Posted by
Andrews on Friday, August 15, 2008 12:07:09 PM
I was writing
a comment on Buchanan's latest article when another poster replied "
You're a sheep, following the anti-Russian position because you think it's conservative." Now, for the record, I am anti-Russia because I think Putin is a dangerous imperialist who could touch off a new cold war, and who would also not shy away from supporting anti-US terrorists or nations to keep us from interfering, but that is not my point here. My point is that, even if that were my motivation, it still is not an argument. Even if I am blindly repeating the party line, just pointing that out does not prove the party line wrong. (I also hate people who use the term "sheep", as I explained before.)
We see this a lot in the environmental field, where studies are "disproved' by showing that they were funded by oil companies. However, that really proves nothing. Just showing those who funded something have an interest in a specific outcome does not mean the study is invalid. You need to disprove the actual substance of the study, not just show the political bias of the sponsors. (It also ignores the fact that most of the studies supporting AGW were sponsored by the government which has a strong bias as well. So if bias invalidates a study, then those proving AGW are equally invalid.)
My point is simple, and should be self-evident, but sadly is not. If you want to argue, then take on the actual argument, not the man making the argument. Even if everything you say about the man making the argument is entirely true, what did you prove? If a genius or a cretin hands you a dictionary, it is equally valid. Attacking the messenger still says nothing about the validity of the message.
UPDATE
There is one variant on this that is particularly offensive, and especially common among European liberals, the argument "Americans are so stupid they can't even find X on a map, so..." This sort of sneering superiority still proves nothing, but it does serve to make the writer feel better about himself.
The problem is, anyone can find a subject on which others are not as well informed. "What is the definite integral from 1 to x of 1 over u du?" "Who was rumored to be the illegitimate son of the Empress Carlotta?" "What is the dative singular of senatus?" "Who was nudens?" "What are the four theological subjects a Jew is forbidden to study?" "What distinguishes the emperor Julian?"
Just because someone cannot answer those questions it does not follow that they are unable to discuss an unrelated topic. Likewise, an inability to find a specific nation on a map does not mean that the speaker is unable to discuss politics, even politics of that state. However, it is a quick and easy way for Europeans, and American liberals to feel better about themselves while running down the US. So I doubt we will ever see this argument go away, worthless as it may be.
(For those who are curious: 1. The natural log of x. 2. General Maxime Weygand. 3. Senatui. 4. It is the alternate spelling of the Celtic deity Nodens. 5."What is above, what is below, what came before, and what comes after". 6. He was the last pagan emperor of the Roman Empire. Who says you can't learn anything useful on a blog?)