Spin as in "a special interpretation, especially
as used by politicians to sway public opinion"?
If you are countering the anti-immigrant person's
"fictions," you are replacing their ignorance
with your facts. But if you have all the facts and
your reasoning is correct, you certainly have no
need to be biased, do you?
Maybe we should maintain that our positions on an
issue represent the best way to advance the things
we value with the least overall harm to the world?
I don't know. Every side has valid points, and
where they seem to diverge is on what is valued.
For example, if we value the advantage of the
current citizens of the US nation, we might oppose
illegal immigration or resist being oblivious to
it. If we value "humanity in general" or have an
ethnic stake in it (as Mexican-Americans might)
then we would encourage obliviousness to, or
leniency toward, illegal immigration.
So assuming the "facts" of an issue are not
grossly inaccurate, the debate is really about the
bias itself. And if we exclude debate about the
bias itself, there probably isn't anything to
debate is there?
_______ Let me try again
have you got it now?
(I think it would help if you looked up "spin")
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
