[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by beyeas

My point in all this has more to do with generalizations.

If this author makes their financial status, profession, or personal property part of their argument, then it is fair game to criticize if appropriate. If they raise it as an argument, then that argument should be open to criticism. However, generalizations that state that "those people" always think this way or that way are frankly useless and tired replacements for actual rationale debate. Enough with generalizations already. It adds nothing to the actual discussion, other than the fact that we as humans seem to be wired to want to blame those other people over there for problems (See Brexit, Trump, etc) rather than simply addressing the actual issues at hand. It is easier to generalize than it is to debate the facts.

Whether or not the author is correct or incorrect should therefore be debated based on nothing but the facts presented. What the author "might" think or be motivated by is nothing more the hearsay and doesn't add in any substantive way to the debate. Stick to the facts. Yes NIMBYs/BANANAs exist, but what matters far more is whether or not there is merit to some, all or none of the arguments actually presented. There is a good reason why generalizations and hearsay are legally inadmissible arguments!

This forum is at its best when all of us discuss the merits of varying views and bring interesting perspectives and viewpoints to arguments, and is at its worst when it descends into snarky finger pointing and generalizations.

Stated much more eloquently than I could ever hope to. Thanks!