Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
3. It is complex, I know. Takes a wee bit of study. For those that can keep pace:
Tue Aug 5, 2014, 11:07 AM
Aug 2014

My exposure of the CNN propaganda is not to defend the hateful words of one person, it is to expose how the words spoken by the one person are used to attack an entire organization, painted with the same propaganda brush. Of course I will be attacked, using the same attack, to deflect from the exposure of the propaganda, game on.

"Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!&quot , but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.

It is always bad form to use the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. But there are some cases when it is not really a fallacy, such as when one needs to evaluate the truth of factual statements (as opposed to lines of argument or statements of value) made by interested parties. If someone has an incentive to lie about something, then it would be naive to accept his statements about that subject without question. It is also possible to restate many ad hominem arguments so as to redirect them toward ideas rather than people, such as by replacing "My opponents are fascists" with "My opponents' arguments are fascist."


Lets see what Osama Hamdan has said over the past couple of years. hack89 Aug 2014 #1
You posted the words I refused to....interesting. Fred Sanders Aug 2014 #2
Because you refuse to accept the implications of such words from such people hack89 Aug 2014 #5
I think propaganda stinks, I have a good nose for stink. My burden. Fred Sanders Aug 2014 #6
Do you deny that Hamdan said what is in my post? nt hack89 Aug 2014 #7
Indeed, Sir: Holding A Man To Account For His Previous Words Is Not Argumentm Ad Hominem The Magistrate Aug 2014 #13
Holding him up falsely as anyone of importance is not propaganda? Attacking the person to segue Fred Sanders Aug 2014 #15
Why Do You Insult Mr. Hamdan By Insisting He Is Un-Important, Sir? The Magistrate Aug 2014 #20
Did you really just compare Iamthetruth Aug 2014 #27
Have Some Coffee Before You Post, Sir The Magistrate Aug 2014 #31
With you there... Fred Sanders Aug 2014 #34
He is the Hamas representative in Lebanon, Hamas was elected government of Palestine. Fred Sanders Aug 2014 #32
Nice To See You Can Google, Sir, And That You Acknowledge The Man's Significance The Magistrate Aug 2014 #36
Like Sarah Palin and Ted Cruz? Snark in a Magistrate is not good form. Fred Sanders Aug 2014 #39
You Will Have Your Little Joke, Sir.... The Magistrate Aug 2014 #41
I didn't see this morning's panel show but I saw the interview of Hamden by wolf yesterday aint_no_life_nowhere Aug 2014 #24
I just do not think the amplified hate of one not vital to the process man should hold up peace. Fred Sanders Aug 2014 #25
So DU has vapors when an obsure American blogger posts on the Times of Israel site hack89 Aug 2014 #30
I doubt that peace will be held up as a result of a Wolf Blitzer interview aint_no_life_nowhere Aug 2014 #35
Then why amplify his voice? The whole piece had to be seen to put this in context, the context of Fred Sanders Aug 2014 #37
It is complex, I know. Takes a wee bit of study. For those that can keep pace: Fred Sanders Aug 2014 #3
Because nothing of the sort was directed at Netanyahu. WinkyDink Aug 2014 #4
. MohRokTah Aug 2014 #8
Clearly you missed the hack on The Cycle yesterday malaise Aug 2014 #9
Why do people not see through the obvious propaganda, malaise, why are people so intent on Fred Sanders Aug 2014 #10
Laziness and indifference malaise Aug 2014 #11
When children are killed, piled up like cordwood, they still remain lazy and indifferent..I may hurl Fred Sanders Aug 2014 #12
As long as it's not their children malaise Aug 2014 #14
That Was Not An Accident, Ma'am: That Was a Crime The Magistrate Aug 2014 #16
We know that malaise Aug 2014 #17
I Understand That, Ma'am The Magistrate Aug 2014 #21
You stated it very well Sir malaise Aug 2014 #22
This message was self-deleted by its author Fred Sanders Aug 2014 #18
Your words should be copied and put into the war crime indictment for this act of terror. Fred Sanders Aug 2014 #19
Correct Sir, and thank you for saying it. bemildred Aug 2014 #23
And In This Context, Sir 'Not Giving a Shit' Is Low Enough And then Some.... The Magistrate Aug 2014 #38
Quite enough, on both sides, yes. bemildred Aug 2014 #40
Seriously Iamthetruth Aug 2014 #26
Seriously, no one is defending anyone, but no one is discussing that both sides agree civilian death Fred Sanders Aug 2014 #28
Hamas lover! Capt. Obvious Aug 2014 #33
You're defending not only Hamas but the age-old slander of the blood libel. You're sick. nt Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2014 #29
I guess it would be "fair and balanced" if they also had this woman on their show arikara Aug 2014 #42
I strongly disagree. GeorgeGist Aug 2014 #43
I liked how they brought out Dan Rather, complained about how they, CNN were ever so being Fred Sanders Aug 2014 #44
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»CNN launches Argumentum a...»Reply #3