Peter_Puget Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Hey guys remember when you were posting about Buckley's son supporting Obama....well.... If this is what the American people want, so be it, but they ought to have no illusions about the perils of this approach. Mr. Obama is proposing among everything else $1 trillion in new entitlements, and entitlement programs never go away, or in the oddly poetic bureaucratic jargon, “sunset.” He is proposing $1.4 trillion in new taxes, an appetite for which was largely was whetted by the shameful excesses of American CEO corporate culture. And finally, he has proposed $5 trillion in new debt, one-half the total accumulated national debt in all US history. All in one fell swoop. He tells us that all this is going to work because the economy is going to be growing by 3.2 percent a year from now. Do you believe that? Would you take out a loan based on that? And in the three years following, he predicts that our economy will grow by 4 percent a year. link Or those posting about "Wall Street" support...well... But for all of that they can’t believe what they are witnessing: an economic agenda that is contradictory at best, and possibly reckless in its extreme. Policies that will certainly make a very bad situation even worse, and when things do get better, they will certainly not be better enough to compensate for the pain we are experiencing. link Here's the WSJ today... Americans have welcomed the Obama era in the same spirit of hope the President campaigned on. But after five weeks in office, it’s become clear that Mr. Obama’s policies are slowing, if not stopping, what would otherwise be the normal process of economic recovery. From punishing business to squandering scarce national public resources, Team Obama is creating more uncertainty and less confidence — and thus a longer period of recession or subpar growth. link The Iranians tell him to FO. the Russian say bugger off but Gaza gets 900 million....more troops stay in Iraq.....and you guys are still bashing Bush....crazy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 i suspect we'd keep bashing bush even if snoop dogg had been elected... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 I'm gonna keep bashing him.... Memos Reveal Scope of the Power Bush Sought NEIL A. LEWIS Published: March 2, 2009 NYT WASHINGTON — The secret legal opinions issued by Bush administration lawyers after the Sept. 11 attacks included assertions that the president could use the nation’s military within the United States to combat terrorism suspects and to conduct raids without obtaining search warrants. That opinion was among nine that were disclosed publicly for the first time Monday by the Justice Department, in what the Obama administration portrayed as a step toward greater transparency. The opinions reflected a broad interpretation of presidential authority, asserting as well that the president could unilaterally abrogate foreign treaties, ignore any guidance from Congress in dealing with detainees suspected of terrorism, and conduct a program of domestic eavesdropping without warrants. Some of the positions had previously become known from statements of Bush administration officials in response to court challenges and Congressional inquiries. But taken together, the opinions disclosed Monday were the clearest illustration to date of the broad definition of presidential power approved by government lawyers in the months after the Sept. 11 attacks. In a memorandum dated this Jan. 15, five days before President George W. Bush left office, a top Justice Department official wrote that those opinions had not been relied on since 2003. But the official, Steven G. Bradbury, who headed the Office of Legal Counsel, said it was important to acknowledge in writing “the doubtful nature of these propositions,” and he used the memo to repudiate them formally. Mr. Bradbury said in his memo that the earlier ones had been a product of lawyers’ confronting “novel and complex questions in a time of great danger and under extraordinary time pressure.” The opinion authorizing the military to operate domestically was dated Oct. 23, 2001, and written by John C. Yoo, at the time a deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel, and Robert J. Delahunty, a special counsel in the office. It was directed to Alberto R. Gonzales, then the White House counsel, who had asked whether Mr. Bush could use the military to combat terrorist activities inside the United States. The use of the military envisioned in the Yoo-Delahunty reply appears to transcend by far the stationing of troops to keep watch at streets and airports, a familiar sight in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. The memorandum discussed the use of military forces to carry out “raids on terrorist cells” and even seize property. “The law has recognized that force (including deadly force) may be legitimately used in self-defense,” Mr. Yoo and Mr. Delahunty wrote to Mr. Gonzales. Therefore any objections based on the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches are swept away, they said, since any possible privacy offense resulting from such a search is a lesser matter than any injury from deadly force. The Oct. 23 memorandum also said that “First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully.” It