> I don't think they've made a credible argument here.
That seems irrelevant to whether that's a fair way to frame the article.
> People are well justified in looking at them askance for their choice of framing device.
Yes, but I think, if you ask that question, you also have to ask, "what would be the best way to frame this article?" I don't think there's such an obviously better answer.
> It's manipulative and dishonest, or at the very least comes off that way.
A key argument of the article is that mandatory helmet laws don't improve cyclist safety. I don't see how it is dishonest to frame the article that way.
If you're looking to persuade someone to make a decision you want them to make, it's usually best to speak to their concerns, not your own. You can call that manipulative if you want, but I think a lot of people would just call it persuasive.
That seems irrelevant to whether that's a fair way to frame the article.
> People are well justified in looking at them askance for their choice of framing device.
Yes, but I think, if you ask that question, you also have to ask, "what would be the best way to frame this article?" I don't think there's such an obviously better answer.
> It's manipulative and dishonest, or at the very least comes off that way.
A key argument of the article is that mandatory helmet laws don't improve cyclist safety. I don't see how it is dishonest to frame the article that way.
If you're looking to persuade someone to make a decision you want them to make, it's usually best to speak to their concerns, not your own. You can call that manipulative if you want, but I think a lot of people would just call it persuasive.