Motives and interpretations could be imputed [like they used to be in the cases of "anti-soviet propaganda"], and it is not a route any self-respecting human ought to take. The only way to consider it is on merits, aside of what one could think of "motivations" etc.
LOL!
I suppose that when you get an email from Nigeria, you simply take it at face value, becuase questioning motives is not something "any self-respecting human" should do.
Would you be interested in purchasing a bridge?
The only way to consider it is on merits, aside of what one could think of "motivations" etc.
When someone characterizes the founding of the state of Israel in passing as "myths" how do we assess the "merits" of that rhetoric?
We acknowledge it for what it is: hostile propaganda.
This is an opinion piece - it would never have been written if its writer was not motivated by an agenda.
If one does not take into account another's motives in evaluating their writings, he runs the grave risk of being used as a tool. A person can always manipulate the information and the most effective way of lying is to publish only the favorable truths to support his position.
Critical thinking should always examine the motives. It is the only defense against spin.
Motives and honesty are joined at the hip. Honest people will be up front with their motives. A liar won't. And reputations for honesty precede the advocates of any particular proposition.
If they're proven liars why waste time on them? i. e. They don't get the benefit of the doubt.
