But I did read the thread -- you explained why you weren't following the "is it fair?" trap. However, I think that the question "is it fair or not?" deserved an answer *after* you'd already explained why it's not a good question at all.
I think it's useful to say "that's not the point! The point is that it's a smokescreen." But it's even more useful, for people who *understand* that it's a smokescreen, to go back and actually answer the question...ie, "not only is it a smokescreen, but the claim that it's unfair is wrong."
Plus, I think that using the facts, those who oppose the gov't health care plan could have made a convincing *logical* argument about why it *would become* unfair, in addition to making their *emotional* argument.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: 2009-09-11 21:33 (UTC)But I did read the thread -- you explained why you weren't following the "is it fair?" trap. However, I think that the question "is it fair or not?" deserved an answer *after* you'd already explained why it's not a good question at all.
I think it's useful to say "that's not the point! The point is that it's a smokescreen." But it's even more useful, for people who *understand* that it's a smokescreen, to go back and actually answer the question...ie, "not only is it a smokescreen, but the claim that it's unfair is wrong."
Plus, I think that using the facts, those who oppose the gov't health care plan could have made a convincing *logical* argument about why it *would become* unfair, in addition to making their *emotional* argument.