Is exaggeration for effect okay?
I just heard Myron Ebell tell ‘The World at One’ that Donald Trump often exaggerated for effect and then when negotiations started drew back. Okay, if this is his business style, fine, his choice but should we accept the same attitude when it comes to Climate Change, Muslims, military build up, trade negotiations, etc.
Should the opposition behave similarly?
You know, I expect selective facts. I also expect partial truths. It is understandable that you don’t wish to present your opponent, with a free point (don’t we all do this sometimes?) BUT I am convinced that exaggeration is lying dressed up in soft language. Untruth by either side in an argument is to be rooted out then the facts can be debated.
So many hard decisions have to be made where ‘the facts’ have to be weighed, for and against. For me, saying, yes I accept your fact(s) however this fact of mine out weighs it is acceptable BUT introducing exaggeration in to this introduces a variable too far.
I sense a weakness in anyone who relies upon an opening gambit of exaggeration. Quickly their statements are dismissed, because we don’t know what they mean, where will they roll back to. Further, a sensible opposition will use the exaggeration to garner additional and stronger support than if you had taken a measured honest fact based stance from the start. Yes, in taking the truthful approach, your weight on a particular matter might be debated e.g. Trump / Ebell have argued that the economic effects of Climate Change are minimal and the costs are huge (I think they are wrong), but saying “I don’t accept the scientific evidence that climate change is real”, as an exaggerated opening position, flies in the face of accepted reality. It doesn’t advance debate or understanding, it only just muddies the pond.
‘Truth will out’. Shakespeare: The Merchant of Venice, 1596.