To: At large
Re: Dave Matthews, Zane
straw man: The author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition’s best argument.
Example: “only an ignorant bigot (such as yourself) would fail to notice that the United States of America is presently engaged in a war of aggression & occupation in Iraq, and that this war involves daily acts of violence against Muslim civilians”
ad hominem: appealing to personal considerations rather than logic or reason; attacking the person, not the argument.
Examples: “Infantile, petulant reply Mr Spencer, the truth is as a catholic apologist you have an agenda.”
“Robert KKK Spencer and his Bigots Brigade … what a miserable group of hate-filled bigots!
moral equivalence: claiming that there can be no moral or ethical hierarchy decided between two sides in a conflict, nor in actions or tactics of either side.
Example: “criminals shoot people; police shoot criminals. Criminals are people, so police are no different from criminals.”
“But Robert Spencer would have you believe that Islam is the world’s violent religion in constrast to Christianity, the religion of peace (and nuclear bombs, sorry Hirohima!).”
My advice: treat this kind of commentary as a series of hoots and clicks. Arguing with them is like trying to teach a dog to sing: it wastes your time and gets the dog pissed off.
