Arkansas Blog

Amen.

I disagree.

The point at hand is that the partisan viewpoint is discarded not because it is seen as erroneous, but that it is inherently biased to the point that the argument seems to come from a separate reality.
The dismissal is because the 'source' of the argument is compromised in some fundamental way. It charges that the partisan does not see the same world as other people, and this bias will taint their commentary on the subject of that bias.

Is it wrong always? No. Biased people make biased judgments, and it should be a responsibility of the media to acknowledge bias where it exists. That does not mean the biased person can contribute nothing to debate; it means that the biased person should be so labeled, such that impartial observers can take that into account when examining their claims.

Sometimes the bias IS enough to warrant removal from a debate.
I would argue that people who think the world is 6000 years old have no place in a debate about what to teach children in science class. Maybe it's just me though.

"Biased people make biased judgments, and it should be a responsibility of the media to acknowledge bias where it exists."

You make some good points, JK, but--and not to be too picky--don't confuse *the media* with journalists. I think that's one of the big problems with *new school journalists* vs *old school journalists*.

Hang on, JK. You're using too many elitist syllables. I only have a GED from Crossett.

Are you saying the Earth is only 6,000 years old?

I must take issue with . . . wait a second . . . okay. I just reread your post.

I don't understand a word you said, but I'm going to take this up with my menstruation this Sunday and see what he has to say about this.