added that “the current campaign against terrorism may require even broader exercises of federal power domestically.” Mr. Yoo and Mr. Delahunty said that in addition, the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally bars the military from domestic law enforcement operations, would pose no obstacle to the use of troops in a domestic fight against terrorism suspects. They reasoned that the troops would be acting in a national security function, not as law enforcers. In another of the opinions, Mr. Yoo argued in a memorandum dated Sept. 25, 2001, that judicial precedents approving deadly force in self-defense could be extended to allow for eavesdropping without warrants. Still another memo, issued in March 2002, suggested that Congress lacked any power to limit a president’s authority to transfer detainees to other countries, a practice known as rendition that was widely used by Mr. Bush. Other memorandums said Congress had no right to intervene in the president’s determination of the treatment of detainees, a proposition that has since been invalidated by the Supreme Court. The Jan. 15 memo by Mr. Bradbury repudiating these views said that it was “not sustainable” to argue that the president’s power as commander in chief “precludes Congress from enacting any legislation concerning the detention, interrogation, prosecution and transfer of enemy combatants.” Mr. Yoo, now a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is widely known as the principal author of a 2002 memorandum, separate from those made public Monday, that critics have characterized as authorizing torture. That memorandum, signed by Jay S. Bybee, a predecessor of Mr. Bradbury as head of the Office of Legal Counsel, was repudiated in 2004. The memorandum issued by Mr. Bradbury this January appears to have been the Bush lawyers’ last effort to reconcile their views with the wide rejection by legal scholars and some Supreme Court opinions of the sweeping assertions of presidential authority made earlier by the Justice Department. Walter Dellinger, who led the Office of Legal Counsel during the Clinton administration and is now a law professor at Duke University, said in an interview that Mr. Bradbury’s memo “disclaiming the opinions of earlier Bush lawyers sets out in blunt detail how irresponsible those earlier opinions were.” Mr. Dellinger said it was important that it was now widely recognized that the earlier assertions “that Congress had absolutely no role in these national security issues was contrary to constitutional text, historical practice and judicial precedent.” In a speech a few hours before the documents were disclosed Monday, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said: “Too often over the past decade, the fight against terrorism has been viewed as a zero-sum battle with our civil liberties. Not only is that thought misguided, I fear that in actuality it does more harm than good.” Mr. Holder said that the memorandums were being released in light of a substantial public interest in the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted March 3, 2009 Author Share Posted March 3, 2009 Snoop Dogg is now a member of the Nation of Islam! He's said he is doing good now. Does that mean no more Snoop hosted porn? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Talkin' 'bout da MILF weed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Snoop Dogg is now a member of the Nation of Islam! Snoop OSAMA Dogg? Probably an A Rab. Can't vote for him now. BTW, Peter: you didn't forget that the $700 billion dollar Turd was handed off to Obama by your boy Bush. He's taking a shot at fixing it, and I don't agree with a lot of the cure, but he still got handed a huge turd that he's trying to fix. Bush had the $700 billion bailout package drawn up to fix the mess he'd help make (and Barney Frank and a host of others) before Obama was even in sight of the White House. Someone had to flush the toilet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted March 3, 2009 Author Share Posted March 3, 2009 Bill if you blame to current debacle on Bush youre missing the big picture. I realize that the image of coruption and incompetence being to blame is something that helps us find a scapegoat, imagine a more secure world in general, and it offers the possibility of a simple fix but it is also sheer lunacy as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Um...the deficit Bush handed Obama wasn't Bush's fault? Whatever you say, Peter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Bill if you blame to current debacle on Bush youre missing the big picture. I realize that the image of coruption and incompetence being to blame is something that helps us find a scapegoat, imagine a more secure world in general, and it offers the possibility of a simple fix but it is also sheer lunacy as well. I thought this was about "Buyers Remorse" Peter? If we back up a bit, and realize that McCain and more of the same that got us to this point was the other choice, I don't share the remorse...just yet. I'm sure that's a common thing, however, given the situation he was handed, Obama is trying to deal, and for the mess he started with, he is getting it done. I have bigtime structural issues with massive government intervention and ownership as I'm sure many of us do: yet at some point, you