A couple of days ago, I published a rant calling out some of the factions of the current anti-war movement. It was interspersed with some pretty sharp words against people I characterized as "hippies". Now, "hippie", as I use it, is definitely an ad-hominem attack, but in between the jabs at hippies, I made a few rational arguments.
A few hippies wrote back, some of them even made a couple of arguments, and we all went on with our lives. I moved on to other topics and thought that was the end of it.
But this morning, I rolled out of bed, sat down on the crapper, and saw this pantsload which is - you guessed it - an ad-hominem attack.
Well, I forgot to eat my bran yesterday, so I have plenty of time to sit on my porcelain throne and think about this person's ravings.
Let's break it down:
I am all for a good rant and especially a good rave -- but does the person with the "rotenchester" handle have a life out there in the real world? I just signed on to CL for the first time and I love reading the interesting banter -- but good grief, get a freakin life Mr/Ms Rotten!
The first ad-hominem salvo: Rottenchester has no life. I'll freely admit that: you didn't need to spend two redundant sentences to prove it. However, if we're trading "get a life" barbs, I note that your posting hit CL at 10:57 p.m. on a Friday night. Which one of us doesn't have a life?
Of course, my possession of a "life" isn't relevant to the content of the post that set you off, it is just a big red herring you dragged into the argument.
Do you have anything rational to speak about? Rant or Rave as much as you like, but say something of substance!
Saying that the anti-war hippies are hurting their cause, and giving specific examples and advice, is substantial and rational. Calling it insubstantial and irrational, without pointing to any specifics, is another ad-hominem. When I say that hippies think stupid things, I at least have the good manners to point out what I think is stupid about their position.
Bullies pick fights about nothing and then watch how their picking creates grief and frustration.
The war isn't "nothing" - you think it is important - so how does posting about it make me a bully? This is simply name calling.
I don't plan to go round and round with you.
Gosh, good to know your plans. My plan is to win the lottery and retire to Australia. I'll take a moment here wish us both the best of luck with our respective goals.
Interesting how you tag those who care about the environment, who are anti-the-current-war, eat beans & rice and peddle their bikes as "hippies" -- If I met you on the street you would wouldn't have a clue I was the anti-bush, anti-"rotten" person you would expect me to be.
My point exactly: appearances aren't everything, so you must also think that attacking people who drive SUVs with yellow ribbons is counterproductive. Glad we agree on this one.
Education doesn't mean intelligence and lack of education doesn't mean lack of intelligence -- but you give those without an advanced education a bad chip on their shoulder---by transfering your chip to them.
This is classic. "Chip on the shoulder" is a saying that means the person with the "chip" has some pet issue that haunts them, and that they tend to drag the "chip" into every discussion, even if the "chip" has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Since there's not a word about education in what I posted, I can only conclude that you have some sort of hang-up (i.e, "chip") about education.
But, accusing me of insulting people with bad educations (or is it good educations?) is more name-calling, and, sheesh, it is also a hell of a stretch.
Respond as you like, but you lost the argument days ago.
Always good to end your name calling with a taunt. Props to you.
I don't know about anyone else on this board, but I'm still waiting for somebody to post a coherent, well-reasoned position against the war that justifies pulling out now, as the hippies would like us to do.
