General Discussion

Unsubstantiated fact learned today. People who do not like Maher are obsessives who are easily drawn to rage by simple tactics while people who do like Maher simply and reasonably note that they like his style and focus (and obsessively defend him whenever negative posts come up about him). It seems the strongest argument for certain positions tends to be that others are ridiculous, obsessive, naive, hysterical, or delusional. It pains me to see some of the seemingly brightest and most informed members feel the need to dismiss others’ opinions as being rooted in their mentally defective, infantile, or perhaps even feminine natures. It just seems that if one is arguing from a strong position, they would have a ready made argument that doesn’t rely on diminishing others rather than their statements or arguments.