have to trust the "experts". That's exactly what this President did. He took the Bush package, had some experts tweek it and in many cases improve it, and fired it off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 the cartoon i opened my classes up w/ today: i might note that teenagers aren't quite the socratic masters of debate found in this rarified atmosphere Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 The GOP has become the Know-Nothing/Do-Nothing Party. It's their mantra and answer for everything. "Doing nothing is better than doing something", it's all you really hear. Their complete abandonment of political leadership on principle is probably the most disturbing feature of contemporary American conservatism. Their simultaneous scorched earth campaign to bankrupt the State while using it as a personal ATM machine is, of course the criminal flipside to their political irresponsibility. The market fundamentalism at the core of their thought that has enjoyed nearly hegemonic status in global political and economic life for the last 30 years has proven an utter disaster. They're completely out of ideas, the one's they're still clinging to are a sick joke for the simple fact that they're the same policies that led us into the mess. The Hollywood celebrity trainwreck style of media spotlighting exemplified by the Limbaugh/Palin sideshow is all they have left to convince us of their relevance. GONG! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klenke Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Um...the deficit Bush handed Obama wasn't Bush's fault? Remember, there are three branches to the U.S. Government, not just one. The causes for what we have now before us has as much to do with Congress as it does the Office of the President. So often people forget that. It's easier to blame an "administration" that is, in theory, led by one person (who is then the go-to goat), than to blame a large group of individuals with different agendas for their own constituencies and who too often toe the party line. I blame equally the Bush Administration and Congress (both Republicans and Democrats) for this mess we're in now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Um...the deficit Bush handed Obama wasn't Bush's fault? Remember, there are three branches to the U.S. Government, not just one. The causes for what we have now before us has as much to do with Congress as it does the Office of the President. So often people forget that. It's easier to blame an "administration" that is, in theory, led by one person (who is then the go-to goat), than to blame a large group of individuals with different agendas for their own constituencies and who too often toe the party line. I blame equally the Bush Administration and Congress (both Republicans and Democrats) for this mess we're in now. Only 2 branches control the purse, executive and legislative. For most of the past 8 years those were controlled by the Republican party with George W Bush as defacto head. Spin all you want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 For most of the past 8 years those were controlled by the Republican party with George W Bush as defacto head. Spin all you want. And here I thought it was Dick Cheney as the defacto head all this time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No. 13 Baby Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 And now they've got Rush as de fatso head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmo Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 (edited) Um...the deficit Bush handed Obama wasn't Bush's fault? Remember, there are three branches to the U.S. Government, not just one. The causes for what we have now before us has as much to do with Congress as it does the Office of the President. So often people forget that. It's easier to blame an "administration" that is, in theory, led by one person (who is then the go-to goat), than to blame a large group of individuals with different agendas for their own constituencies and who too often toe the party line. I blame equally the Bush Administration and Congress (both Republicans and Democrats) for this mess we're in now. Only 2 branches control the purse, executive and legislative. For most of the past 8 years those were controlled by the Republican party with George W Bush as defacto head. Spin all you want. You are wrong. Congress controls the purse. The president only has veto power over the purse. It's worth repeating that the economy didn't tank until recently, and the democrats have controlled congress since 06. I'm so sick of hearing all the democrats blame Bush for everything or resort to name calling and insults. Three years from now, they will all still be saying it's not their fault, they inherited a mess instead of taking responsibility. Obama is worst of all, and most people that know about the economy see through it. Need proof? The stock market has lost 50% since he was elected. We went from recession under Bush to Depression under Obama. Our economy has seen far worse and survived. Some one blasted the GOP as the do nothing party. I don't want the government to do anything. The more they intervene the worse it gets. What if the government intervention made it worse? What incentive is there to succeed with Obama's taxes on the wealthy, and on corporations? What incentive to do the right thing with all these bailouts? So many people get fixated on one sentence Rush limbaugh says, and don't listen to the whole message. I'll paraphrase. I hope Obama fails. For no other reason than because I believe his policies are the wrong ones for this country. There are many here who would say the same about Bush without a second thought. If Obama changed his policies to one of fiscal responsibility, I would support him wholeheartedly. More than wanting Obama to fail, I want this country to succeed, but the two cannot coexist. Edited March 4, 2009 by jmo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 And now they've got Rush as de fatso head. that made me laugh out loud... