Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: EJhonsa who wrote (118508)	11/4/2003 5:22:31 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Eric Jhonsa; Re: "Whether you were being honest here about what you sought to conote through your March comment is something that only you know. But either way, you clearly understood what I was trying to argue at the time. Yet somehow, in the midst of pursuing your neverending quest to satisfy your insatiable ego, you seem to have forgotten it. I can't say that I find such behavior on your part to be surprising. Honestly." The question of the moment is not what my ego is about, (LOL), but instead what is our policy in Iraq about. I've noted that the problem in Iraq was easily foreseen long before the war. You provide no arguments against this. People are dying in Iraq, and all you can do is to talk about someone else's ego. What do you think is important enough to discuss on this thread? That Bilow is right or wrong? That he has an ego? Or that our soldiers live or die? This reminds me of the illogic that got us into this fiasco. Instead of simply analyzing whether it would be in Saddam's best interests to keep or destroy his WMDs, the majority of our population fell for a simplistic ad hominem attack: "Saddam is evil. He's lied before. Therefore he's lying now." For some reason, people just can't keep character attacks out of these very serious discussions. Most people agree, on a theoretical basis, that ad hominem arguments are illogical, but when it actually comes to arguments, the most important aspect is the ad hominem part. So do post again, but this time try to keep yourself on the topic of "foreign affairs" rather than Bilow's ego. I'm interested in how your views have changed with the new information that you have available to you, not in some rancid argument from last June. -- Carl P.S. Description of Ad Hominem Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person." An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form: 1. Person A makes claim X. 2. Person B makes an attack on person A. 3. Therefore A's claim is false. The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made). nizkor.org