Only because it amused me so much

[tahnan]

I don't recommend that most of my readers look at BushCountry, a conservative take on the news. But I did want to quote the opening and the closing of one editorial from the site (this one):

Virtually everyone who finds themselves in a position of losing an argument, especially on a subject they hold dear, has a tendency to make ad hominem attacks.

(Discussion of why the people who are anti-war haveonly slogans and faulty rhetoric.)

Adding up the results of a debate, the Left comes away with being, exasperating, senseless, and dull. If you take them together and look at a dictionary, guess what expression describes, the Left?

Never minding that these last two sentences aren't actually grammatical ("comes away with"?) and have punctuation errors. I'm just amused that, after that opening, the editorial ends with what I'd call, well, an ad hominem attack.

Comments

[bumblepudding.livejournal.com]

"Dull"? So in order for an anti-war argument to be good, it has to be exciting?

("That argument doesn't make a lick of sense, Bob, but boy does it ever pop!")

[(Anonymous)]

This pot-calling-the-kettle-black sort of discourse ("My opponent's attack ad just goes to show that he is an out-of-touch, partisan old coot") exemplifies why I find it so exhausting and frustrating to follow political debate.

A half-in-jest suggestion: why not dedicate one public debate or other forum exclusively to ad hominem attacks--with some defined parameters for what's acceptable, and with points awarded for humor and effectiveness--and strictly limit them at any other time? I once watched an impromptu "debate" like this in high school: the staunchest liberal and conservative in our class chalked up one blackboard apiece with partisan insults, just in the spirit of friendly competition. I grant that the stakes were low and therefore the comparison doesn't hold, but it was a lot of fun all the same.

--Matt/Beo

Such a place explicitly for ad hominem, sort of

[dtm]

Shamelessly stolen from another page. It's amazing how many pages turn up on a google search for "Jane, you ignorant slut".

From Saturday Night Live Transcripts:

Dan Aykroyd: I'm station manager Dan Aykroyd. During the past few weeks in Los Angeles, actor Lee Marvin and his former live-in companion Michelle Triola Marvin have been in court to settle her claim that he owes her half his income from the six years they lived together. That is the subject of tonight's Point-Counterpoint. Jane will take the pro-Michelle Marvin point, while I will take the anti-Michelle Triola counterpoint. Jane?

Jane Curtin: Dan, times change and so does the nature of relationships. People are reluctant to get married these days and looking at divorce statistics, who can blame them. But the lack of a piece of paper does not neccessarily mean a lack of a total commitment. A woman is this modern-day relationship may well give up all her personal pursuits, as Michelle Marvin claims she did, to give her full support to her man's career. And Michelle Marvin is just asking that the courts recognize that reality. Dan, there's an old saying: "Behind every successful man there's a woman." A loving, giving, caring woman. But you wouldn't know about that, Dan, because there's no old saying about what's behind a miserable failure. [ gives a look of arrogance ]

Dan Aykroyd: Jane, you ignorant slut! Bagged-out, dried-up, slunken meat like you and Michelle Triola know the rules. If you want a contract, sign on the dotted line. Oh, but let's all shed a tear for poor Michelle Triola. There was only testimony that she had sexual intercourse over forty times with another man while living with actor Lee Marvin. But I suppose that sort of fashionable promiscuting means nothing to you, Jane, who hops from bed to bed with the frequency of a cheap ham radio. But hell hath no fury like a woman's scorn, and Michelle Triola, like a screeching, squealing, reptatious swamp sow is after actor Lee Marvin's last three million dollars. I guess what you and Michelle are saying is that when you're on your backs, the meter is running. Well, please spare us, gals, and tell us the rate's at the top. Then we can choose which two bit tarts and bargain basement sluts to shack up with.

[navrins]

Funny, I'd describe the pro-war arguments (or arguers) pretty much how he describes the "left." Exasperating, senseless, and dull. Also repetitive and disingenuous, and insulting.

(And I don't like being called Left just because I'm anti-this-war. I'm just a little bit left of center on the left-right axis. It's just that Bush is so far to the right that he's moved the center way over there.)