…But the thread has also developed an acceptance of certain positions on Bush that are not always based only on facts, but conclusions and opinions based on what facts we have.
If you’ll permit me, the purpose of debate is to enlighten. The object of debate – for the participant - is to win.
If I make the argument that the NSA warrantless wiretaps program is incredibly dangerous to US civil liberties, it is not useful to jump to the conclusion that I do so because I have certain pre-conceived notions about the President or his advisors. I may have, but it is irrelevant to the policy argument.
Just as equally, if I were to argue that illegal immigration is harming the economic foundation of the Country, it doesn’t make me a racist. I may well be, but its irrelevant to the argument.
Obviously, all I’m defining is the ad hominem fallacy.
I find it very easy to tell if someone its interested in enlightenment or winning. The people who are interested in winning:
rarely if ever admit error,
never admit ambiguity,
never admit doubt.
It’s really none of my business whether President Bush is the devil incarnate or destined for sainthood. But I do care about the effects of his policies on the country. But to now show my slant, if it’s not already clear, many defenders of the President’s policies have raise the ad hominem attack to an art form. If I disagree, I’m a hater, or traitor, or a fool. Or to use the old code words, “a commie pinko librul.” And all that does is (a) deflect the listener from considering my ”policy” argument and (b) increase the likelihood that I’ll respond in kind resulting in a mud slinging argument which causes others to say “a pox on both their houses.” In either case, the purpose of debate is defeated, and that suits the status quo just fine.
What I do hate, is the heat which obscures the light.
ww
“…The Hate rose to its climax. The voice of Goldstein had become an actual sheep's bleat, and for an instant the face changed into that of a sheep. Then the sheep-face melted into the figure of a Eurasian soldier who seemed to be advancing, huge and terrible, his sub-machine gun roaring, and seeming to spring out of the surface of the screen, so that some of the people in the front row actually flinched backwards in their seats. But in the same moment, drawing a deep sigh of relief from everybody, the hostile figure melted into the face of Big Brother, black-haired, black-moustachio'd, full of power and mysterious calm, and so vast that it almost filled up the screen. Nobody heard what Big Brother was saying. It was merely a few words of encouragement, the sort of words that are uttered in the din of battle, not distinguishable individually but restoring confidence by the fact of being spoken. Then the face of Big Brother faded away again, and instead the three slogans of the Party stood out in bold capitals:
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
orwell.ru |
