RE: [Iraq] More enthusiasm than news in Fox's coverage of war

From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Sun Mar 30 2003 - 09:45:07 MST

  • Next message: Dehede011@aol.com: "Re: IRAQ Reasons for War"

    Michael M. Butler wrote,
    > >>> 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.

    Wrong. Ad hominem is the act of distracting people from the actual evidence
    with unrelated evidence in the hope of confusing them into agreeing with you
    even though the evidence does not support your position. Laughing at their
    clothing, calling them names, bringing up unrelated topics, are all examples
    of ad hominem. Ad hominem never addresses the topic and never is valid or
    useful or laudable. Ad hominem is deliberate fraud and deception. It is
    bad logic or math that does not stand up to scrutiny but is presented as
    "proof" as long as nobody tries to look too closely.

    Remember that ad hominem is defined in formal logic as one of the common
    fallacies. It can be proven mathematically to be invalid. No valid
    argument can be ad hominem, and no ad hominem can be a valid argument.
    There is a lot of confusion as to what ad hominem is. Please google for
    "logical fallacies FAQ" for more information.

    --
    Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, IAM, GSEC
    <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 30 2003 - 09:55:31 MST