Sirs,
Michael Scanlon writes that Carol Nichols' use of the phrase "homosexual agenda" was, quote: "...not only especially hateful (and hate-filled) and repugnant, it is also groundless and unbecoming of someone who claims to be either a proper parent or a legitimate teacher." Perhaps however, Scanlon's inference as to Ms Carols "hate" arises from nothing more than his own preconception as to the nature of Ms Carols attitude. To infer from Ms Carol's stated opposition to gender education in schools that she must therefore hate homosexual people is, ahem, groundless.
Moreover, with reference to the same quotation from Scanlon's barb, I say that his conjugated use of the term "hate" indicates an hypocrisy unbecoming of someone who would defend Taiwanese freedom; has not Scanlon himself written several "hateful" (and "hate-filled") letters against both the KMT and President Ma?
In stipulation to the virtues of honest criticism, surely the necessary conclusion to draw is that "hate", as an increasingly common touchstone for the dismissal of arguments and criticisms which one doesn't want to hear, is a false, fatuous and dangerous tactic that should not be encouraged.
Arguments must be met with arguments, not with childish smears.
Yours freely,
Michael Fagan.
(Sent: Sunday 22nd May 2011. Unpublished by the Taipei Times)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comment moderation is now in place, as of April 2012. Rules:
1) Be aware that your right to say what you want is circumscribed by my right of ownership here.
2) Make your comments relevant to the post to which they are attached.
3) Be careful what you presume: always be prepared to evince your point with logic and/or facts.
4) Do not transgress Blogger's rules regarding content, i.e. do not express hatred for other people on account of their ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation or nationality.
5) Remember that only the best are prepared to concede, and only the worst are prepared to smear.