Winner of the Apesnake Atrocious Argument Award.
I have decided to award a prize to really bad arguments that I encounter. It will be awarded in an intermittent manner at a time and a place of my choosing. Sometimes I will not even bother to name the recipient if I feel that they are merely a living stereotype and not an actual thinking human being (or if I just don't know the name). Such is the case of this first ever winner of the A.A.A. Award
I was on the computer while CNN was on behind me; I had not been watching it, I just got fed up with channel surfing and left it on that channel; when two partisan nobodies (possibly elected politicians by the sound of them) started blathering about that dead woman who's heart and lungs won't stop working. There was the usual balloon juice - sound bites and ironic appeals to arguments that neither pundit would hold outside this issue (a Democrat supporting privacy and anti-government intervention, a Republican saying that the husband is not the ultimate unquestioned head of the house hold, etc.) when the Republican came out ahead and scored the winning atrocious argument. She said (screamed really) that it was time we solved this type of thing by getting rid of these troublesome activist court judges and replace them with conservative judges who will play along with what people (read politicians) want. When it was pointed out to her that the latest judge to rule in favor of the husband in this case was a conservative church going fellow she blurted out "Yes, but he is WRONG!! He is WRONG!!"
So her argument is that everything will be made perfect if all judges (liberal and conservative) are replaced by the type of conservative judges that are not capable of being wrong.
Now if only there was some way of determining whether a judge was wrong or not. Some sort of written code that could be interpreted by someone who is educated and trained in this code.
As an aside, politicians hate judges for two reasons:
1) They force some basic restrictions on their ability to do anything they want. When reason wanes, the court restrains. To someone who has spent their entire life trying to gain influence and power this restraint is like sunlight is to a vampire.
2) Most politicians are lawyers who were too stupid to ever hope to became judges, or judges that were too stupid to ever reach a position of authority in their chosen profession (I am not specifically referring to Judge Roy Moore here even if some might feel that the shoe fits). They see state (or provincial) Supreme Court judges and their federal counterparts as being successful at what they were barely adequate in, understanding the law. Hence, bitterness ensues.
However for this complete 180 degree turn of logic without taking a gasp of air; from "conservative judges would prevent this" to "this was not prevented by a conservative judge" in less than three seconds without any recognition of contradiction, this nameless pundetress gets the first ever Apesnake Atrocious Argument Award. (patent pending)
Now for a more in depth look at the media and their pundit panderism in action I encourage you to watch this clip of the Daily Show. I found it mirrored somewhere so I hope it stays up for a while as go find the actual site on that comedy network site thingy.