Comments on: Bullshit Arguments http://www.povert.com/2005/07/13/bullshit-arguments/ It's Pronounced "Pah-vert." You povert. Thu, 13 Oct 2011 10:11:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: vanessa http://www.povert.com/2005/07/13/bullshit-arguments/comment-page-1/#comment-264 vanessa Sun, 07 Aug 2005 01:26:00 +0000 http://www.povert.com/?p=336#comment-264 I agree that these are poor arguments- but, in this case, you are talking about rhetorical points, and not arguments, and as rhetorical points they can be very useful. <BR/><BR/>Often claims from both sides can be substantiated with facts from the party in question's previous record- and so I suppose that the use of rhetoric doesn't bother me as much. So long as we require some substantiation afterward the use of these ad hominum claims are useful in getting people to reflect on the partisanship of political parties, media, etc. which is not in and of itself a bad thing. I agree that these are poor arguments- but, in this case, you are talking about rhetorical points, and not arguments, and as rhetorical points they can be very useful.

Often claims from both sides can be substantiated with facts from the party in question’s previous record- and so I suppose that the use of rhetoric doesn’t bother me as much. So long as we require some substantiation afterward the use of these ad hominum claims are useful in getting people to reflect on the partisanship of political parties, media, etc. which is not in and of itself a bad thing.

]]> By: Citizen http://www.povert.com/2005/07/13/bullshit-arguments/comment-page-1/#comment-263 Citizen Sat, 16 Jul 2005 02:09:00 +0000 http://www.povert.com/?p=336#comment-263 You know, for as much as I do believe that if it was a Democrat in the White House there would be indictments out the ass, it is a crappy argument from a logic point of view. It's purely hypothetical, and relies on one's own bias to hold any credibility. However, that's what a lot of politics is all about these days: defending your viewpoints while belittling your opponents.<BR/><BR/>Is this fair play? No. Is this how I think it should be? No. Did Republicans start this? I wish, but no. In truth, I have no idea who started it, but both parties are guilty. They both take the high road when the other party does something underhanded, and then look the other way when their own members do something equally cheap. The difference here is that you've got an unpopular president and a very vocal minority party that smells blood.<BR/><BR/>Now, having said that, I think Rove is a sleaze and a half and I don't believe the crap I'm hearing in his defense. They're splitting hairs like mad in some bizarre effort to justify his behavior, when it was reprehensible on any front. It reminds me of Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" comment. You know, for as much as I do believe that if it was a Democrat in the White House there would be indictments out the ass, it is a crappy argument from a logic point of view. It’s purely hypothetical, and relies on one’s own bias to hold any credibility. However, that’s what a lot of politics is all about these days: defending your viewpoints while belittling your opponents.

Is this fair play? No. Is this how I think it should be? No. Did Republicans start this? I wish, but no. In truth, I have no idea who started it, but both parties are guilty. They both take the high road when the other party does something underhanded, and then look the other way when their own members do something equally cheap. The difference here is that you’ve got an unpopular president and a very vocal minority party that smells blood.

Now, having said that, I think Rove is a sleaze and a half and I don’t believe the crap I’m hearing in his defense. They’re splitting hairs like mad in some bizarre effort to justify his behavior, when it was reprehensible on any front. It reminds me of Clinton’s “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” comment.

]]>