![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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.
"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.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-22 09:40 am (UTC)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.
Wow.
Date: 2004-10-22 06:40 pm (UTC)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.
Re: Wow.
Date: 2004-10-22 09:18 pm (UTC)He was being attacked for being a comedian when he had John Kerry on his show.