|
Edited on Sat Nov-07-09 11:29 AM by Kurt_and_Hunter
A Republican congressman goes on TV and says "This bill has death panels."
He is likely to be contradicted or asked for proof. (Except on FOX)
A Republican (or, in some cases, Democratic) congressman goes on TV and says "This bill is a government takeover of healthcare."
He will not be contradicted. The statement will be treated as a religious statement beyond polite challenge or rational examination. But it is no less a (false) factual claim. Since it is vague it will take a while to define the terms, like "takeover," but "death panels" isn't self-defining either. It is not just a personal aesthetic opinion; the person is making some sort of claim about real world actions and effects.
"Bankrupt the country" and "take away our freedoms" are claims not mere opinions.
When someone predicates their specific comments on a gigantic over-arching lie we (humans) tend to focus on the specifics, but its the biggest lies that color the whole debate.
For instance:
"Since terrorism is the greatest threat we face as a nation torture should be used to elicit intelligence."
That will lead to a specific debate about the morality or efficacy of torture, skipping right by the even more outlandish--and easily challenged--claim that terrorism is the greatest threat we face.
|