A writer’s fallacy

Oct 16, 2013 Letters

Dear Editor,
I would not normally respond to someone who sees it right to hide behind the façade of an assumed name, but it provides me with a fitting opportunity to restate the objectives of the letters I have been writing to the press.
First of all, I would like to dispel this false assumption that I support the government. My writings on the promotion of ethical standards through the years since the early nineties can attest to the fact that I have been totally impartial in my comments and criticisms of the powers-that-be in all sections and at all levels in this country.
My objective has always been to develop a culture in which people should always seek to promote a civilised discourse on what would contribute to our unified progress and harmony in our society. I passionately feel that this practice that has evolved over the years of extremist views being freely expressed, should give way to one of constructive critique which would be more favourable to this unity, progress and harmony being achieved.
To this end, I offer the following criteria which can contribute much towards this objective:
1. Opinions or judgements based on facts which are stated at the time;
2. Refraining from hasty and sweeping generalisations based on examples which may be limited according to writer’s knowledge, and which would naturally produce false conclusions;
3. Exploration of real causes of apparent transgressions rather than making assumptions, which stand the chance of being flawed;
4. Demonstration of open-minded approach to issue, with willingness to consider other side of story, and any response from those you criticize;
5. Self-awareness of own biases and taking these into consideration when analysing and commenting on a situation.
When you examine the numerous contributions to our letter pages, how many can you honestly say conform to at least some of these?
If the “concerned reader” was aware of my work history and writings, he/she would realise that the unsubstantiated declaration at the end of his/her letter is nothing but an assumed fallacy, the very nature of the submissions to which I strongly object.
Roy Paul

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News