[Peace-discuss] Bellicose rhetoric???

Fri Nov 7 22:50:54 CST 2008

I also am not sure that Neil's sentence is an example of an ad  
hominem* attack. But I know that it is deceitful.

There has never been an effort to deny criticism of Obama at recent  
AWARE meetings, certainly not from this quarter. I believed (most of)  
Obama's campaign foreign policy statements were detestable, although  
noting that on the domestic front we could expect some improvement  
over what we could expect from McCain/Palin.  That McCain would  
likely be even a worse choice, was being ignored or grossly  
underplayed in the barrage against Obama, and this lack of "balance"  
is what I found objectionable.

In the election, people were given a restricted choice, and it was  
for the general welfare that they choose the best of the lousy  
choices. I believe they did.

Willful distortion here is the main fault.

*ad hominem |ˈad ˈhämənəm|
adverb & adjective
1 (of an argument or reaction) arising from or appealing to the  
emotions and not reason or logic.
• attacking an opponent’s motives or character rather than the  
policy or position they maintain : vicious ad hominem attacks.
2 relating to or associated with a particular person : [as adv. ] the  
office was created ad hominem for Fenton. | [as adj. ] an ad hominem  
response.
ORIGIN late 16th cent.: Latin, literally ‘to the person.’

--mkb

On Nov 7, 2008, at 11:51 AM, LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:

> While I agree with your comments and analysis found in the first three
> paragraphs with some agreement with the content of the fourth  
> paragraph with
> reservations, I do not think that you made your case with respect  
> to your
> last two paragraphs:
>
>> Let me pull out another Neil quote: "The very essence of puerility  
>> was not
>> allowing criticism of Obama in the buildup to the election by  
>> saying those
>> who held a consistent anti-war ethic somehow wanted McCain/Palin  
>> to win the
>
>> election.  It was intellectually lazy and the sticking of one's  
>> head in the
>
>> proverbial sand."
>
>> Of course there is nothing ad hominem here, right? I rest my case
>
> There is nothing literally ad hominem in the quote, which mentions  
> no names
> or particular people except McCain and Palin but comments on the  
> use of the
> term puerility as a descriptor, on the substantive nature and  
> content of
> alleged accusations made about the intent and impact of pre-election
> critical comments, and about how Neil viewed and evaluated such  
> criticisms.
> It appears that you and I have very different ideas as to what  
> constitutes
> an ad hominen argument.  This surprises me since it is typically  
> you who
> have assumed a literal stances when defining and using labels and  
> concepts
> (i.e., law of the excluded middle, where you insist on defining it in
> technical terms rather than regarding it as referencing in general
> "either/or" types of arguments) where I have on those occasions  
> assumed a
> figurative stance (although that is not typically something that I  
> normally
> try to do but deliberately do so only in special circumstances).
>
> With respect to the reservations that I have regarding total  
> acceptance of
> your fourth paragraph (Issue advocacy groups such as AWARE are  
> effective
> only to the extent that they put aside party and ideology and stick  
> to the
> issues being advocated), that only happens when all the parties  
> agree in
> substance and form to the general goals and means to achieve those  
> goals;
> moreover, until such unanimity as to the generalized goals and  
> methods is
> reached, it is perfectly legitimate and often necessary to engage  
> in an
> argument and debate over the differences or engage in a forced or  
> voluntary
> purge of the dissenters.  I take it that the later is not a valued
> alternative, which means that until consensus is reached  
> differences in
> opinion and perspective, approach and evaluation, are legitimate  
> and not to
> be shut down under the pretense of needing to show a united front  
> to be
> effective.  As history has shown, umbrella organizations and  
> movements are
> generally not focused or effective and frequently break up into  
> splinter
> groups because the generalized consensus is more symbolic than  
> factual when
> one gets down to the details.  This is specifically true of issue  
> advocacy
> groups and may account for why AWARE is so small in active membership.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
> [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Bob  
> Illyes
> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 10:33 AM
> To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Bellicose rhetoric???
>
> Neil complained to Mort regarding Mort's supposed "ad hominem  
> attacks on
> Carl, me and others." This is an odd comment, coming as a part of the
> full-bore ad hominem attacks on Obama and liberals that Carl has been
> carrying on for several years at least.
>
> At the heart of this conflict seems to be a difference of opinion  
> as to
> whether the middle class and liberalism are the solution, or  
> whether they
> are, as Marx thought, the problem. Obama is being used as a proxy  
> for this
> difference of opinion, which is a waste of every ones time except  
> for those
> who wish to argue for argument's sake.
>
> What you may miss, Neil, is that Mort does not care if you and Carl  
> differ
> with him on politics or politicians. What he cares about, I suspect  
> he will
> agree, is Carl's ongoing efforts to promote Carl's unusual analysis  
> as the
> consensus position of AWARE, which it most definitely is not.
>
> Issue advocacy groups such as AWARE are effective only to the  
> extent that
> they put aside party and ideology and stick to the issues being  
> advocated.
>
> Let me pull out another Neil quote: "The very essence of puerility  
> was not
> allowing criticism of Obama in the buildup to the election by  
> saying those
> who held a consistent anti-war ethic somehow wanted McCain/Palin to  
> win the
> election.  It was intellectually lazy and the sticking of one's  
> head in the
> proverbial sand."
>
> Of course there is nothing ad hominem here, right? I rest my case.
>
> Bob
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20081107/d7defe39/attachment-0001.htm