From: Michael M. Butler (mmb@spies.com)
Date: Sun Mar 30 2003 - 05:49:21 MST
>>> Ad hominem is *never* correct, John.
Second (PCR and de Bono-steeped) thoughts:
Boiling it down, I think my position is that cross-commentary or "debate"
public ad hominem is usually regrettable but can have a useful or even
laudable strategic use if the target truly does deserve to be depissed or
discredited on the basis of it. It's a "credentials" thing. "No matter how
good his arguments might sound, the grounds of his thinking toward his
argument--/his/ /qualities/--make him suspect. He doesn't use words to mean
what we think they mean." Etc.
Criticisms of what I just suggested:
1) Justifying that "deserve[dness]" might require omniscience.
2) Blinding the bull doesn't take away his horns (The Hannity duck-out
about the Korea Axis-O-Eviolll thing was Hannity tossing sand in the bull's
eyes, for sure).
3) Even justified ad hominem incurs costs, and those costs can be large. --
One can demonize almost anyone and it can be hard to get out of the habit
once it's formed. -- Its use always contributes some tarnish to your own
credentials in some quarters.
MMB
-- I am not here to have an argument. I am here as part of a civilization. Sometimes I forget.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 30 2003 - 05:54:44 MST