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el jefe Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Bill if you blame to current debacle on Bush youre missing the big picture. I realize that the image of coruption and incompetence being to blame is something that helps us find a scapegoat, imagine a more secure world in general, and it offers the possibility of a simple fix but it is also sheer lunacy as well. this post is almost as silly and unintelligible as anything gw said while in office. peter, you might have a future as a republican puppet if you also happen to be the scion of a wealthy, well-connected family. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 I'll say it for JB since he's not here ;Ad Hominem attack. You probably don't have anything of substance that attacks the root with facts or interesting info so you resort to attacking the person- personally. Here's a explanation form wikipedia for you. Hope it helps you out. "An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject. Contents [hide] Background Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it. Other common subtypes of the ad hominem include the ad hominem circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer; and the ad hominem tu quoque, which objects to an argument by characterizing the arguer as acting or arguing in accordance with the view that he is arguing against. Ad hominem arguments are always invalid in syllogistic logic, since the truth value of premises is taken as given, and the validity of a logical inference is independent of the source making the inference. However, ad hominem arguments are rarely presented as formal syllogisms, and their assessment lies in the domain of informal logic and the theory of evidence.[1] The theory of evidence depends to a large degree on assessments of the credibility of witnesses, including eyewitness evidence and expert witness evidence. Evidence that a purported eyewitness is unreliable, or has a motive for lying, or that a purported expert witness lacks the claimed expertise can play a major role in making judgements from evidence. Argumentum ad hominem is the inverse of argumentum ad verecundiam, in which the arguer bases the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the source asserting it. Hence, while an ad hominem argument may make an assertion less compelling, by showing that the source making the assertion does not have the authority, knowledge or position it claims, or has made mistaken assertions on similar topics in the past, it cannot provide an infallible counterargument. An ad hominem fallacy is a genetic fallacy and red herring, and is most often (but not always) an appeal to emotion. It does not include arguments posed by a source that contradict the source's actions. Ad hominem as informal fallacy A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form: Source A makes claim X There is something objectionable about Source A Therefore claim X is false Ad hominem is one of the best known of the logical and systematic fallacies usually enumerated in introductory logic and critical thinking textbooks. Both the fallacy itself, and accusations of having committed it, are often brandished in actual discourse (see also Argument from fallacy). As a technique of rhetoric, it is powerful and used often because of the natural inclination of the human brain to recognize patterns. The first premise is called a 'factual claim' and is the pivot point of much debate. The contention is referred to as an 'inferential claim' and represents the reasoning process. There are two types of inferential claim, explicit and implicit. The fallacy does not represent a valid form of reasoning because even if you accept both co-premises, that does not guarantee the truthfulness of the contention. This can also be thought of as the argument having an un-stated co-premise. In this example, the un-stated co-premise "everything that A claims is false" has been included, and the argument is therefore now a valid one. However in the ad hominem fallacy the un-stated co-premise is always false, thereby maintaining the fallacy- just as wearing boots isn't a bad thing, yet many Nazis wore boots. Note that this does not imply that the contention "eugenics is a bad idea" is false, but merely that it is un-supported by the pattern of reasoning below it. An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that an argument is wrong and/or the source is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the source or those sources cited by it rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself. The implication is that the source's argument and/or ability to argue correctly lacks authority. Merely insulting a source in the middle of otherwise rational discourse does not necessarily constitute an ad hominem fallacy (though it is not usually regarded as acceptable). It must be clear that the purpose of the characterization is to discredit the source offering the argument, and, specifically, to invite others to discount its arguments. In the past, the term ad hominem was sometimes used more literally, to describe an argument that was based on an individual, or to describe any personal attack. However, this is not how the meaning of the term is typically introduced in modern logic and rhetoric textbooks, and logicians and rhetoricians are in agreement that this use is incorrect.