A favorite tactic of the radical right is the lie by omission. I ran across an example of this recently by a blogger who calls himself ‘Ogre’.
Ogre rails against an editorial in the Charlotte Observer that calls for stricter standards regarding tailpipe emissions from automobiles. He’s entitled to his opinion, of course. Unfortunately, Ogre chooses to lie while making his point:
Just one sample from the article that shows how much that staff will do and say anything to advance their anti-freedom agenda:So in the twisted world of this group of socialists, when government requires and forces manufacturers to make less-efficient and more expensive cars, the consumer has more choices.
It may come up with a proposal to require that lower-emission vehicles be sold in this state.
Good. It’s time the General Assembly seriously considered ways to clean up vehicle emissions and give consumers more choices.
Now compare this against what the editorial actually said:
It’s time the General Assembly seriously considered ways to clean up vehicle emissions and give consumers more choices about low-polluting, fuel-efficient vehicles.
Ogre lied by omission in this case, by editing out the final phrase of the last sentence of the quote. It was essential to his “argument” that the concepts of fuel efficiency and lower pollutant emissions not be linked in his reader’s mind — so he simply pretended the editorial said something other than what it said.
Pollutants such as carbon monoxide are produced when fuel is burned incompletely, which means the fuel is being burned inefficiently. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers notes that “Average fuel economy levels in cars increased more than 100 percent since 1974, going from 14.2 miles per gallon to more than 28.7 miles per gallon in 2004”. The levels of pollutant emissions from light-duty vehicles have dropped during that time. Ogre’s claim that emission standards result in lower fuel efficiencies in automobiles is, quite simply, false.
In my experience, radical rightwing fanatics have no compunction at all about basing their arguments on lies, whether lies of omission or the more egregious varieties of falsehood. Partisans like Ogre won’t stop lying, of course. The best anyone can do is to point out those lies when they are found.
12 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 27th, 2006 at 7:22 am
Ogre
Wow. You REALLY missed the point. The point of the post was to note that the government wants to force bad “choices” on people. It had nothing to do with emissions or fuel efficieny, or any comparison or relation between the two! That’s why it wasn’t quoted—it wasn’t relavent at all!
I don’t care one bit about how fuel efficient cars are, nor if more fuel efficient cars have more or less emissions—makes no difference to me. I just want to have options without the government forcing me to spend more money.
And I was pointing out the morons who claim that by government reducing the options for consumers that it somehow gives the consumer MORE choices!
February 27th, 2006 at 8:26 am
meatbrain
False. Your excuse is a transparent sham. You yourself made efficiency relevant to the discussion:
You miss the point entirely, Ogre. You lied about what the editorial said because it did not fit your predetermined conclusion that fuel-efficient cars are some sort of “socialist” plot.
If your arguments are so flimsy that you have to support them with blatant lies, why should you be believed about anything?
February 27th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
Ogre
Well, I didn’t report on the hair color of the editor who wrote the opinion, too, so I guess that make me a liar as well, as you determine the word “liar.”
February 27th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
meatbrain
Disingenousness won’t get you off the hook, Ogre.
You truncated the quote because quoting the entire sentence would have thrown doubt on your claim that the editorial favored having the government ”[force] manufacturers to make less-efficient and more expensive cars”. You couldn’t afford to let the concepts of lowered pollutant emissions and fuel efficiency become linked in your reader’s mind. Hence, the lie by omission.
The question remains: If your arguments are so flimsy that you have to support them with blatant lies, why should you be believed about anything?
February 27th, 2006 at 5:32 pm
Ogre
I am intrigued by your uncanny ability to look into my mind and determine what thoughts my brain has despite my explicitly telling you differently. Apparently I am utterly incapable of even knowing what my own thoughts are, much less putting those thoughts into words! Very impressive.
Now can you please tell me next week’s lottery numbers—but then you’d also need to purchase the lottery tickets for me, because according to you, I would not be able to choose the numbers that were even in my mind.
Please, do tell me what other thoughts and actions are coming from my mind that I don’t even know about!
February 27th, 2006 at 6:18 pm
meatbrain
I don’t have to look into your mind to know you are lying, Ogre.
I have only to compare what you wrote to what the editorial really said.
Third time asked, and I’ll bet you’ll run away from the question a third time, too: If your arguments are so flimsy that you have to support them with blatant lies, why should you be believed about anything?
February 28th, 2006 at 10:22 am
Ogre
When did you stop beating your wife?
February 28th, 2006 at 11:00 am
meatbrain
Fourth time asked:
If your arguments are so flimsy that you have to support them with blatant lies, why should you be believed about anything?
You are being used here for exactly one purpose, Ogre: to demonstrate that it is not possible to conduct a reasoned, rational debate with those whose first choice is to lie about what others have said.
February 28th, 2006 at 11:42 am
Ogre
I’ll ask again:
When did you stop beating your wife?
Just because you ask the same, utterly insane question that has nothing to do with anything that I’m remotely interested in, why would you assume I would answer it? Perhaps for the same reason that you’re refusing to answer my question.
February 28th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
meatbrain
It has been clearly demonstrated that you chose to lie when you wrote your original post, Ogre. You altered the quote from the editorial. There is no arguing that point.
There is nothing insane about asking you why you made the choice to lie. You can answer or not, as you choose. Either way, we learn something about you.
February 28th, 2006 at 12:58 pm
Ogre
And yet you continue to refuse to answer my question. I will ask again, and if you do not answer, then I will have to provide an answer for you:
When did you stop beating your wife?
February 28th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
meatbrain
What you mean, of course, is that you will post another lie.
I am quite aware of what you will do. You really don’t know any other way to construct an ‘argument’.