When arguments are attacked by focusing on the personal faults and quirks of the individual, a situation is set up whereby people's opinions of the individual making the argument are shaped by poisoning wells. Suggest that the problem is that the person making an argument is crazy, irrationally devoted to some cause, delusional, short and suffering from napoleon complex, whatever.
.............
All true. I agree.
But after nearly eight years of the same debate (I'm talking about the specific case of Afghanistan here) during which the same things were said more or less the same way leading to the conclusion that a whole lot of tweaking was going on...you realize that you're not attacking an argument, you're opposing the tweak.
After these nearly eight years of (mostly) gentle discourse I think I've earned -- if not the right then at least the option -- to forgo earnest replies and links to illuminating essays and mentions of relevant books and 600 word mini essay posts and, in short, granting the benefit of the doubt...to cut to the chase and say: dude, you're fucking with me.
.d.