Take a pledge - no ad hominem
The ideology-free ideology is but one example of three rhetorical approaches that I have been increasingly sensitive to, lately. Those are
The most recent hit on my radar was the recent controversy surrounding Anne Coulter. Her point, which has some merit, is that the Left keeps using Holy Messengers to oppose Administration policies. I can't think of similar examples used by the Right, but that doesn't mean they exist. In a sense, Anne is saying that they are preemptively using an ad hominem argument since only a cad would argue with a grieving widow, and as we all know, cads are wrong. However, her own exposition on the topic is so laced with vile ad hominem arguments that it will not be taken seriously by anyone not already convinced.
The final hit on my radar was the ideology-free ideologue's incessant use of every trick on this page - a problem which he compounded by claiming, when caught in his fallacy, that you wouldn't hesitate to level such arguments against someone who had defrauded you.
So what is a better option than assuming or using any of the devices at the top? You could assume that your opponent was simply wrong without having to question his/her motives, intelligence, or sanity. That's a much more civil means of discovering common ground and truth. It confirms rather than denies their humanity.
Or you could assume that you are wrong. It happens.
- Characterizing your opponent as evil
- Characterizing your opponent as insane
- Characterizing your opponent as mentally deficient (including being blinded by ideology)
The most recent hit on my radar was the recent controversy surrounding Anne Coulter. Her point, which has some merit, is that the Left keeps using Holy Messengers to oppose Administration policies. I can't think of similar examples used by the Right, but that doesn't mean they exist. In a sense, Anne is saying that they are preemptively using an ad hominem argument since only a cad would argue with a grieving widow, and as we all know, cads are wrong. However, her own exposition on the topic is so laced with vile ad hominem arguments that it will not be taken seriously by anyone not already convinced.
The final hit on my radar was the ideology-free ideologue's incessant use of every trick on this page - a problem which he compounded by claiming, when caught in his fallacy, that you wouldn't hesitate to level such arguments against someone who had defrauded you.
So what is a better option than assuming or using any of the devices at the top? You could assume that your opponent was simply wrong without having to question his/her motives, intelligence, or sanity. That's a much more civil means of discovering common ground and truth. It confirms rather than denies their humanity.
Or you could assume that you are wrong. It happens.
Labels: philosophy
<< Home