How to Read

Read this article for a very good example of how to read with no intention of understanding.

Let’s play along for a second, and I’ll break down the arguments presented.

Group 1 includes A, B, and C
Group 2 includes blue, red, and yellow
Group 3 includes square, circle, triangle, and vertical line
99% of people agree that Group 1 is laudable and desirable
99% of people agree that Group 2 is vile and undesirable
People are not agreed on the desirability of Group 3
Therefore, people who do not approve of Group 3 equate Groups 2 and 3.

This is not a good argument.

The article talks about how Mr. Dalton is a homophobe because he is putting homosexuality into the same category as paedophilia, rape, drunk driving, and incest. But, to go back to our example, that is to say he is putting a vertical line in with the colours. His comment was actually that there are three sorts of moral issues: 1) conduct we all affirm and approve of; 2) conduct we all deny and disapprove of, and; 3) conduct people are not agreed about. He put homosexuality into the last category, along with adultery and gambling.

Let’s be clear about what Mr. Dalton did not say: a vertical line equals red.

It seems that it is not Mr. Dalton who is equating homosexuality and rape, but rather, Mr. Herbert - the fellow who stirred this whole thing up with a 12 year old email. Mr. Dalton made no such argument, but Mr. Herbert certainly has. He’s attributed to his political opponent an argument that the opponent never claimed, and then has lambasted him for it. It seems to me that we don’t put up with such mindless rhetoric in any other issue except for one’s views on homosexuality.

It doesn’t even matter what side of this issue you find yourself - you can believe that homosexuality is as natural and good as breathing or you can think it is abominable - this is bad reasoning and doesn’t deserve to find its way into print.