Letters to the Editor
-
<i>tu quoque</i> yourself
It is tactically superior to make more effective arguments rather than joining in the childish name-calling of your opponents.
This is an obvious point; however, why do you insist that Glenn posted the picture "rather than" making an effective argument. This is a completely counterfactual assertion, and so much worse than ad hominem tu quoque, rhetorically speaking...
You can be fat and point out to others that they should lose weight for health reasons. You can be a murderer and point out that murder is wrong and that other people shouldn't commit murder.
Absolutely true. You "can" be a hypocrite. You "can" also point out this fact when responding to such a hypocrite.
Other than sheer contrariness, just what is your point in repeatedly making this flawed argument?
-
The point, exactly
"This isn't about moral superiority or "not fighting back." Kerry lost because he didn't counter the Swiftboaters in any way at all. He should have countered them with facts and arguments, not by employing their tactics of slander. He did neither."
Actually, yeah, he did "fight back." Eventually. Buy hey, who remembers now? He was so "nice" about it, it never resonated with voters in any way that they could remember or even relate to. And you are proof of that. You--and most people--obviously don't remember that Kerry did fight back. Eventually. And nicely.
-
Charles Atlas Politics
How Homoerotic "Masculinity" Defines the Political Right
or How the Right Mis-Uses Masculinity to Define Power
(I hope the prize is a signed copy of your book, Glenn. I suspect I'll be quoting it at length once it comes out.)
-
Incidentally
I can't believe how many posters here, many of them frequent posters, who are not Salon Premium members. That is to say, who enjoy Salon but don't contribute to its well-being. It's so cheap. Come on, folks. Pony up!
I'm in no mood to be flamed, so I'm posting anon. Rest assured, I'm a premium member who posts a lot.
-
Two more on the title pile
I Know I'm Not, But What Are You? - Kindergarten masculinity's rule over the Republic
Reel Men: How boys in daddy drag keep suckering us into their war movies
-
Arenas
When you're in the classroom, use classroom tactics. When you're in the playground, use playground tactics. That doesn't mean you have to play dirty, sink to your opponents level or denigrate one's own values. It is however, understanding and playing by a different set of rules. You may be "high and mighty" and "above the fray" if you use classroom tactics on the playground, but you'll get your ass kicked. Which is OK, too, I guess. Depending on the stakes...
-
More fun with titles
“The Right Stuffed: Conservatives and their inflatable codpieces”
“ManliLess”
“Lionized by your lyin’eyes”
“Shooting Blanks:”
“Compensation Camp: Internment for the new Republican”
“Chicken-hawk soup for the Conservative soul”
-
@lupercus
>>why do you insist that Glenn posted the picture "rather than" making an effective argument.
Where did I say that? In fact I said in a previous comment that Glenn made some good points, but that posting the picture detracted from those points. I criticized one element of his argument. I didn't claim that world is divided into effective arguments on the one hand and name-calling on the other, nor did I characterize his entire post as "name-calling." Try again.
>>You "can" be a hypocrite. You "can" also point out this fact when responding to such a hypocrite.
Other than sheer contrariness, just what is your point in repeatedly making this flawed argument?
Here's an example for you:
A: Bush lied about WMD in Iraq.
B: You have lied before, therefore you are just a hypocrite for pointing that out.
A: That's a pointless ad hominem argument.
You seem to think B has a winning argument there and that A is just being a "contrarian." Sorry, B's argument is juvenile and illogical; he is using a logical fallacy for an argument. The flaw is yours.
-
DID HEMINGWAY HIT THEM WITH HIS PURSE?
MY GOODNESS! As the late, great Jack Benny said, "WELL!" Glenn Greewald has once again HIT the NOISOME repugnicant-repubs RIGHT SQUARE ON THE HEAD with his PITHY and RAZOR-SHARP LOGIC-----Hemingway, who spoke in a HIGH, FRUITY VOICE....I'm Sorry,that was ERNEST Hemingway, a "REAL MAN'S MAN" who the moment he opened his mouth the image was SHATTERED LIKE A GLASS ORNAMENT, but the RATIONALE here HOLDS TRUE for repugnicant-repub RIGHT-WING commentators in print and on the radio or television, are a BUNCH OF WIMPS who the late Wally Cox as "Mr. Peepers" could mop the floor with, with one arm tied behind his back or I could out-talk and out-write and out-logic with one half of my brain(with thanks to Rush Limburger) tied behind my back! PATHETIC FOOLS like Limburger, Savage, Humphrey, Williams, Hemingway, Goldberg, Levin, Buchanan, Blankley, Coulter(she's a MAN too) ALL TALK TOUGH, but they are all GIRLY-MEN, SISSIES who would SCREAM and RUN at the sight of a cockroach scuttling along the wall like that weatherman who screamed and had a hissy mincing fit like a little girl(you blog denizens have probably seen that infamous segment, also on T.V.). TALK is CHEAP indeed, and we "Liberals" like to back up our talk with ACTION and LOGIC instead of CHEAP COWARDLY BULLYING and DOGMATIC IDEOLOGICAL PROPAGANDA like the way Bush, Cheney, Bushland Uber Allies and their right-wing-NUT aiders and abetters in the talk-radio, television, in print and in the blogosphere do!!!!!
-
OT but interesting
Virus May Be Cause of US Honeybee Deaths
The scientists report using a novel genetic technique and old-fashioned statistics to identify Israeli acute paralysis virus as the latest potential culprit in the widespread deaths of worker bees, a phenomenon known as colony collapse disorder.
http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/scitech/2007/09/06/D8RG438G1_honeybee_virus/index.html
Could this also be causing Congressional collapse disorder? Perhaps it is responsible for the faux masculinity we see on the right?? At the very least, it must have something to do with all of the ME warmongering of that lot.
Enquiring minds would like to know.....
-
@Orson
Where did I say that?
Um, right there, in the quote that I posted:
It is tactically superior to make more effective arguments rather than joining in the childish name-calling of your opponents.
...unless you define "rather than" differently than I do.
Here's an example for you:
A: Bush lied about WMD in Iraq.
B: You have lied before, therefore you are just a hypocrite for pointing that out.
A: That's a pointless ad hominem argument.
You seem to think B has a winning argument there and that A is just being a "contrarian."
You "seem to" think you can conflate all sorts of things and call it an argument. If you want to assert that me lying to my wife about how much the HD cost is the same as lying the country into a war, but it's not a particularly compelling case.