gordo says:
"In the short term, a smear campaign can be very successful, and will poison the atmosphere, perhaps even poisoning the general public’s perception of your opponents. Usually, it works by using what may be called for convenience the trifecta fallacy, unfortunately — and as we shall shortly see — a now habitual pattern of all too many evolutionary materialism advocates when they deal with Intelligent Design. Specifically:
i: use a smelly red herring distractor to pull attention away from the real issues and arguments
ii: lead it away to a strawman caricature of the issues and arguments of the opponent
iii: soak it in inflammatory innuendos, guilt by invidious association or outright demonising attacks to the man (ad hominems) and ignite through snide or incendiary rhetoric.
The typical result of such an uncivil, disrespectful rhetorical tactic when used on a naive or trusting public is that it distracts attention, clouds, confuses, polarises and poisons the atmosphere for discussion. Especially when false accusations are used, it can seriously damage reputations and careers. So, the trifecta is at minimum a violation of duties of care and respect. At worst, it is a cynically calculated propagandistic deception that through clouding the atmosphere with a poisonous, polarising cloud, divides the public and points their attention to an imaginary threat elsewhere, so that an agenda that plainly cannot stand on its own merits can gain power in the community.
But what happens when the smear begins to unravel as more and more people begin to understand that you have failed to be fair or truthful, in the face of abundant evidence and opportunity to the contrary? .........."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, gordo-the-bloviating-liar, since you just accurately described your "poisoning", "demonising", "snide", "incendiary", "propagandistic", "trifecta fallacy", disrespectful "smear campaign" tactics and the tactics of the the rest of the IDiots, I would answer your question by saying that rational people understand that you have failed to be fair or truthful, in the face of abundant evidence that you are a wacked out, unraveled, hypocritical liar.
And speaking of "divides the public and points their attention to an imaginary threat elsewhere", well, that's exactly the dishonest tactic that you habitually employ, in a lame attempt to cover up the fact that your real agenda is religious and political and has no science to support it, and that insane religious maniacs like you are the real threat.
Oh, and your "red herring distractor" about me allegedly threatening you is the smelliest fish imaginable.
You suck, gordo. Seriously.
"In the short term, a smear campaign can be very successful, and will poison the atmosphere, perhaps even poisoning the general public’s perception of your opponents. Usually, it works by using what may be called for convenience the trifecta fallacy, unfortunately — and as we shall shortly see — a now habitual pattern of all too many evolutionary materialism advocates when they deal with Intelligent Design. Specifically:
i: use a smelly red herring distractor to pull attention away from the real issues and arguments
ii: lead it away to a strawman caricature of the issues and arguments of the opponent
iii: soak it in inflammatory innuendos, guilt by invidious association or outright demonising attacks to the man (ad hominems) and ignite through snide or incendiary rhetoric.
The typical result of such an uncivil, disrespectful rhetorical tactic when used on a naive or trusting public is that it distracts attention, clouds, confuses, polarises and poisons the atmosphere for discussion. Especially when false accusations are used, it can seriously damage reputations and careers. So, the trifecta is at minimum a violation of duties of care and respect. At worst, it is a cynically calculated propagandistic deception that through clouding the atmosphere with a poisonous, polarising cloud, divides the public and points their attention to an imaginary threat elsewhere, so that an agenda that plainly cannot stand on its own merits can gain power in the community.
But what happens when the smear begins to unravel as more and more people begin to understand that you have failed to be fair or truthful, in the face of abundant evidence and opportunity to the contrary? .........."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, gordo-the-bloviating-liar, since you just accurately described your "poisoning", "demonising", "snide", "incendiary", "propagandistic", "trifecta fallacy", disrespectful "smear campaign" tactics and the tactics of the the rest of the IDiots, I would answer your question by saying that rational people understand that you have failed to be fair or truthful, in the face of abundant evidence that you are a wacked out, unraveled, hypocritical liar.
And speaking of "divides the public and points their attention to an imaginary threat elsewhere", well, that's exactly the dishonest tactic that you habitually employ, in a lame attempt to cover up the fact that your real agenda is religious and political and has no science to support it, and that insane religious maniacs like you are the real threat.
Oh, and your "red herring distractor" about me allegedly threatening you is the smelliest fish imaginable.
You suck, gordo. Seriously.