[2] Example: "You claim that this man is innocent, but you cannot be trusted since you are a criminal as well." This argument would generally be accepted as reasonable, as regards personal evidence, on the premise that criminals are likely to lie to protect each other. On the other hand, it is a valid example of ad hominem if the source making the claim is doing so on the basis of evidence independent of its own credibility. In general, ad hominem criticism of evidence cannot prove the negative of the proposition being claimed: Example: "Paula says the umpire made the correct call, but this can't be true, because Paula wasn't even watching the game." Assuming the premise is correct, Paula's evidence is valueless, but the umpire may nonetheless have made the right call. Colloquially In common language, any personal attack, regardless of whether it is part of an argument, is often referred to as ad hominem.[3] Types of ad hominems Three traditionally identified varieties are ad hominem abusive (or ad personam), ad hominem circumstantial, and ad hominem tu quoque. Ad hominem abusive Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves insulting or belittling one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensibly damning character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions. This tactic is frequently employed as a propaganda tool among politicians who are attempting to influence the voter base in their favor through an appeal to emotion rather than by logical means, especially when their own position is logically weaker than their opponent's. Another example is calling conspiranoia to a conspiracy theory that one does not like. Examples: * "You can't believe Jack when he says God exists because he doesn't even have a job." * "Candidate Jane Jones's proposal X is ridiculous. She was caught cheating on her taxes in 2003." Ad hominem circumstantial Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. The reason that this is fallacious in syllogistic logic is that pointing out that one's opponent is disposed to make a certain argument does not make the argument, from a logical point of view, any less credible; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source). On the other hand, where the source taking a position seeks to convince us by a claim of authority, or personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero.[4] Examples: * "Tobacco company representatives should not be believed when they say smoking doesn't seriously affect your health, because they're just defending their own multi-million-dollar financial interests." * "He's physically addicted to nicotine. Of course he defends smoking!” * "What do you know about politics? You're too young to vote!" Mandy Rice-Davies's famous testimony, during the Profumo Affair, "Well, he would [say that], wouldn't he?", is an example of a valid circumstantial argument. Her point is that since a man in a prominent position, accused of an affair with a callgirl, would deny the claim whether it was true or false, his denial, in itself, carries little evidential weight against the claim of an affair. Note, however, that this argument is valid only insofar as it devalues the denial; it does not bolster the original claim. To construe evidentiary invalidation of the denial as evidentiary validation of the original claim is fallacious (on several different bases, including that of argumentum ad hominem); however likely the man in question would be to deny an affair that did in fact happen, he could only be more likely to deny an affair that never did. Ad hominem tu quoque Main article: tu quoque Ad hominem tu quoque (lit: "You too!") refers to a claim that the source making the argument has spoken or acted in a way inconsistent with the argument. In particular, if Source A criticizes the actions of Source B, a tu quoque response is that Source A has acted in the same way. Examples: * "You say that stealing is wrong, but you do it as well." * "He says we shouldn't enslave people, yet he himself owns slaves" Guilt by association Main article: Association fallacy Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy, if the argument attacks a source because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument. This form of the argument is as follows: Source A makes claim P. Group B also make claim P. Therefore, source A is a member of group B. Example: "You say the gap between the rich and poor is unacceptable, but communists also say this, therefore you are a communist" This fallacy can also take another form: Source A makes claim