Ridicule is Not an Argument

There’s a reason that certain skeptics and atheists are quickly losing whatever respect they once had, or thought they had.

I’m looking at a post today from one of The Usual Suspects that is precisely what many see as the problem today: Instead of using a reasoned argument against someone, why not use ridicule and derision? Well, I think the answer is really simple; there isn’t a counter-argument to be made.

Here’s an interesting quote from the post:

As someone who knows a lot of feminists and listens to what they actually say, all three of her premises are false and ridiculous — they’re only going to appeal to bigots who accept them as a reflection of their own prejudices.

How are all three of her premises “false and ridiculous”? What exactly is false in what’s being presented? How is what Dr. Sommers says ridiculous? Anyone that disagrees with the dogma presented by these people are always bigots or misogynists, or something else, aren’t they?

I know plenty of women that actually agree with what Dr. Sommers has to say and no they’re not right wing nutjobs.

And instead of playing the original, you have to use grade-school tactics. Of course, that’s your audience isn’t it and why would any reasonable person expect anything different?

One thought on “Ridicule is Not an Argument

  1. I’d like to say that ridicule is what one uses when one lacks an effective argument, but I suspect there is another reason that may be even more important, at least in this case. Ridicule has become a central part of this particular individual’s online persona. It produces strong emotional reactions in others, and that translates into attention and blog traffic. I have to think that if it wasn’t so effective in accomplishing this, that it wouldn’t be used as much.

Leave a Reply