The Idiot's Argument

As you all well know I recently (today) put up an open letter to angry Miner fans.  Of course the immediate response to anything I write that makes people look dumb is complete insanity.  People lose any common sense they may have had in their tiny little brains and succumb to key stroke diarrhea.

The argument I made in my letter is a two part argument:

1.  If you think Price is bad, try rolling the dice on some coach who won't stay here for more than one winning season. 

2.  Build UTEP into a top notch university and watch the sports programs follow that trend.

So what did people who read the open letter respond with?  I HAVE RIGHTS!!!!!  I HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE MAD!!! I HAVE THE RIGHT TO COMPLAIN!!!! I HAVE RIGHTS!

My response to that is simple - I never once said you couldn't complain.  The only thing I challenged them to do is to take a job coaching football and see how they fare.  I didn't say they couldn't complain anymore if they didn't try coaching football; I simply asked them to achieve the success they expect in others in order to better understand how hard that task is.

Paul Strelzin even fell into the trap on his show today when he interrupted his interview with Commissioner Escobar to chastise me for denying him the right to complain about UTEP football. Of course, he must have not read the letter because I don't say anywhere in there that complaining was banned and the public's constitutional rights had been violated.

You see, there are many terms to describe this false argument presented against my argument.  I simply call it the "hyperbolic counter." Obviously the "hyperbolic"part of the argument is the over the top leap from what it actually was.  The "counter" part is actually how certain running plays in football are described.  Basically you start one way and then head the other, which perfectly describes their reasoning. This kind of argument is made by children when they don't get their way.

For example, how many times in your life have you told a child they can't have cookies for dinner and they've told someone else that you refuse to feed them?  They change the argument so that it draws sympathy from others.  After all, not feeding your child is horrible! Not feeding your child cookies for dinner is to be applauded. 

In this case these geniuses are mad because I've made points they can not refute.  Their only answer is to scream loudly that their rights have been violated.  This cry for sympathy draws other idiots in like bears to honey.  The rallying cry then becomes David K's assault on their right to complain about Mike Price even though that argument was never made. 

I have used this type of argument in married life a bunch of times because my wife is always right.  When she tells me I can't go to Vegas with my single guy friends who like to gamble and purchase the services of hookers, I claim to the world that she is refusing to let me live my life.  I say that because I have no good argument for gambling away our savings and sleeping with women of the night who may have herpes etc... Not that I would want to... It's just an example and not a real one.  My wife actually told me I'm not allowed to have cookies for dinner and I'm the one who told her mother that she wouldn't allow me to eat dinner... so there, now you know the truth.

As you can see, those who claim their rights have been violated are really saying that they can not refute what I have said and intend to change their story to make themselves feel better when others feel sorry for them. It's a simple case of an idiot arguing out loud.

Comments

[Alan]

Where's the "open letter" referred to in your post?

[Jorge]

Whenever one endeavors to prove himself superior to others by penning an intellectual writing, one should always proofread. Since you are not intellectual enough, I have done that for you. Do you not know that a "maid" is the only illegal alien that conservatives agree should be allowed to exist; and that the word "made" is the correct spelling in paragraph two? Some people chastise others because of dumb arguments and some criticize others for their dumb grammatical entries. Need I tell you where you fit in?

[David K]

Jorge,

Thanks for pointing that out. It's tough to edit something you type out on your cell phone while waiting for a meeting to start. What's worse is that the phone prompts you to select a word after typing only two letters - I picked the wrong word while having the option to pick the right word!

Here's my beef...

When you want to chastise me for my grammar, you better be on top of your game. I wrote several paragraphs quite well on a cell phone. You managed to completely screw up one paragraph from your home computer. Let's see how you did.

In sentence one you do not use the word "writing" correctly given that you used the word "penning" just before that. Your attempt to turn "writing" into a noun is not completely wrong, just very awkward given you used the word "penning" right before it. We all know that "penning" s another word for "writing," and they kill your sentence when used together.

Your second sentence isn't a sentence at all. You misuse "intellectual" all together and the little abortion after the comma requires that I refer to a previous sentence in order to make sense of it. You must always answer the question of what you have done for me in the same sentence. Do not rely on your reader's memory to help you make your point.

Your third sentence features an extreme misuse of the beloved semicolon. That sentence is actually two sentences. One is a question posed to me. The other is the answer to that question. Try to use shorter sentences with concise objects and subjects.

The fourth sentences is missing the word "their" between "of" and "dumb."

Your final sentence is okay, but the use of the king's english is a little obnoxious considering your terrible use of the commoner's english previous to the closing.

You keep working on your writing and I promise to do the same!

[Susie]

UTEP needs a Quarterback.