ad hominem attacks

1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

yeah, so i called a moron a moron in a recent continuation of the ridiculously protracted debate on the merits of "ebonics" in the comments section of this blog. some noble defender of the intellectually challenged then accused me of arguing like an eleven-year old (the fact that i named my blog "ilona the pest" didn't clue you in?) and making "ad hominem" attacks.

sure, it was a personal insult. but it was completely justified. i DID respond to his arguments, many times, and i just got sick of repeating myself. he's not a moron because of his opposing view in the debate. i can think of a number of reasonable arguments one could make to rebut my points. rather, he's a moron because he apparently doesn't grasp the basic concept of how to conduct a debate: you listen to the other person's argument and then respond to that, rather than shrilly repeating yourself in an effort to win by default after exhausting everyone with your sheer tenacity.

(for instance: i don't think the person who accused me of arguing like a little kid is a moron. although it wounded my pride a little, i think it was an appropriate and clever move. it responded to something i actually said, and made me question what i had said, even though i ultimately still felt that my point was justified.)

i've heard a number of smart lawyers observe that it's much easier, more pleasant, and more satifsying to go up against another smart lawyer, rather than a stupid lawyer. this experience, for me, perfectly illustrates that point.

i know that one of my flaws is arrogance: i'm deeply prejudiced against the stupid. i should really work on that. they can't help themselves. but what they CAN do is stay quiet and not try to engage in public debates that waste everyone's time.