Wednesday, May 04, 2005

The Moonbat's Guide to Framing an Argument

Every once in a while, a moonbat troll will find something on this blog (and this practice is in no way limited to the KAR - there are others who get much higher levels and volumes of stupidity than us) that makes it think that it can get one over on us. They always think wrong.

And it's never about the big things either. It's always some insignificant little detail that is apropos of nothing, and does nothing to impugn our cred (that being the intended result).

So the moonbats monitor our site, watching for the secret code words to appear that will launch our minions into action; rounding up the liberals and putting them in ghettos or something. In the meantime they look for a little weak spot to exploit.

It's silly, really. And somewhat annoying; annoying in the same way as as it is when you step on one of your children's 50,000,000 small plastic toys while walking through the house in bare feet. It stings for a brief moment, but the toy is always the one that ends up worse off from the encounter.

And thus, we come to "Michael" - a man who obviously thinks he's quite clever. In a comment to to this post, this grand barrister of public discourse writes:

I hate to burst your balloon, but your favorite punching bag -- the Star Tribune -- was one of the few newspapers that actually showed an increase in circulation.

I'll leave it you to spin this and come up with an explanation to your liking.

Whoa! He really showed us, Dementee! I hope that didn't make you cry.

Oh wait, he didn't show us anything; except his ass.

Put in very general terms, here is an abstract of the argument "Michael" wishes to engage in;

KAR theory: The editorials, commentary, and letters to the editor in the Strib represent a broad range of thinking: from the misguided and wrongheaded to the purely asinine.

Support (proof): Er, just scroll down or root through the archives of this blog. We provide thousands of examples.

Michael's Rebuttal: KAR is wrong. (Presumably) the Strib's opinion journalism represents the cutting edge of intelligent discourse and enlightened ideas.

Support (proof): The Strib's circulation grew one-third of one percent.

Mike's Fallacy: Correlation does not equal causation. Mental Giant Mikey (who by virtue of being a liberal, is smarter than everybody) would have us believe that the increase in the Strib's circulation has to do with the fact that more people are subscribing for the "enlightened" opinion journalism featured on its pages every day.

Got proof for that assertion Mikey? Your thesis (that we're wrong) depends on it.

Of course, the growth in the Strib's circulation would have nothing to do with: a great sports page (Sid and Reusse notwithstanding), decent news coverage (arguable, but I'll give it to ya), the comics, arts coverage, the Sunday ads, or population growth in the west metro.

That's not spin. That's argument. And you don't have one. If you are going to pick a fight, at least have the foresight to support your assertions. I would be remiss in my duties as Managing Editor of the KAR to let some moonbat come in here, say"gotcha" and roll on.

See that mushroom cloud, Mikey? That's where your "argument" used to be.

Sheesh! Now I know why Fraters doesn't allow comments ("Vibrating razors??? Don't you idiots care about all the homeless people living under bridges?!!!").

No comments: