Ad hominem arguments are ones that attack the source/arguer rather than the argument. This would be saying "Your cookies are bad because you're stupid." Basically, it's the official word for name-calling, and wherever you see it, it's a good indicator of intellectual stuntedness.
In regards to politics, this means that any sort of commentator or opinion-ator that uses the term "moonbat" or "rethuglican" should be more critically looked as regards to their credibility. Why? Because anyone who simply dismisses another for being ideologically left or right has shut down their brain. This is intolerance at its best, intellectual dishonesty and laziness epitomized. It's easier to call someone a name than (truly) objectively analyze something, and honestly, that's what a lot of people in politics do. They tailor their information to their beliefs, not the other way around.
5/23/2008
5/19/2008
Qur'an shooting.
So if you don't know about the recent incident of a soldier (I think a sniper) using a Qur'an for target practice, look it up.
So let's look at the left and right think-tanks in regards to this issue. The left? Going apeshit, exaggerating and blowing this all out of proportion. Cool. The right? Hmm... hard to say... oh yeah, totally blowing this off as "totally not a big deal... and they apologized! Stupid liberals."
This is why I hate political parties. Both are absolutely insane and idiotic, doing nothing but emotionally riling up people, the left without shame, the right cloaking it in pseudo-reason. Which is typical.
So let's look at the left and right think-tanks in regards to this issue. The left? Going apeshit, exaggerating and blowing this all out of proportion. Cool. The right? Hmm... hard to say... oh yeah, totally blowing this off as "totally not a big deal... and they apologized! Stupid liberals."
This is why I hate political parties. Both are absolutely insane and idiotic, doing nothing but emotionally riling up people, the left without shame, the right cloaking it in pseudo-reason. Which is typical.
4/15/2008
Obama isn't elitist.
Why?
Because his comments about poverty causing people to be bitter and act in discriminatory ways are right. "They took our jobs!" is a real argument against immigration... people with jobs don't say that sort of thing. The effects of de-industrialization are real as well.
Poverty is an enemy of everything, and that's what Obama was saying. It's the conservatives and reactionaries calling him "elitist," "out of touch," and even "Marxist," because he's right to focus on the little people getting fucked by the administration and their ass-backward economic policies.
All this hoo-ha is about nothing except character assassination, again. Being sadly correct doesn't make a person elitist, it makes them right. Don't fall for the bullshit.
Because his comments about poverty causing people to be bitter and act in discriminatory ways are right. "They took our jobs!" is a real argument against immigration... people with jobs don't say that sort of thing. The effects of de-industrialization are real as well.
Poverty is an enemy of everything, and that's what Obama was saying. It's the conservatives and reactionaries calling him "elitist," "out of touch," and even "Marxist," because he's right to focus on the little people getting fucked by the administration and their ass-backward economic policies.
All this hoo-ha is about nothing except character assassination, again. Being sadly correct doesn't make a person elitist, it makes them right. Don't fall for the bullshit.
4/04/2008
This is why conservatives can suck my balls.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/04/oreilly-transgender/
Say what you like about "not all conservatives are this way," but time and again, this bullshit comes from that side of the aisle. Virtually every "true conservative" I know thinks along these lines, as well as most people on some level, and it's complete crap. Intolerance blows.
Say what you like about "not all conservatives are this way," but time and again, this bullshit comes from that side of the aisle. Virtually every "true conservative" I know thinks along these lines, as well as most people on some level, and it's complete crap. Intolerance blows.
3/29/2008
Apparently, race is a birth defect.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said yesterday that the United States still has trouble dealing with race because of a national "birth defect" that denied black Americans the opportunities given to whites at the country's very founding.
"Black Americans were a founding population," she said. "Africans and Europeans came here and founded this country together — Europeans by choice and Africans in chains. That's not a very pretty reality of our founding."
As a result, Miss Rice told editors and reporters at The Washington Times, "descendants of slaves did not get much of a head start, and I think you continue to see some of the effects of that."
Source.
Now, I realize she was attempting to be satirical. At first glance, this seems at first like a great line.
