To the editor,
After reading Bruce Wark's February 16 column about Peter March, I can't help but speculate that Wark's own reasoning process is breaking down. If his goal is to persuade readers to accept his opinions, he must first convince us that he's reliable. If an argument contains fallacies, thoughtful readers will not take it seriously. More importantly, if an argument includes mistakes in its logic—either by intention or through carelessness—then that person is only misleading themselves into believing that their thinking is sound. Wark's analogy between what the Nazis did and what March was trying to do is at best weak, and at worst, a gross distortion. Of course, we will all condemn anything connected to Hitler and the Nazis. It's a no-brainer. But by oversimplifying a complex issue, he reduces it to an absurd level.
By David R. Wilson