Ad Hominem

I've always believed that the last bastion of a failing argument is ridicule. "Okay, look, I can't offer any coherent reasons for what I believe, so I'm just going to try to win this argument by making fun of you." No, no one would say that, but if all you have is to ridicule your opponent, it seems like you're argument is out of reasons.

So what am I to think these days? It seems that the number one method of promoting a position is simply to ridicule your opponent. Take the latest Moveon.org ad against McCain. Clearly they're "identical cousins," as proven by the music that plays in the background. Obviously they're the very same person by virtue of the fact that they show President doing a little dance and John McCain playing around with the microphone. There is even photographic proof: Both McCain and President Bush are pictured with the "thumbs-up" showing. I mean, seriously, what more could you ask? Make fun or your opponent. Don't make sense, make fun. Don't offer reason, offer ridicule.

It's the going thing. Don't explain why the Calvinist is wrong; explain why he's ludicrous. Don't offer reasons why the Arminian is mistaken; tell us how stupid he is for believing what he believes. Oh, that guy who differs with you used an incorrect phrase or word? Oh, my, yes, play that one up. I mean, seriously, if that's as good as he can get, how reliable are his opinions?

I may be wrong here. I may be confused. Maybe making fun of someone is a viable way to win an argument. Maybe, if you can cast them in a negative enough light, you won't even have to offer reasons your view is correct. And, after all, isn't that much better than actually having to think things through?

I don't know. It just seems wrong to me ...