I see and hear this going on all the time, both on Yahoo Answers and in real life. Ted Kennedy, Rush Limbaugh, and Rosie O'Donnel are made fun of for being overweight. Bush is compared to a monkey, and Kerry is referred to as Lurch from the Addams Family.
Shouldn't a mature critic stick to policy or ideological differences with a political figure, and stay away from criticizing their appearance? A person can not always help the way they look, and their appearance really has very little to do with the kind of person they are.
So doesn't it make more sense to say that someone is ignorant, cruel, naive, or short-sighted, rather than saying they look like an animal or need to eat a sandwich? Doesn't it reflect immaturity when someone focuses on the physical?
Or, am I wrong? Is appearance a legitimate area of criticism?
Agree or disagree.
2006-08-20 06:46:34 · 8 answers · asked by timm1776 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I agree with you and your question illustrates the point that maturity is sometimes lacking in politics. IF you don't like someone's views, you should come up with an intelligent counterargument instead of attacking their appearance.
2006-08-20 06:53:46 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
sorry I disagree. They set themselves up in political life and deserve to be knocked down occasionally as they do to their opponents. Few politicians reach the heights of office because they are caring humanitarians. They may enter politics for noble reasons but power corrupts and they end up staying in politics for the sake of selfish ambition. The reason people like Ghandi, Mandela and JFK are so highly regarded is that they were exceptions in that they actually did care selflessly.
2006-08-20 15:26:02 · answer #2 · answered by bob kerr 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree,
but even I have to admit my main man in the office, when properly morphed, looks like a chimp, as much as sKerry looks like Lurch, without having to be morphed.
I would call sKerry Lurch, more often but people may not recognize who I'm talking about as easily.
2006-08-20 14:21:59 · answer #3 · answered by battle-ax 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Agree.
Not that there's anything wrong with being immature. Adults can be silly and have fun too. But it doesn't add anything to an intelligent conversation.
2006-08-20 14:00:13 · answer #4 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
True, if one doesn't have any facts to dispute a position then character assassination is the only thing left.
2006-08-20 14:26:18 · answer #5 · answered by lordkelvin 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
totally agree, it should be more about actual issues and personality, though sometimes it's just quite fun to be immature
2006-08-20 14:32:18 · answer #6 · answered by s f 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
agree, unless it's Janet Reno
2006-08-20 14:25:56 · answer #7 · answered by Slow Poke 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You don't have to be good looking to launch a ballistic missle.
2006-08-20 14:11:18 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