Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
The first half of his comments, grounded in science, statistics, and good old all round evidence, is fantastic. The second half, in which he indulges in the tired old “if you say … then what you’re really saying” fallacy, was a lot of tiresome self righteous nonsense. Not being well read, not understanding how to use evidence and even making pronouncements beyond one’s expertise do not make someone “morally repugnant”.
|
The tone could be far, far better in the second half and he does get into lecture mode which is going to switch people off. He doesn't however call anyone morally repugnant. He says "The argument being made is that only the lives of people with no pre-existing health conditions count. This is obviously repugnant."