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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sea_biscuit who wrote (80065)	5/17/2007 1:57:44 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93284

If your ass is on the line, you think differently. Sometimes, but far from always. Also even if some change might make you think differently, it doesn't automatically mean your initial thought was wrong. If someone supports the war because he thinks its a good idea, but he doesn't want to give up income by joining the military, or he doesn't want to take risks, or put in the hard work that would be required, or just doesn't want his life disrupted that doesn't make the idea of war wrong (or right). The personal reasons (justified or not) why someone might try to avoid service during wartime, reflect back on that person, not the war. Few people think we shouldn't have waged war on Japan after the attack at Pearl Harbor. But some people tried to avoid service even then (and probably a larger number would have tried if service wasn't legally required). So if you find the story of some draft doger from WWII, and see that he supported war before he avoided the draft (perhaps even before Pearl Harbor), does that mean that the case for WWII is undermined? Of course not. Edit - Read these pages nizkor.org en.wikipedia.org Introduction to Ad Hominem Fallacies One of the most common non-rational appeals is an argumentum ad hominem--or, as the Latin phrase suggests, an "argument against the person" (and not against the ideas he or she is presenting). Our decisions should be based on a rational evaluation of the arguments with which we are presented, not on an emotional reaction to the person or persons making that argument. But because we often react more strongly to personalities than to the sometimes abstract and complex arguments they are making, ad hominem appeals are often very effective with someone who is not thinking critically. Consider a few examples: * A political candidate is gaining support by proposing a tax change. So her opponent argues that the candidate herself would be one of the chief beneficiaries of that tax change. * Your doctor tells you to lose some weight. But why should you listen to a doctor who is himself overweight? * A friend has recommended a new investment opportunity, but your significant other rejects the recommendation with the remark, "How could you possibly value the advice of that idiot?" In each of these cases, there is an argument (concerning taxes, health, or investments); and in each, the argument is given less importance than something about the person making that argument. And that's what is wrong with ad hominem appeals. After all, if the tax proposal is an improvement, if the medical diagnosis is sound, if the investment opportunity is worthwhile--then what difference does it make who is presenting the argument--or even why? Ad hominem fallacies take a number of different forms, though all share the fact that they attempt to re-focus attention, away from the argument made and onto the person making it. And remember--it doesn't really matter whether the terms of the attack are true or false. What matters is whether the argument is acceptable, not the person arguing it. After all, even if Adolf Hitler says so, 2 + 2 still equals 4... sjsu.edu