merlinofchaos | Ad Hominem -- the favored attack of the right.

Entry tags:

america,
politics

Ad Hominem -- the favored attack of the right.

This one is so easy I don't need to actually say anything myself, except this: When you can't defend your position, attack those who think you are wrong.

"What a copout,'' Carlson said Monday. "On the one hand, he wants to play media critic and cultural critic, and on the other hand, if challenged, he retreats into 'I'm just a comedian' mode. I mean, that's pathetic.''

Attacking the Person
(argumentum ad hominem)
Definition:

The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the
person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked.
Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to
gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be
attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.

There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
(1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion,
the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
(2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an
assertion the author points to the relationship between the
person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
(3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the
person notes that a person does not practise what he
preaches.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

It's unfair to lay the blame on this one just at the feet of pundits of the right wing: may I present Fahrenheit 911 as an example of the shoe being on the other foot?

In what manner is Fahrenheit 911 an ad hominem attack? I was under the impression that it concentrated on Dubya's policies and their effects, not, for example, his self-satisfied pseudo-piety.

The particular detail that sticks out in my mind is how we got told, in vast detail, about GWB going on vacation. While sure, this is not the Man of Action that I'd want my president to be, there is something to be said for the president getting the hell out of the way and letting people who know what they're doing deal with the situation. A lot of what else I recall is characterizations of the major players in the current administration- rather than characterizations of their policies. 'These policies are evil and foolish, and are advanced by evil men', is what I walked away from the film having gotten most strongly. That, to my eyes, is pretty solidly an ad hominem argument.
Note, this does not in any way amount to me attempting to defend these policies: I do believe quite wholeheartedly that this administration's policies have been unremittingly evil and foolish.

Right wing? What right wing? He told both of them, Begala and Carlson that they were wrong. Left and right.

The whole point of the entire thing was that partisanship is part of the problem, and your answer, in my opinion, illustrates that, by assuming it was an attack on just the right.

I feel I ought to quote the title of the post you wrote which I responded to:
Ad Hominem -- the favored attack of the right.

It was perhaps reasonable to perceive your post as aimed at the tactics of the right, given that.

Sure, I believe the right commits more ad hominems than the left. But I was in no way saying that the left isn't guilty of them as well.

Another issue I've been having with politics lately. I'm sick of the "If you're not right you must be left" and "If you're not left you must be right" stance I see from all of the die hards on both sides.

Which was, indeed, part of my point in saying 'now now, it's not just the right wing who pulls this shit'. :)

I think that while I agree with Stewart on most levels of what he was talking about, Carlson has every right to attack him rather than his concepts, because how you go about addressing the concepts is important. Steward did go 'you're comparing things to a comedy show' and then continue to spit at Crossfire, which was one of the things I didn't like about it. an ad hominem attack was the most appropriate response in my mind, because really, at some point you should point out that a person is undermining their beliefs through their behavior.

Whereas I agree that there's nothing wrong with fighting fire with fire, it makes a difference when one guy is claiming to be a fireeater, and the other is claiming to be a fireman.

I think that was deep, but I'm not sure.

The point being, when admission of roles came into play, Stewart explained that his show is marketed as comedy, and XFire is marketed as 'debate'. Certainly Carlson has the RIGHT to attack Stewart, but it comes off as hollow. The fireman shouldn't use a fireeater as an example of his highest and best standard.

The point being, when admission of roles came into play, Stewart explained that his show is marketed as comedy, and XFire is marketed as 'debate'. Certainly Carlson has the RIGHT to attack Stewart, but it comes off as hollow. The fireman shouldn't use a fireeater as an example of his highest and best standard.

Oh, Carlson could have handled it better. I have no doubt. But he handled it no less inappropriately than Stewart did. I would say he dealt with it significantly better, and with a bit more clarity than 'Your Show Will Still Blow'.

He can attack Stewart all he likes, but the fact is, Stewart isn't up there saying "I do debate" and not doing debate. He's up there saying "I do comedy" and doing comedy.

It upsets me that there is a large contingent of people who think that just because X person isn't a professional politician that they shouldn't be concerned citizens and act politically. Sure, they may be stupid citizens acting politically (not in this case) but that's neither here nor there.

My point is that a defense that is merely an ad hominem is not a defense at all, but an attack that is designed to create an emotional diversion. Apparently it worked in your case.

Oddly enough, I'm going to be polite on this.

Merlin, Jon Stewart repeatedly would say he wasn't being funny, and he wasn't there to be a comedian. Phrases like 'I'm not going to be your monkey' were fairly prevailing in the theme that he was not there being a comedian when it came to attacking the show. He was up there not doing debate or comedy. He was attacking them. That he made a joke on the side doesn't make it a Comedic Job. He stressed that when it came to his attacks they weren't meant to be funny as much as they were to be scathing.

I got your point. I got it well. I'm not going to look at a definition and take it as an argument. That's asinine. I was addressing the underlying tone.

I'm going to let the last sentence slip this time on the courtesy of being polite.

You're right, he wasn't being a comedian when he was there. But he wasn't being attacked for being a comedian on the show.

He was being attacked for being a comedian when he had John Kerry on his show.

How is Stewart undermining his beliefs through his behavior? Are you saying that in order to criticize Crossfire, one must first do the same thing they do? And no one else is permitted to tell them they're doing a shit job?

I don't think that follows. Can't you criticize a doctor for doing a poor job even if you're not yourself a doctor?

Or a plumber? Or a pundit? Or a president?

If a chiropractor is sexually abusing his patients, it's not wrong for me to say so, even if I'm an erotic masseuse.

How is Stewart undermining his beliefs through his behavior? Are you saying that in order to criticize Crossfire, one must first do the same thing they do? And no one else is permitted to tell them they're doing a shit job?

Oh, no. Not at all. But calling someone a dick? Come on. Being a child does actually hurt a cause. Something far too many people miss. It's just as important to be an adult as it is to be right. Jon took a good amount of intelligence and washed it in 12 year old behavior. There are far better ways to go about it.

I don't think that follows. Can't you criticize a doctor for doing a poor job even if you're not yourself a doctor?

If you understand the context, sure. But again, how you do it is very important.

It's worth noting that if you watch Jon's expression in the
segment after he called Carlson a dick, he kinda realized he
was done with the interview. In one of the articles I read he
said that was the only thing about the interview he might've
regretted.

And considering that Carlson had been calling him 'Kerry's butt boy', dick seemed a mild term.

Yah, it occurred to me that this was all Tucker could do. While I don't watch Crossfire other than this segment, I know the show by reputation -- and I'd bet the primary requirement for being on the show was that you'd memorized a nice long list of logical fallacies -- as a list of your debating tools, as opposed to things to avoid.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Ad Hominem -- the favored attack of the right.

True, but...

Re: True, but...

Re: True, but...

Re: True, but...

Fair enough, I guess.

Re: Fair enough, I guess.

Re: Fair enough, I guess.

no subject

Hrm.

Re: Hrm.

no subject

Wow.

Re: Wow.

Um...

Re: Um...

Re: Um...

Re: Um...

Ad hominem, Tucker?