Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Eating Pie
At this point, there is no way to have a reasoned debate. You must throw out all evidence provided simply because you don't know the people. That is not a rational position to take. It is exactly the same as me saying that I do not know Richard Dawkins, and therefore I do not trust his opinions or assertions at all. You think I might be taken to task for saying something like that?
|
It's not exactly the same thing and you know it. We
both don't know these board members, but we
both know Dawkins.
"Know" as in background or track-record.
And I didn't throw out
any evidence, anyway. I don't know them, sure, but I'm not throwing them to the wolves based on that alone. I'm using that
plus the opinion that anyone who truly believes that Slaughterhouse Five is inappropriate (because of language and sexual content) for high-school aged kids to read isn't thinking rationally. So I'm left with an irrational decision or a decision based on "other" facts not in evidence. Because nothing else makes remote sense to me.