But it's really not, because it places the idea of "race" into the neutral ground of happenstance, of nature, when in reality race is really nothing more than a social construct. The average person can attempt to argue against this point (I gladly welcome the challenge; please, try it) but it isn't the main point of this post.
Please note the bolded section, and the two main points: "descendants of slaves did not get much of a head start," and "[she] think[s] [we] continue to see some of the effects of that." To which I say: understate much?
This pairing truly infuriates me, for a few reasons. One: she said this at the behest of another, as the token minority in our administration, in response to Barack Obama's smashing speech. This is a politically correct, useless-in-reality comment.
Two: It implies that African-Americans gota head start... this is patently false. Ever hear of Jim Crow? Yeah... and how that didn't really come off the books until the 60s? And how it's still in effect on a de facto basis? Ms. Rice, what's the deal here? Furthermore, by putting it in the past tense it implies that "head start" was enough to essentially equalize things, and is no longer necessary. Once again, appallingly incorrect.
Three: She thinks we see some effects of that? Thinks?! Where the hell did she grow up so that she completely missed out on the whole racial reality of America? Who is spoon feeding her this shit? Does she really believe what is coming out of her mouth?
The blatant, probably willful ignorance of many of the leaders of this country is still astounding to me, even though I try to expect it.
"Black Americans were a founding population," she said. "Africans and Europeans came here and founded this country together — Europeans by choice and Africans in chains. That's not a very pretty reality of our founding."
As a result, Miss Rice told editors and reporters at The Washington Times, "descendants of slaves did not get much of a head start, and I think you continue to see some of the effects of that."
Source.
Now, I realize she was attempting to be satirical. At first glance, this seems at first like a great line.
But it's really not, because it places the idea of "race" into the neutral ground of happenstance, of nature, when in reality race is really nothing more than a social construct. The average person can attempt to argue against this point (I gladly welcome the challenge; please, try it) but it isn't the main point of this post.
Please note the bolded section, and the two main points: "descendants of slaves did not get much of a head start," and "[she] think[s] [we] continue to see some of the effects of that." To which I say: understate much?
This pairing truly infuriates me, for a few reasons. One: she said this at the behest of another, as the token minority in our administration, in response to Barack Obama's smashing speech. This is a politically correct, useless-in-reality comment.
Two: It implies that African-Americans gota head start... this is patently false. Ever hear of Jim Crow? Yeah... and how that didn't really come off the books until the 60s? And how it's still in effect on a de facto basis? Ms. Rice, what's the deal here? Furthermore, by putting it in the past tense it implies that "head start" was enough to essentially equalize things, and is no longer necessary. Once again, appallingly incorrect.
Three: She thinks we see some effects of that? Thinks?! Where the hell did she grow up so that she completely missed out on the whole racial reality of America? Who is spoon feeding her this shit? Does she really believe what is coming out of her mouth?
The blatant, probably willful ignorance of many of the leaders of this country is still astounding to me, even though I try to expect it.
3/19/2008
Sweet Irony
If you've been following the democratic nomination, then you know about the war being waged between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Now let me lay down some knowledge that needs to be understood before I make my final point.
- Hillary Clinton has been primarily using her "experience" to say that she deserves to be president. She thinks that her time in the white house as first lady, combined with her experience as a senator is a world of experience. Which is actually probably true to a point.
- She has also said that the president of the United States needs to be "...Ready on day one" and her experience will allow her to do this.
- Hillary has also expressed the notion that if she was given the nomination she'd have Barack Obama on her ticket for vice president.
- She also considers Barack Obama not experienced enough to be president
Now props to my poly sci professor for revealing this contradiction: She doesn't want Barack Obama to be president because he isn't experience enough to lead the country on day one. Yet she wants him as her vice president, who very well may have to lead on Day 2 if anything were to happen. Hopefully he'd learn all he needs to know on Day 1.
3/05/2008
Cuba Signs UN Rights Pact
"At the United Nations, Cuba's foreign minister, Felipe Pérez Roque, signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which have been in force since 1976. He announced on Dec. 10 Cuba’s intention to adhere to the accords. He also said then that Cuba would open its doors in early 2009 to regular scrutiny by the United Nations Human Rights Council."
An interesting development since the end of Fidel.
An interesting development since the end of Fidel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