P. Group B make claims P and Q Therefore, Source A makes claim Q. Examples: "You say the gap between the rich and poor is unacceptable, but communists also say this, and they believe in revolution. Thus, you believe in revolution." A similar tactic may be employed to encourage someone to renounce an opinion, or force them to choose between renouncing an opinion or admitting membership in a group. For example: "You say the gap between the rich and poor is unacceptable. You don't really mean that, do you? Communists say the same thing. You're not a communist, are you?" Guilt by association may be combined with ad hominem abusive. For example: "You say the gap between the rich and poor is unacceptable, but communists also say this, and therefore you are a communist. Communists are unlikeable, and therefore everything they say is false, and therefore everything you say is false." A reductio ad Hitlerum argument can be seen as an example of a "guilt by association" fallacy, since it attacks a viewpoint simply because it was supposedly espoused by Adolf Hitler, as if it is impossible that such a man could have held any viewpoint that is correct. [edit] Inverse ad hominem An inverse ad hominem argument praises a source in order to add support for that source's argument or claim. A fallacious inverse ad hominem argument may go something like this: "That man was smartly-dressed and charming, so I'll accept his argument that I should vote for him" As with regular ad hominem arguments, not all cases of inverse ad hominem are fallacious. Consider the following: "Elizabeth has never told a lie in her entire life, and she says she saw him take the bag. She must be telling the truth." Here the arguer is not suggesting we accept Elizabeth's argument, but her testimony. Her being an honest person is relevant to the truth of the conclusion (that he took the bag), just as her having bad eyesight (a regular case of ad hominem) would give reason not to believe her. However, the last part of the argument is false even if the premise is true, since having never told a lie before does not mean she isn't now. Appeal to authority is a type of inverse ad hominem argument." ________________________________________________________________ Have a nice day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el jefe Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 I'll say it for JB since he's not here ;Ad Hominem attack. You probably don't have anything of substance that attacks the root with facts or interesting info so you resort to attacking the person- personally. Here's a explanation form wikipedia for you. Hope it helps you out. "An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject. Contents [hide] Background Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it. Other common subtypes of the ad hominem include the ad hominem circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer; and the ad hominem tu quoque, which objects to an argument by characterizing the arguer as acting or arguing in accordance with the view that he is arguing against. Ad hominem arguments are always invalid in syllogistic logic, since the truth value of premises is taken as given, and the validity of a logical inference is independent of the source making the inference. However, ad hominem arguments are rarely presented as formal syllogisms, and their assessment lies in the domain of informal logic and the theory of evidence.[1] The theory of evidence depends to a large degree on assessments of the credibility of witnesses, including eyewitness evidence and expert witness evidence. Evidence that a purported eyewitness is unreliable, or has a motive for lying, or that a purported expert witness lacks the claimed expertise can play a major role in making judgements from evidence. Argumentum ad hominem is the inverse of argumentum ad verecundiam, in which the arguer bases the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the source asserting it. Hence, while an ad hominem argument may make an assertion less compelling, by showing that the source making the assertion does not have the authority, knowledge or position it claims, or has made mistaken assertions on similar topics in the past, it cannot provide an infallible counterargument. An ad hominem fallacy is a genetic fallacy and red herring, and is most often (but not always) an appeal to emotion. It does not include arguments posed by a source that contradict the source's actions. Ad hominem as informal fallacy A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form: Source A makes claim X There is something objectionable about Source A Therefore claim X is false Ad hominem is one of the best known of the logical and systematic fallacies usually enumerated in introductory logic and critical thinking textbooks. Both the fallacy itself, and accusations of having committed it, are often brandished in actual discourse (see also Argument from fallacy). As a technique of rhetoric, it is powerful and used often because of the natural inclination of the human brain to recognize patterns. The first premise is called a 'factual claim' and is the pivot point of much debate. The contention is referred to as an 'inferential claim' and represents the reasoning process. There are two types of inferential claim, explicit and implicit. The fallacy does not represent