(... continued)

_"and they 'view dissenters’ opinions as heretical' (assuming internal thought processes then blaming them for those assumed processes)"_

Again, this was the final part of the following sentence, which you misrepresented as "argument":

Sundt: "But I admit great 'fear' that conventional and uncritical thinking will prevail, because proponents are convinced they have the moral high ground and view dissenters’ opinions as heretical."

This was _not_ argument, and was a perfectly appropriate rhetorical device to express Sundt's feeling ("fear" in quotes to suggest not literally) and the cause of his feeling: _"because"_ he believes that "the proponents are convinced they have the moral high ground and view dissenters’ opinions as heretical."

Anyone who has hear the diatribes by some of the WE CAN members would understand that Sundt's belief is rational.

So ... now your turn, let's see you write something as well-crafted as Sundt's essay.

-- Paul