Hence I cast far and wide for information and, often, opinion. But I do err on proven fact more.
So one area I tend to lurk rather than pitch in on is the absolutism of 'climate change', especially in the anthropomorphic form, as here really it has been settled. Unfortunately, it's by two extreme sets of views so far apart they can't (or won't) even acknowledge each other, yet who seem to think shouting at the top of their voices in their own crowd little padded cells will somehow make a difference.
However, when facts that are verifiable and do seem pertinent get bandied about, I do take notice.
As I did this, but knowing some background, I passed.
A triumph for man, a disaster for mankind
However it has returned via a few blogs.
And if there is one thing that pushes all the wrong buttons, especially in debate, is resorting to ad homs and, especially the term 'you people'; two words which have single-handedly managed to really tax my ability not to side with whoever is not this person, irrespective of the content of their arguments rather than their tone.
Deniers Ahoy!
An article that mentions climate change is published: the deniers slither out from under their rocks to deny reality.
Really, you people should start ordaining ministers. You already have a religion.
Anything that uses the immortal words 'you people' rather damns itself already, especially when also a tad shy on anything substantive as well. Hence the attempted invocation of religion as a pejorative being a tad ironic.
What I see is a piece of in theory objective, balanced and well-researched professional reporting being challenged and, it seems with a fair amount of well-sourced contrary data and argued opinion.
So far, by way of counter, we have only one reasoned (and appreciated) supportive contribution... and a lot of heat at the expense of light.
Which is not a great way to convince those who don't happen to think they fall under the term 'you people' but have an active interest in this topic.
An apt metaphor for much of my message vs. messenger thinking of late.
But not a good one, sadly.
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.