Promote the Controversy
I just watched an interview between Richard Dawkins and Creationist Wendy Wright. There is some interesting similarities between how Conservatives have learned to argue issues.
First there is a desire to “promote the controversy.” In its most basic form this means use all tools available to cast doubt regardless of relevance to the subject at hand. For some people things blend together and any doubt cast is enough to get them to see things negatively.
Rather than providing proof of position keep attacking the other persons position while making it appear they are the one attacking your non-existent position. This will totally eliminate your need to show evidence supporting your position.
Redefine the definition of what truth and fact is to fit your agenda. According to Wendy Wright fact and truth are only relevant in relation to the perceived value of the result. It is more important that people perceive they were created by a loving creator than understand evolution.
Use the lack of the ability of scientific standards to be compromised and facts distorted as evidence of a lack of consideration.
Up is down and I’m sorry you can’t see the truth in that. The truth is legitimate science will not embrace quacks.
Richard Dawkins Interviews Creationist Wendy Wright (Part 1/7)
(this is one of 7 videos – the full interview is available on YouTube. I didn’t include it because it was rather long and somewhat redundant.)
Now let’s take this method of argument and demonstrate how Conservatives use it for politics.
Although Republicans have cut funding for security and top military officials charged with keeping the peace in the area were appointments during a Republican Administration the Bengasi attack is somehow the fault of the Democratic Administration, a smoking gun.
The issue at hand now doesn’t appear to be about finding the broken links that occurred but who knew what first after the event had already happened. “Promote the controversy.” Twist the words “terrorist act” and “act of terror” in such a way is to elicit anger and suspicion. Redefine the goal of the investigation making it a political witch-hunt rather than an inquiry designed to never let this happen again. Why isn’t anyone talking about restoring funding for security that was taken away by Congress? No one is even saying how many of these attacks have happened at US Embassy’s in the past. Why cloud the issue with the truth and reality.
Then there is the IRS issue and the Tea Party. Everyone loves to hate the IRS. “Promote the controversy.” This is an easy one. So any challenge of procedures devoid of detail will spread like wildfire. Back in my day I seem to remember that the IRS would select for audit people who itemize their deductions or declare a home office. Is this also an act of prejudicial treatment for a certain group in our society? Did anyone even get statistics on how many of these Tea Party 501c4’s were denied? Last I heard Karl Rove’s and most of them were approved anyway. So is this just another example of “promoting the controversy?”
Should science and fact be subject to politics?
Should reality be conditional based on desire?
Last I heard this was called delusion.
How do you argue with a Conservative?
I would suggest taking a technique used in therapy called “reflective listening”.
Even if you cannot change their perspective on the situation others who are listening will gain insight and understand.
Rephrase the question.
If I were Dawkins I would have stated to Wendy Wright the following paraphrase of her argument. “So, you are saying that it is more important that people believe that they were created by a loving creator than understand the real truth of their origins?”
In regards to the Bengasi attack, “You are saying that funding for Embassy’s and their security is secondary to the language used during the initial time after the event when things were unfolding?”
In regards to the IRS scandal, “You are saying that examination of legitimate tax exempt status should not be questioned regarding one political party despite evidence of political funding by wealthy donors circumventing election laws and rendering them useless?”
“Heaven forbid” we maintain any appearance of a Democracy.
But then they don’t believe in democracy there either do they?
A CHALLENGE ASSIGNMENT
Here is a video on the top 25 Creationist Fallacies followed by the complete video interview between Richard Dawkins and Wendy Wright.
If you want a challenge try and note how many of the fallacies are used by Wendy Wright.
Note them in the comments and we'll see how many we can find.
Top 25 Creationist Fallacies
Richard Dawkins Interviews Creationist Wendy Wright (Complete)