a valid form of reasoning because even if you accept both co-premises, that does not guarantee the truthfulness of the contention. This can also be thought of as the argument having an un-stated co-premise. In this example, the un-stated co-premise "everything that A claims is false" has been included, and the argument is therefore now a valid one. However in the ad hominem fallacy the un-stated co-premise is always false, thereby maintaining the fallacy- just as wearing boots isn't a bad thing, yet many Nazis wore boots. Note that this does not imply that the contention "eugenics is a bad idea" is false, but merely that it is un-supported by the pattern of reasoning below it. An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that an argument is wrong and/or the source is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the source or those sources cited by it rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself. The implication is that the source's argument and/or ability to argue correctly lacks authority. Merely insulting a source in the middle of otherwise rational discourse does not necessarily constitute an ad hominem fallacy (though it is not usually regarded as acceptable). It must be clear that the purpose of the characterization is to discredit the source offering the argument, and, specifically, to invite others to discount its arguments. In the past, the term ad hominem was sometimes used more literally, to describe an argument that was based on an individual, or to describe any personal attack. However, this is not how the meaning of the term is typically introduced in modern logic and rhetoric textbooks, and logicians and rhetoricians are in agreement that this use is incorrect.[2] Example: "You claim that this man is innocent, but you cannot be trusted since you are a criminal as well." This argument would generally be accepted as reasonable, as regards personal evidence, on the premise that criminals are likely to lie to protect each other. On the other hand, it is a valid example of ad hominem if the source making the claim is doing so on the basis of evidence independent of its own credibility. In general, ad hominem criticism of evidence cannot prove the negative of the proposition being claimed: Example: "Paula says the umpire made the correct call, but this can't be true, because Paula wasn't even watching the game." Assuming the premise is correct, Paula's evidence is valueless, but the umpire may nonetheless have made the right call. Colloquially In common language, any personal attack, regardless of whether it is part of an argument, is often referred to as ad hominem.[3] Types of ad hominems Three traditionally identified varieties are ad hominem abusive (or ad personam), ad hominem circumstantial, and ad hominem tu quoque. Ad hominem abusive Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves insulting or belittling one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensibly damning character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions. This tactic is frequently employed as a propaganda tool among politicians who are attempting to influence the voter base in their favor through an appeal to emotion rather than by logical means, especially when their own position is logically weaker than their opponent's. Another example is calling conspiranoia to a conspiracy theory that one does not like. Examples: * "You can't believe Jack when he says God exists because he doesn't even have a job." * "Candidate Jane Jones's proposal X is ridiculous. She was caught cheating on her taxes in 2003." Ad hominem circumstantial Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. The reason that this is fallacious in syllogistic logic is that pointing out that one's opponent is disposed to make a certain argument does not make the argument, from a logical point of view, any less credible; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source). On the other hand, where the source taking a position seeks to convince us by a claim of authority, or personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero.[4] Examples: * "Tobacco company representatives should not be believed when they say smoking doesn't seriously affect your health, because they're just defending their own multi-million-dollar financial interests." * "He's physically addicted to nicotine. Of course he defends smoking!” * "What do you know about politics? You're too young to vote!" Mandy Rice-Davies's famous testimony, during the Profumo Affair, "Well, he would [say that], wouldn't he?", is an example of a valid circumstantial argument. Her point is that since a man in a prominent position, accused of an affair with a callgirl, would deny the claim whether it was true or false, his denial, in itself, carries little evidential weight against the claim of an affair. Note, however, that this argument is valid only insofar as it devalues the denial; it does not bolster the original claim. To construe evidentiary invalidation of the denial as evidentiary validation of the original claim is fallacious (on several different bases, including that of argumentum ad hominem); however likely the man in question would be to deny an affair that did in fact happen, he could only be more likely to deny an affair that never did. Ad hominem tu quoque Main article: tu quoque Ad