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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (70466)	6/3/2008 2:19:50 PM
From: ChinuSFO	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542836

Lane, what do you think about the Democrats debating whether the votes of the people from the remaining states should put Obama over the top or the SDs should put him over the top. Isn't this a typical Washington style or is it that the MM is making a big deal for nothing. I think the Democrats had a historic first with women with Geraldine Ferraro. It seems the women are no longer a minority. hence the Democratic party is poised for another historic first with a different minority group with regards to Obama, though Obama himself does not view it that way. Curious to know what your thoughts are and whether you still remain interested in the future of our children and grandchildren.

To: Lane3 who wrote (70466)	6/3/2008 2:21:07 PM
From: spiral3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542836

Character Attacks: How to Properly Apply the Ad Hominem A new theory parses fair from unfair uses of personal criticism in rhetoric By Yvonne Raley A doctor tells her patient to lose weight, and the patient thinks: “If my doctor really believed that, she wouldn’t be so fat.” A movie aficionado pans the latest Tom Cruise flick because Cruise is a Scientologist. A home owner ignores a neighbor’s advice on lawn care because the neighbor is a ... you name it: Democrat, Republican, Christian or atheist. These examples illustrate classic uses of ad hominem attacks, in which an argument is rejected, or advanced, based on a personal characteristic of an individual rather than on reasons for or against the claim itself. Putting the focus on the arguer or person being discussed can distract us from the issues that matter. Rather than concentrating on an individual’s character, we should, in these cases, be asking ourselves questions such as, Is the doctor’s advice medically sound? Is the Cruise film entertaining? Is the neighbor’s lawn healthy? Meanwhile ad hominem attacks can also unfairly discredit an individual, especially because such critiques are often effective. Although ad hominem arguments have long been considered errors in reasoning, a recent analysis suggests that this is not always the case. In his new book, Media Argumentation: Dialectic, Persuasion, and Rhetoric, University of Winnipeg philosopher Douglas Walton proposes that fallacies such as the ad hominem are better understood as perversions or corruptions of perfectly good arguments. Regarding the ad hominem, Walton contends that although such attacks are usually fallacious, they can be legitimate when a character critique is directly or indirect ly related to the point being articulated. If Walton is right, distinguishing clearly between these cases is important to evaluating the validity of statements people make to us about others. Good or fair uses of ad hominem critiques should, in fact, persuade us, whereas unwarranted uses should not. Full article: Scientific American Mind - May 29, 2008: sciam.com

To: Lane3 who wrote (70466)	6/3/2008 2:25:23 PM
From: Steve Lokness	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542836

Lane3; It's not likely that there are any Hummer owners here, but if there are, there's a good chance that they feel disrespected by today's posts. Are you kidding me? A person goes out and buys a 50,000 car and you think they are insulted by the comments here? I suspect if they are they are way too sensitive. I would further add that if a person goes out and buys a 50,000 dollar tank like car that they are likely indifferent to gas prices, but in any case no one is making a personal comment but rather a general life style comment. The comments towards their life style choice is only a small contrast to the real reason they bought a Hummer in the first place. Why do you think they bought a Hummer for? steve

To: Lane3 who wrote (70466)	6/3/2008 2:33:05 PM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542836

What I said was that there's a difference between attack on one hand and criticism perceived as insult on the other. For you, that is a pivotal difference. As I explained in my reply to you, my goal is to shut off anything that provokes food fights and raises tempers here. If a criticism is so pointed and personal that it is perceived as an insult, it probably shouldn't be made, in the interests of maintaining a calm and interesting forum. The offense in question was someone who told someone else they disagreed with that they needed to be educated. If all of us can call the others stupid and ignorant because they disagreed, we go exactly nowhere. I'll add for everyone's benefit that if you (meaning anyone) think you have anger management issues, just don't post here. Don't go down that road and end up with me trying to calm the waters that should not have been roiled in the first place. Some folks don't like those restrictions and that atmosphere. Good for them. I do.