The Greater Pinnacle Peak Association (very worthwhile organization) is posting a series of articles on the Scottsdale bond election. The most recent is here, and I posted a response to it that hopefully will appear on the article soon. Here it is in the meantime:
Biased Bond Arguments?
I always appreciate your efforts to keep your readers informed on Scottsdale issues like this one.
I would, however, take very small exception with the application of the term “biased.”
You said, “…most of the words in this unbiased article were written by the biased individuals who submitted ballot arguments…”
My dictionary says “biased” means, “unfairly prejudiced for or against someone or something.”
I guess I now also have to look up the definition of “prejudice.” It is, “Preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.”
In reading the “for” arguments it seems to me that there are many arguments advanced on very thin reasoning, and I might add, very few facts.
On the other hand, you’ll find a lot of facts among the “against” arguments. In my argument, I purposely phrased my thoughts as questions for the reader to ponder. They are questions I’ve been asking since the city council and staff first considered a bond election a couple of years ago. I have yet to get adequate answers to those questions.
So, while I don’t think you really meant your use of the term “biased” to be a reflection on the character of those who submitted arguments (and thus the weight with which they should be considered), it did provide this opportunity to ponder the motivations of those on both sides of the issue. Maybe we can chat about that soon!