I am somewhat bemused by the fact that Moll's comment has generated more thumbs down than thumbs up (even though it is close to 50/50). This doesn't seem to me to be something that should be so controversial a statement. Are those who disapprove saying that words don't have meaning and that deceptive/misleading statements don't undermine communication. It is, in my estimation a salient and undeniable point that one of the major problems inhibiting rational informed debate in contemporary society is the tendency toward sloppy thinking which arises out of the unwillingness/inability to differentiate between critical vs. non-critical thinking and credible vs. non-credible writing. From whence the controversy on this point?
Key U.S. House Democrat cites troublesome issues in Iran nuclear deal (Reuters)
from the article: The new anti-Semitism is at an American high school