It's hard to find the five dumbest things said by supposedly thoughtful commentators in 2009, but here's my list of personal favorites.

Having written a number of articles about "The Hopelessness of Debate," where I lay out the case that true discussion and debate is not possible when one side is too partisan, too ideological, or simply too stupid to actually address the content of an article, I've found my thesis amply reinforced throughout the last 12 months.

Below, in descending order, are my nominees for the five stupidest things said in response to articles appearing in the Intellectual Conservative during the preceding year.

You'll note that each comment earned its singular point of distinction not simply because I disagree with that point — although I freely admit I place as much distance between these thoughts and mine as I can — but because of the particular logic through which these thoughts were expressed.

Reasonable people can disagree; that's what makes life interesting. But like ugliness, stupidity is ignorant to the bone.

#5: Just fill in the blanks yourself

Having written an essay about the true nature of conservative philosophy (you know, the kind where everyone who doesn't subscribe to these views is a liberal — or worse), one commentator raised a number of thoughtful questions, objections, and calls for clarification, to which the author of the article responded by, well . . . you can read his answer for yourself:

I didn't respond point by point to Bob because I haven't got the time, and I think he somewhat misses the point of this sort of essay, which is not to explain every point in exhaustive detail. To do so would make it something other than what it is, a 1000 to 2000 word column.
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/08/12/putting-the-right-in-the-rightonline-conference/ 

Translation: You raise a lot of substantive points that I'm not going to respond to, because you've raised a lot of substantive points that I don't want to respond to.

So much for the intellectual challenge of promoting — and defending — a point of view. But there was a method to this madness, as the author went on to explain.

My point was partially to be provocative and apparently it worked because it seems to have provoked you to look into what I have written previously and type out a rather intemperate reply of almost the same length as my original article.

Translation: You've raised a lot of substantive points that I'm not going to respond to in my "provocative" article, which was deliberately provocative so as to have you and others raise a lot of substantive points that I'm not going to respond to.

#4: So what if they're wrong? They're still right.

In an essay on falsifying data relating to global cooling, er warming . . . I mean global climate change, one commentator who had steadfastly refused to support the notion that nature, not man, was primarily responsible for all of the above now backtracked slightly — with an interesting twist of logic to cover all his bases.

As I said before, I'm not so convinced about the 'anthropogenic' part of 'anthropogenic global warming.' I don't fully understand the models many climatologists are using to study the issue. They may well be wrong – probably are in some ways. But again, I'm not seeing willful, malicious conspiracy. And even if they were motivated purely by evil – so what? First you have to show that someone's wrong before you start explaining why they're wrong. What if they're evil, and just happen to be right anyway?
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/11/25/the-day-science-died/ 

So what?

So what if someone falsifies data to support a pre-determined conclusion whose social, economic, and political policy implications could drastically affect our lives, liberty, and standards of living? So what if their climatology models are wrong in very fundamental ways. So what if their emails say to insert an "ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION" to mask the decline in actual temperatures — they're just words subject to interpretation. (Kind of like Nixon when he said to John Dean, "So John, how's the cover up going?")

So what if their motivations were purely "evil"? None of this suggests they can't be "right, anyway?"

#3: Torture is definitely a crime, unless it's not

In the great "Waterboarding is definitely torture and definitely a crime" debate, those offering this judgment were asked to distinguish between fact and opinion. When pressed to acknowledge that emphatic statements that waterboarding is a "crime" need to actually have legal credibility, one commentator responded with the following logic:

I seem be hearing that if people are not legally trained or legal analysts, they cannot coherently analyze or meaningfully comment on the issue of torture.
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/05/05/tortured-logic/

Opinions are not analysis. "I don't support waterboarding because of X reason" is an opinion. It is no more or less valid than any other opinion. By contrast, "Waterboarding is a crime" is a legal issue. More than an opinion is needed to make this statement.

People who cannot recognize the difference between the two statements "cannot coherently analyze or meaningfully comment on the issue of torture."

#2: I lived through history, and survived to tell about it

In another off-topic observation, one Canadian commentator felt compelled to lay the entire blame for 9/11 at the feet of such "notable homos [as] Joseph McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover. Their anti-commie legacy led directly to America's support for the Mujaheddin and the emergence of Osama bin Laden."

When pressed on his understanding of American politics and American foreign policy, this same commentator drew on the trump card of actually living through the times of which he spoke. "I lived through Carter, Reagan and Canada's equivalents, Trudeau and Mulroney."
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/11/19/the-fort-hood-massacre-why-the-democrats-wont-call-it-terrorism/#comments

Who, after all, can argue with first-hand knowledge and experience, and thus presumably forgive his homophobic slanders to make his points?

The only problem with this otherwise compelling personal narrative was the subsequent admission that the commentator was in his "thirties." With Jimmy Carter elected in 1976, that made him maybe five or six years old at the time he first experienced this brush with history.

Still, I suppose he could have run home to catch the news after turning in his Kindergarten assignments early, so who am I to cast doubt on his credibility?

#1: The World According to Amway

And the winner of the single stupidest comment of 2009 is . . .

In an article on "Nuptial Disagreements" which talked about divorce rates and birth rates, one commentator launched into a tirade against the multi-level marketing company Amway. When challenged that his post had nothing to do with the content of the article, his response was:

I disagree. Unethical/immoral behavior damages ALL areas, whether they are keeping promises (marriage), being responsible (abortions), or being honest (the Amway tool scam).
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/12/18/nuptial-disagreements/#comments

Talk about an all-encompassing segue. The alleged Amway fraud is just too big an issue to ignore in any discussion of marriage, abortion, nuclear war, jihadist terrorism, national health care, or any other issue affecting the planet.

Thank God there are devoted citizens of the Republic who make it their mission in life to picket abortion clinics with anti-Amway signs, and make sure every marriage in America remains secure by warning newlyweds about the evils of multi-level marketing.

America is a better place for them, and we owe people like this a debt of thanks for thinking real good about this and other subjects.