![[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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Um...
Date: 2004-10-22 10:15 am (UTC)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.
Re: Um...
Date: 2004-10-22 06:30 pm (UTC)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.
Re: Um...
Date: 2004-10-22 06:37 pm (UTC)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.
Re: Um...
Date: 2004-10-23 01:33 am (UTC)