I persist in reading comments to on-line articles because I insist there’s got to be something in there that adds to the conversation and leaves me a little smarter. Alas, with predictable certainty, I must sift through the dross to get at it such are the remarks worked up to make me more stupid.
Let’s see, Roark recommends reading Rand to enhance critical thinking and predictably, a Rand hater chimes in within two posts, “No! Don’t read that, read this instead.” Then adds an untrue statement about Rand thats boxes her writing into his narrow perception of it. So I check out the books Jeremy recommended, sure enough, predictable narrow-minded drivel.
The original article mentions surprise at ad hominem attack instead of questioning substance. Sure enough, There’s J.G. right on cue, attacking the author for being Catholic, then switching the subject to something he’d rather talk about, a justice’s recent opinion. Every sentence another fallacy, as if touring the world of fallacy, post hoc attribution, Catholicism leads to opinion of habeas corpus, then a slippery slope to inquisition. J.G., a reference to what a pope said to clarify a point doesn’t necessarily mean the opinion about relativism and critical thinking derives from Catholicism. You loon.
A suggestion to you two schizophrenics, or ADD sufferers, try, TRY to stay on topic. It’ll make sorting through your comments so much easier. <–wishful thinking. Like that’s ever going to happen.
-*-*-*-*
To the rest, thank you.
