HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » CNN launches Argumentum a... » Reply #3

Response to Fred Sanders (Original post)

Tue Aug 5, 2014, 11:07 AM

3. It is complex, I know. Takes a wee bit of study. For those that can keep pace:

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!", 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."

http://www.csun.edu/%7Edgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20hominem

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 44 replies Author Time Post
Fred Sanders Aug 2014 OP
hack89 Aug 2014 #1
Fred Sanders Aug 2014 #2
hack89 Aug 2014 #5
Fred Sanders Aug 2014 #6
hack89 Aug 2014 #7
The Magistrate Aug 2014 #13
Fred Sanders Aug 2014 #15
The Magistrate Aug 2014 #20
Iamthetruth Aug 2014 #27
The Magistrate Aug 2014 #31
Fred Sanders Aug 2014 #34
Fred Sanders Aug 2014 #32
The Magistrate Aug 2014 #36
Fred Sanders Aug 2014 #39
The Magistrate Aug 2014 #41
aint_no_life_nowhere Aug 2014 #24
Fred Sanders Aug 2014 #25
hack89 Aug 2014 #30
aint_no_life_nowhere Aug 2014 #35
Fred Sanders Aug 2014 #37
LineReply It is complex, I know. Takes a wee bit of study. For those that can keep pace:
Fred Sanders Aug 2014 #3
WinkyDink Aug 2014 #4
LineReply .
MohRokTah Aug 2014 #8
malaise Aug 2014 #9
Fred Sanders Aug 2014 #10
malaise Aug 2014 #11
Fred Sanders Aug 2014 #12
malaise Aug 2014 #14
The Magistrate Aug 2014 #16
malaise Aug 2014 #17
The Magistrate Aug 2014 #21
malaise Aug 2014 #22
Fred Sanders Aug 2014 #18
Fred Sanders Aug 2014 #19
bemildred Aug 2014 #23
The Magistrate Aug 2014 #38
bemildred Aug 2014 #40
Iamthetruth Aug 2014 #26
Fred Sanders Aug 2014 #28
Capt. Obvious Aug 2014 #33
Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2014 #29
arikara Aug 2014 #42
GeorgeGist Aug 2014 #43
Fred Sanders Aug 2014 #44
Please login to view edit histories.