From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Wed May 07 2003 - 21:51:08 MDT
John Clark wrote
> "gts" <gts_2000@yahoo.com>
>
> >If the name-calling occurs in the context even of a valid argument, it is
> >still, imo, appropriate to consider it ad hominem because of the additional
> >*implied* argument.
>
> If I were making a documentary about the Holocaust it is not inconceivable
> that the word "monster" would creep in regarding my description of the
> Nazis, perhaps the word "evil" too. If you object to this then it proves
> that political correctness is not the exclusive domain of the far left.
I'd have no *objection* to the usage of this word "creeping in"
as you say. I agree with gts, though, but more so: the degree
to which your presentation *depends* on such language, the weaker
it is.
I consider the use of such phrases, e.g. "Communist tyranny", "monstrous
evil", "Nazi madman" to be reality challenges to the reader: do you or
do you not also agree emotionally?
Therefore, (and we've all seen it), an unending barrage of such
defamatory terms isn't to the point, because what's the use of
repeatedly making the same challenge in a single work?
> > ...then also call you an idiot for believing in the
> > Easter Bunny, my name-calling can be seen as an
> > additional implied ad hominem argument
>
> The implied argument is that the person has displayed such profound
> stupidity that it would be a waste of time to pay attention to more
> sounds he may make with his mouth, a perfectly valid bit of advice
> in my opinion.
I agree that after a while, you can write some people off, at
least as regards some issues. But this is seldom "profound
stupidity". More often it's ideological blindness, or (what
may amount to the same thing) repeated misperception of human
nature (or the nature of some particular humans).
> Do you really disagree, do you really think the person was
> not an idiot? The word has a meaning, there must be times
> when it is appropriate to use it and if not then when?
> Or perhaps you think the word "idiot" should be expunged
> from the English Language.
This is an extremely interesting point. I don't really grok
Damien's "assessment" analysis or its relevance, but I do
think that he's right to question the *role* that the
terms are playing here. I liken the use of "idiot" to that
of "shit!". It seems to be like an expletive, having little
or no objective meaning, but instead useful as indicating the
speaker's judgment (or assessment), or emotional disposition.
And again, there are at least several ways that conveying the
emotional or judgmental take of the speaker is useful: one,
as said, is that it offers a challenge to the listener,
implying the possibility that the listener could or should
review his semantic links, e.g. "Saddam's monstrous tyranny".
Another, as said, is the implied claim that the target's views
are unreliable, at least on one issue. Lastly, it can be
useful to know the result of the speaker's own emotional
calculations, not only for whatever value that would generate
itself, but as a guide to the speaker's further actions and words.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 07 2003 - 22:01:15 MDT