hominem tu quoque (lit: "You too!") refers to a claim that the source making the argument has spoken or acted in a way inconsistent with the argument. In particular, if Source A criticizes the actions of Source B, a tu quoque response is that Source A has acted in the same way. Examples: * "You say that stealing is wrong, but you do it as well." * "He says we shouldn't enslave people, yet he himself owns slaves" Guilt by association Main article: Association fallacy Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy, if the argument attacks a source because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument. This form of the argument is as follows: Source A makes claim P. Group B also make claim P. Therefore, source A is a member of group B. Example: "You say the gap between the rich and poor is unacceptable, but communists also say this, therefore you are a communist" This fallacy can also take another form: Source A makes claim P. Group B make claims P and Q Therefore, Source A makes claim Q. Examples: "You say the gap between the rich and poor is unacceptable, but communists also say this, and they believe in revolution. Thus, you believe in revolution." A similar tactic may be employed to encourage someone to renounce an opinion, or force them to choose between renouncing an opinion or admitting membership in a group. For example: "You say the gap between the rich and poor is unacceptable. You don't really mean that, do you? Communists say the same thing. You're not a communist, are you?" Guilt by association may be combined with ad hominem abusive. For example: "You say the gap between the rich and poor is unacceptable, but communists also say this, and therefore you are a communist. Communists are unlikeable, and therefore everything they say is false, and therefore everything you say is false." A reductio ad Hitlerum argument can be seen as an example of a "guilt by association" fallacy, since it attacks a viewpoint simply because it was supposedly espoused by Adolf Hitler, as if it is impossible that such a man could have held any viewpoint that is correct. [edit] Inverse ad hominem An inverse ad hominem argument praises a source in order to add support for that source's argument or claim. A fallacious inverse ad hominem argument may go something like this: "That man was smartly-dressed and charming, so I'll accept his argument that I should vote for him" As with regular ad hominem arguments, not all cases of inverse ad hominem are fallacious. Consider the following: "Elizabeth has never told a lie in her entire life, and she says she saw him take the bag. She must be telling the truth." Here the arguer is not suggesting we accept Elizabeth's argument, but her testimony. Her being an honest person is relevant to the truth of the conclusion (that he took the bag), just as her having bad eyesight (a regular case of ad hominem) would give reason not to believe her. However, the last part of the argument is false even if the premise is true, since having never told a lie before does not mean she isn't now. Appeal to authority is a type of inverse ad hominem argument." ________________________________________________________________ Have a nice day seems i've heard this white noise somewhere before... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmo Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Billcoe, your post is very long but I completely agree with the premise. For the past years it seems that the Democratic party has turned into a party of hate. Conservatives are not guiltless, but everything coming from the left seems to be nothing but personal attacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmo Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Bill if you blame to current debacle on Bush youre missing the big picture. I realize that the image of coruption and incompetence being to blame is something that helps us find a scapegoat, imagine a more secure world in general, and it offers the possibility of a simple fix but it is also sheer lunacy as well. this post is almost as silly and unintelligible as anything gw said while in office. peter, you might have a future as a republican puppet if you also happen to be the scion of a wealthy, well-connected family. Why all the hate and personal attacks? Why must one be wealthy to be a republican? All politicians are wealthy and well connected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Billcoe, your post is very long but I completely agree with the premise. For the past years it seems that the Democratic party has turned into a party of hate. Conservatives are not guiltless, but everything coming from the left seems to be nothing but personal attacks. Well said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 I'm just glad Billcoe finally found a new boyfriend. And what's wrong with some good ole fashioned well-deserved hatred, anyway? I'm proud to be a member of the Party-of-I-wanna-skull-fuck-your-new-puppy. Bush supporters deserve far, far more hatred than they actually receive; they're just whiny little fucks about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snoboy Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 So it's not got anything to do with Bush after 8 YEARS, but we can blame Obama after 5 WEEKS?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.