Georgetown University professor and former NPR editor Kitty Eisele lamented on Sunday that protesters in Washington, D.C., had not attacked the Trump International Hotel.

submitted by Chipit from freebeacon.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Chipit[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Sure, they influence millions of people who listen to NPR every day and take what they say as gospel because it's publicly funded. That's pretty much the opposite of a nobody.

[–]Nemacolin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You're right. We all know how the elites suck up to Kitty Eisele for her critical support in matters before the public. Many people say she is the hub upon which history itself turns.

[–]Chipit[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"An absurd absolute is a restatement of the other person's reasonable position as an absurd absolute. For example, if your point is there is high crime in Detroit, the absurd absolute would be your debate opponent saying something such as "So, you're saying every person in Detroit is a criminal." When your debate opponent recasts your opinion to include an "absolute" word, such as every, always, never, all, completely, universally, and the like, you are seeing cognitive dissonance.

Some people call what I just described a strawman argument. But a strawman argument refers to any sort of inaccurate recasting of your opponent's argument. That is the generic case. I'm referring to a specific strawman argument that uses an absurd absolute. When your debate opponent recasts your point as an absurd absolute, you won the debate. That's as far as you can go."