I am generally not one to critique established authors like those at the Powerline blog, but a recent post regarding reaction to the verdict in the Zimmerman trial there caught my attention. It attempted to offer counterpoints to some outrageous comments made by a University of Pennsylvania professor. Sometimes, the best response is no response at all though.
Professor Anthea Butler used the outcome of the trial to argue that God must be a white, gun carrying racist, out to kill black people. To this I pose the obvious rhetorical question: Is this even rational?
Debate on public issues, including the result of the Zimmerman trial, is fair game. Debate and dialogue, however, presuppose rational arguments that can be discussed in a productive way for the betterment of society. Far too often statements by credentialed individuals are given more attention and weight than is merited.
Among the smartest people in the world are those who know when no response is required. Because to respond is to lend credibility to irrationality and encourage it further, the statement is left to stand for itself. This fits squarely into that category.
Just because some idiot professor at Penn makes a ridiculous statement doesn’t mean it merits a response. Let her deposit her drivel into some hidden part of the ethernet and move on.