The Problem with Name Calling

Idiot!

Wussy!

Commie-bastard!!!

---

When I read these terms, I can only think of one thing: "Poophead". Poophead, that quintessential childhood insult. All insults, all name calling is nothing more than calling someone a poop-head.

Think about it. Why do people call other people any name? It's because they are angry or hurt or they just don't like the other person. And, in the absence of a logical argument or anything else intelligent to say for that matter, they resort to name calling.

The goal: to hurt.

Nothing else. It's meant as an insult, as an injury. It's an attempt to hurt another individual and as such I see no place for it anywhere, including E2.

Before the p.c. discussion comes up, I just want to say: nope. There's a difference: P.C. says that I shouldn't say a word because it's a word. I say you shouldn't name call because of the intention. That's what's important. If you say the word "stupid" as in, "that's a stupid idea" Eh, no biggie. Saying "you're stupid", on the other hand, is meant to hurt. Just like "you're a idiot", "you're a wussy", or "you're a commie". It's ad hominem and has no logical value.

If a member of this community were to take a swing at me, I would call the Bouncer. Whether it hurt me or not, I would consider the attempt as an attack (battery to be exact). Well, guess what, name calling is exactly the same. It's a verbal attack and, as such, has no place here.

It creates tension, hatred, and in general bad vibes. And I personally will vote against all name calling just as I would step in to prevent a fight.

Now, let see who's a poophead.

With all due respect, freeborn, you're forgetting that some people are poopheads, and some are commies. Furthermore, if you're going to claim that "tension, hatred, and in general bad vibes" are a bad thing, that's all very well, but you've offered nothing to justify that claim. In fact, your whole argument rests on very questionable assumptions.

You haven't given us any coherent objection to ad hominem attacks, either: If I demonstrate that you are a poophead, is that not a fact worth considering like any other? What about the bad vibes? Have the bad vibes no value at all? The "argumentam ad bad vibes" has a long and distinguished history in the Church and elsewhere. I refuse to abandon it because some random poophead has a mysterious and unspecified allergy to tension and irrational hatred.

You seem to suggest that name-calling is the last refuge of somebody with nothing constructive to say, but isn't that a grossly biased statement? In fact, name-calling is the first refuge of somebody with something DEstructive to say. That puts rather a different complexion on it, eh? It's a lot like the whole "pro-life"/"anti-choice"/"pro-choice" thing: The liberals deliberately obscure the issue by inventing fanciful and gratuitously negative terms like "anti-choice". Once you start accepting any of their terminology, once you start calling the anti-life activists "pro-choice", you have implicitly accepted their whole bloodthirsty worldview, and from there on in the debate will go nowhere. It's much more honest and sensible to call a spade a spade: I may have plenty of constructive things to say, but my priorities are in order and the bad vibes come first.

Of course, that's because I'm not a poophead.