From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Wed Apr 02 2003 - 06:50:31 MST
Lee Corbin wrote,
>
> John Clark writes
>
> > "gts" <gts_2000@yahoo.com>
> >
> > > The KKK calls blacks and Jews scum, and they are no more
> correct than you
> > > are in calling the KKK scum.
> >
> > If I were to say "Hey gts, what do you think about the
> KKK?" is it really
> > inconceivable that you would reply "They're scum"; and
> should I think less
> > of you if you did? Personally I feel it is perfectly
> correct, they are scum.
>
> I find such emotional outbursts understandable,
> but inaccurate. The name-calling does nothing more
> than connote the emotional state of the speaker. Are
> we to suppose that there is such a thing as "emotional
> correctness"? From many others' posts on this list, I
> think that about sizes it up.
This is exactly correct. The emotional outburst is perfectly acceptable as
representing the speaker's emotion, because it provides information about
that topic. However, it fails to provide any information about the KKK
itself. As an argument against the KKK, this argument fails. It is content
free. This is not to say that it is rude or politically incorrect. It
simply does not give any evidence for the conclusion. That is the root
reason why ad hominem is invalid evidence. Because it is "jumping to
conclusions" or "facts not in evidence". It declares information rather
than providing reasons or evidence for them. It falls in the same category
as any other non-falsifiable declaration such as a religious statement of
faith.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, IAM, GSEC <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 02 2003 - 06:59:42 MST