Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012
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.
|
With all due respect Krugman explicitly stated "they’re not stupid" so your claim that he is implying they're stupid is not accurate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012
To suggest that 2) can only be caused only by limited intelligence or a flat lie and nothing in between is poor reasoning.
|
I am afraid this is a nonsensical statement. With respect making an assertion you either don't have your facts straight (ignorance/limited intelligence) or you're purposefully misleading (lying). The Law of Excluded Middle applies to such assertions and so there is nothing in-between the two. Please enlighten us as to what this in-between could possibly be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012
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.
|
WSJ emphatically stated that the election was stole while in the paragraph above stating that there were provisional ballots that weren't counted. The notion that the election was stolen is simply not true and Krugman said as much though not explicitly. Rossi twice lost in court and if he was in the same position he would have done the same exact thing Gregoire did. Ditto for Coleman.
BTW, Krugman is an opinion guy as are WSJ editorial people. They are paid to give their poinions and it's up to the reader to decern opinion from fact.