A paraphrase:
Him: Why don’t you like Sarah Palin?
Me: She’s an idiot.
Him: See, you and everyone else just make these generalizations without anything concrete. You never do your research.
Me: She thinks we can launch attacks against whatever country whenever we want to, and there’s no problems or consequences from doing that.
Him: And then you go for just one specific thing.
Me: …you can’t accuse me of not doing my research and of being too specific at the same time. You can’t use both arguments, they’re contradictory.
Him: Look, let’s just do this. I’ll just have my love for her, and you won’t.
Me: …wait, what?
Since this is apparently not a conversation Him is willing to have, I thought I’d respond here.
Dear Sir:
I apologize for pointing out the contradictions in your ad hominum attacks. I didn’t realize that was against the rules.
I realize the fact that you went straight to ad hominum statements (rather weak ones, at that) doesn’t mean you’re wrong; just that you don’t know how to create a logical argument.
I apologize for thinking that we could have a conversation and THEN agree to disagree. I didn’t realize that having your beliefs questioned would be so painful.
I hope you’re able to find friends who never disagree with you, or contradict you. I’ll be looking for folks who enjoy a spirited, intellectual conversation.
Mike
(by the way, folks, this post is the straw man attack)