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 : Israel to U.S. : Now Deal with Syria and Iran -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Emile Vidrine who wrote (11935)	7/28/2006 3:08:37 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 22250

People indeed do have biases, I am not denying that. But the logic of their arguments stand apart from their biases or special circumstances. A highly biased idiot can make a correct statement. The most wise, disinterested, benevolent, and intelligent person can make a false statement or have flaws in his logic. The ad-hominem fallacy is not insulting your opponent rather than analysing his logic. Ad-hominem abusive is only one sub type of the fallacy. It is still a fallacy to assert or imply someone is wrong, or their argument is worthless because of who they are. Even if it was true (and its not) that all Jews totally support Israel and all its actions, or that all Muslims automatically embrace "the Palestinian, Syrian, and Lebanese causes.", it would not change the the ad-hominem in to something other than a logical fallacy. Now that is strictly as a matter of logic, and of course debates are not purely about logic. They are about rhetoric, and about social interaction. It might make sense to use the ad-hominem circumstantial fallacy as a rhetorical device, even if it still remains a fallacy. And you might decide that you don't want to interact with certain types of people or pay attention to what they have to say.