I stand by my last missive. Continue to read, study, search for answers, and leave the "Moonbattery/Crackpot/Anarcho-Capitalist/Agorist" web sites alone Michael.
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 8:54 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > No, not really, and I acknowledge that my post was a bit off of what you > and Greg were discussing, but I was attempting to be humorous, while at the > same time, trying to encourage folks like you and other Crackpots, Moonbats > and "Anarcho-Capitalists" to stay away from the voting booth, until such > time as you read, study, and can make an informed decision. > > > > You STILL do not get it. How unfortunate. > > > > > Leave the Justin Raimondo's, Chaz Pershings, and "Moonbats Against The > War" web sites alone. They are no different than the DailyKos, or on the > other side, Alex Jones. All are misinformation sites. > > > <shakes head> > > *Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic Argumentum Ad Hominem > > Abstract*: The argument concerning the attack of a person's character or > circumstances is characterized and shown to be sometimes persuasive but > normally fallacious. *Argumentum ad Hominem *(abusive and > circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of > an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying > to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. > Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack. > > The personal attack is also often termed an "*ad personem* argument": the > statement or argument at issue is dropped from consideration or is ignored, > and the locutor's character or circumstances are used to influence opinion. > The fallacy draws its appeal from the technique of "getting personal." The > assumption is that what the locutor is saying is entirely or partially > dictated by his character or special circumstances and so should be > disregarded. The "*tu quoque*" or charging the locutor with "being just > like the person" the locutor speaking about, is a narrower variety of this > fallacy. In other words, rather than trying to disprove a remark about > someone's character or circumstances, one accuses the locutor of having the > same character or circumstances. > > In cross examination or in debate, the point is often expressed as "My > point might be bad, but yours is worse." > If the subject includes an assessment of behavior, the point can be put "So > I do *x* [some specific action], but you do too." > > Since the circumstantial variety of the *ad hominem* can be regarded as a > special case of the abusive, the distinction between the abusive and the > circumstantial is often ignored. > Informal Structure of *ad Hominem* > Person *L* says argument *A*. *Person L's circumstance or character is not > satisfactory.* Argument *A* is not a good argument. Examples of the *ad > hominem:* > > A prosecutor asks the judge to not admit the testimony of a burglar because > burglars are not trustworthy. > > > - Francis Bacon's philosophy should be dismissed since Bacon was > removed from his chancellorship for dishonesty. > > > > - Prof. Smith says to Prof. White, "You are much too hard on your > students," and Prof. White replies, "But certainly you are not the one to > say so. Just last week I heard several of your students complaining." > > > > - I can't see that we should listen to Governor Smith's proposal to > increase the sales tax on automobiles. He has spent the last twenty years > in > state government and is hardly an unbiased source. > > > Uses of *ad hominem* considerations: > > When examining literary or philosophical works, looking at the author's > character or circumstancescan sometimes provide insight into that person's > ideas. In other words, *ad hominem* considerations can show motives and > can sometimes provide explanation. However, these considerations do not > demonstrate the truth or falsity of the ideas. > The character of a person is often relevant in consideration of the > sincerity of views being offered and so is often relevant to pragmatic > decision-making. > > Self-reference and *ad hominem*: > > If a philosopher presents a "naturalistic view of knowledge," arguing > that all knowledge is a function of the adjustment of an organism to its > environment and at the same time pleads that his own knowledge is an > exception to this generalization, then the *ad hominem* fallacy would > occur. If William James were to claim that all philosophers were either > tender-minded or tough-minded except for him with respect to his own variety > of pragmatism, then an *ad hominem* appeal should not be ruled > inadmissible against James.. > > Regard$, > --MJ > > Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen > to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing. -- Dwight > Eisenhower > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at > http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
