The argumentation and rhetorics of erasure

V prispevku analiziramo argumentacijsko moč nekaterih stališč v javnem in političnem diskurzu o izbrisanih. Splošna ugotovitev je, da je ob političnih razpravah, ki se delno nanašajo na pravno argumentacijo in zakonodajo, navzoča moč argumentov izjemno šibka in da v njem prevladujejo logične zmote in prevare, ki večino poglavitnih ugovorov k rešitvi problema izbrisanih, kot jo zahteva odločba Ustavnega sodišča, naredijo za nekredibilno. Podrobneje smo analizirali besedilo poslanca Branka Grimsa, ki je bilo ob petnajsti obletnici izbrisa podano tudi kot uradno stališče vladajoče stranke. V sklepu ugotavljamo, da prevladujoči govor argumentacijskih zmot in prevar odločilno vpliva na slabo podobo o izbrisanih in pripomore k temu, da se za to množično kršitev človekovih pravic do danes ni našla ustrezna politična rešitev.The article analyses the argumentative power of some opinions voiced in the public and political discourse of the erased. One general finding concerning this is that during political discussions that touch upon legal argumentation and law, the power of argumentation present is extremely weak, and that logical errors and ruses prevail in them. These deny credibility to most of the arguments that oppose solving the problem of the erased through the decision passed by the constitutional court. The arguments made by the Slovene member of parliament Branko Grims put forward on the fifteenth anniversary of the erased, and as the official position of the government itself, are analysed in detail. The conclusion to the article finds that the dominant discourse of argumentative mistakes and ruses crucially influences the negative image of the erased, and contributes to the fact that this mass abuse of human rights has not been politically adequately dealt with up to today