Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1
I really can't figure out what's wrong with what Krugman said...is the expectation that WSJ's opinions should be treated with respect even when they claim the election was stolen?
|
Krugman is committing a logical fallacy, but not in a particularly condescending tone. He's basically combining limited intelligence and red-handed lying into a jointly exhaustive explanation for the editorial assertion. This, of course, is discrediting the possibilities that 1) the editorials are right, or (more likely) 2) the editorials are the columnist's attempt at a poorly supported conspiracy theory.
To suggest that 2) can only be caused only by limited intelligence or a flat lie and nothing in between is poor reasoning.
I think the author's point is that Krugman is condescending because he's not giving the necessary evaluation to properly discredit 1) ("this is par for the course for WSJ, so of course it's wrong"), although I believe that's a stretch by the author.