|
Yes, I think the writer is being intellectually dishonest. However, worse than that in my view, is that the writer is only effectively communicating to the people who don't need to hear the author's point of view. This piece is written more as a "Look how smart you are for believing what you do!" piece. Which is OK; but I'm already pretty convinced of that. Having somebody else agree with me doesn't really change or affect my own rationale for why I support self-defense and the Second Amendment.
If the author isn't being intellectually dishonest, she would be better off using that expertise in pscychotherapy along with some empathy to convince some of her liberal friends of her point. Of course, that would mean leaving out irrelevant rhetorical flourishes like "kissing cousins of Bill and Bernadine's Weather Underground)" and "As a good, loyal liberal, I always expected others to take care of me" and using reason to appeal to the ideas that they value.
|