Political metaphors (was Re: on ann coulter

[Terrance]

MalignD at aol.com wrote:
> 
> << I was referring to the way you pile on the weak argument.  >>
> 
> I don't know that I agree with the characterization of piling on, but what
> exactly is wrong with attacking a weak argument?  As opposed to what?
> Letting it stand unchallenged?  What would be the point of this list in that
> case?

Obviously there is nothing wrong with attacking a weak argument. There
is nothing wrong with supporting the strong argument that is defeating
the weak argument. This is not what I mean by piling on. And there is
nothing wrong in trying to re-write a weak argument and make it
stronger. For example, the Afrocentric argument about how Africa created
the wealth of the Americas was weak. The economist's absurd claim about
commodities made the argument even weaker. 
But, one could say, the flow of African commodities and labor to the
Americas contributed to the wealth of the region during such and such
periods. One could cite reputable economic studies and so on. 

There is something wrong with piling on. And there is too much of it
here. And I can't believe that the people here and the people that own
this list permit Doug to call people fascists and neo-nazis. It's
disgraceful!