 |
"Can't be enforced" is a different argument than "it won't work" (the Jack of Diamonds). Here, the denialist is usually threatening to operate an offending practice overseas, or oddly enough, arguing that because a proposal doesn't give someone a right to sue, it isn't worth passing.
Of course, if the proposal gives one a right to sue, the denialist uses the opposite argument: the proposal is enforceable, and the denialist will complain of frivolous lawsuits. |
 |
- Log in to post comments
More like this
The Newhour had a debate tonight full of denialism provided by Paul Miller, former head of the American League of Lobbyists. It's an excellent opportunity to demonstrate how the lobbying tactics outlined in the Denialists' Deck of Cards can be employed to fight a proposal without really dealing…
A former Michigan law professor is suing the university because he was denied tenure:
The professor, Peter Hammer, won a majority of votes of the faculty of the law school in his case. But the 18-12 margin was two shy of the two-thirds requirement to win tenure, so he lost his job, and now is a…
A man who eats a lot of popcorn (2 bags a day) has been diagnosed with bronchiolitis obliterans (via NYTimes). The fact that diacetyl is still used is rediculous so I re-posted the popcorn/obliterated lung piece. What is interesting about this is that we've all known for a long time that this is…
If there’s one characteristic of supporters of dubious medicine, it’s that they detest criticism. Whereas your average skeptic might not like criticism—sensitivity to criticism being a human trait and all—science- and evidence-based criticism tends to drive dubious medical practitioners (and, I…