There are a few specific arguments that people make relatively often on the SDMB which bug me to no end, but which I’ve never gotten around to responding to, usually because by the time I’ve read to the end of the thread, there doesn’t seem to be any point to going back several pages and responding to one specific part of one post.
So this thread is for those arguments, and any similar things other people want to vent about.
Feel free to be as political or non-political as you like, although both of these examples happen to be rather partisan.
The Argument: “So what if Bush said there were WMDs in Iraq? So did John Kerry and even BILL CLINTON HIMSELF”
My Rebuttal: So what? The problem is not that Bush thought there were WMDs. The problem is that he LED THE COUNTRY TO WAR largely because of this claim. Starting a war is probably the gravest, most serious thing that a human being can do. It demands absolutely the most complete and authoritative arguments and justifications. Any claim being made as a reason for going to war is subject to a far higher standard than any other claim. I’m sure Clinton thought that there were WMDs. Heck, so did I. But Clinton didn’t start a freakin’ WAR with that as justification.
As for Kerry and anyone else who more recently bought into the idea that there were WMDs, they almost certainly were convinced by the Bush White House. In which case they are guilty of naivete, certainly, but not of the same level of dishonesty and/or negligence that Bush is guilty of.
There are plenty of legitimate opinions that can be held about the whole WMD issue, and plenty of legitimate arguments about it. But the “Bill Clinton thought so too” thing is a fucking joke.
The argument: “Calling liberals ‘Moore-ons’ is no worse than calling Republicans ‘pubbies’”
My Rebuttal: Are you serious? Let’s see: ‘pubbies’ takes a single syllable and adds the diminuitive “ies” to it. OK, maybe a teensy bit condescending. But all it’s basically saying is “Republicans”, which is a clearly defined and accurately measurable category. ‘Moore-ons’ first of all is an obvious homonym of “Moron” which is actively insulting. It also is vague as to precisely who it applies to. I saw F 9/11 and liked it, and read Stupid White Men. But I have a variety of reservations about Michael Moore. I certainly don’t slavishly worship every word out of his mouth, or anything like it. But I’ll certainly vote against Bush. Am I a “Moore-on”? Who knows. But it makes things nice and easy to be able to dismiss entire swaths of dopers with one snide name, and then claim you’re not doing any worse than they are. Right, Brutus?
(Note: I’ve just recently seen a truly insulting nickname for Republicans, namely “repugs”. Cut it out! Let’s maintain the moral high ground here…)
