I was having a discussion in a thread in this blog and typed a comment that is worth posting an excerpt from here.
Arguments in the blogosphere, particularly the right-wing of it, seem to take these two forms:
A. You are disagreeing with me.
B. You are claiming that your statements are correct.
C. Thus you are implying that my statements are wrong.
D. (fallacious) Thus you are implying I am generally wrong and stupid.
E. (more fallacious) Thus you are a condescending person who thinks you're smarter than everyone else.
A. It would seem that any outrageous acts committed by the right have an equivalent on the left.
B. (fallacious) Because it would seem so, it must be true.
The first argument treats all disagreements as personal feuds. And the second argument assumes the truth of some "common sense" statement, even though the empirical steps to verify it haven't been taken.