Cindy Sheehan shows her true colors

Parent Cafe
116

<p>SBmom,</p>

<p>Just for fun, let’s call your plan, option #1.</p>

<p>Let’s call the following, Option #2,
make a counter argument, witty jest (though witty jest might include a remark such as “FS, not fun enough”…within reason–that is, as long as it does not become a gag perpetually pummeled into the pixels in the manner of “What about Clinton,” or “that dog don’t hunt” [unless in reference to hunting, or dogs and particularly hunting with dogs; or, in your case, if you really are bored and nothing but a cc spruce up will do]), show the logical fallacy of the argument, present counter examples.</p>

<p>In the spirit of communal giving, Emerson’s Law on Compensation and having received so much charity in this regard in the past, I now feel obliged to offer some writing advice of my own before my indebtedness is irredeemable.</p>

<p>Arguments:
Option #1, ad hominem argument (attack).
Example:
in post #51 Lauras50 wrote: “You know Fountain Siren, you pride yourself on your beautifull writing and your intelligience, but you see only from one side. A real intellectual will think outside the box and try to see things from all sides. You can be bright, but still not see anything at all. You also should try not to be so snide. You should use your wonderful writing skills to bring more to the world than viciousness and condescension” and you responded to her comment with [post#71] “Fountain Siren, Laura’s criticism in post #51 is dead on.” [note: FS, moi, has never, ever, “prided” herself on ‘writing’ or ‘intelligence’…unless being graded by an appropriate tutor or maestro and the award is not in doubt…none of which, obviously, applies here]</p>

<p>Option #2, counter argument.
The preferred option, #1, is in fact an ad hominem argument (as noted above). Now, I’m not saying it shouldn’t be used–verboten as it were–as I’ve been known to tap that dance myself, but we should at least be clear on the form of the argument we employ. Why be coy?
Example:
Cav302 wrote [post#72], “Impressive, SBmom. You make an ad hominem attack on FountainSiren because she doesn’t concede the validity of any of your points?” And you responded [post #74], “CAV, I intended to jerk FS’ chain a bit, but what I said is a far cry from an 'ad hominem attack.” Well, not really (re, the marriage of posts #51&71 above)…</p>

<p>

<a href=“http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html[/url]”>http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>As I understand the ad hominem fallacy, finding someone’s sex, age, occupation, political affiliation, personality, attitude, style, actions or religion to be the basis of your argument is in fact to make an ad hominem argument (attack). All objections to the contrary are palid attempts at obfuscation, too often nestled within a holier-than-though assumption. Most here, on cc, indulge themselves in this guilty pleasure…me too, it is a rhetorical treat best served hot and fresh. However, few confess it (tarnishes self-image: disrobed of the ‘holier-than-thou’ halo some feel rhetorically naked and vulnerable to same argument). </p>

<p>Thus when I respond to Xiggi [post #108], “Thanks Xiggi, Responding to the ad hominems is tiresome. I usually let it pass and stick to the content of a particular post rather than the perceived style, personality, age, ethnicity of the poster.” I do not specifically claim I was being attacked, or complain it isn’t fair (in this case it was simply wrong on the facts—and if the facts are not known, for what ever reason, they should not be the basis of a factual argument—they are ad hominem fallacies) but simply note that responding to ad hominems is “tiresome.” It is. Most people feel this way and of course they should (isn’t that the point?). Maybe it’s beyond the pale, or bad form to call an ad hominem what it is (like shouting out, “hey, the emperor has no clothes”) —but certainly, in these parts, making use of one is not. </p>

<p>Thankfully…and for all concerned. :)</p>