Comments on: EXHUMING ANOTHER LOSER TO TRASH PALIN

By: Catron

Catron — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 18:31:56 +0000

Matthew, I would steer clear of Wikipedia if you’re looking for a serious reference. It is notoriously inaccurate.

If you want a serious discussion of the ad hominem argument. I recommend this paper by David Hitchcock.

Hitchcock is a Professor of Philosophy at McMaster University, and has considerably more credibility than Wikipedia.

By: Matthew Hamilton

Matthew Hamilton — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 18:30:59 +0000

Perhaps since this blog seems to be 50% ad hominem, you might think there’s no such this as an ad hominem fallacy, but there most certainly is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

By: Cognomen08

Cognomen08 — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 05:11:03 +0000

Andrew Halcro’s article supplied some interesting facts selectively missing from Palin’s account.
It was obviously written by a thoughtful, informed, literate adult.
I can understand your fear of it.

By: ECM

ECM — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 04:07:17 +0000

We *know* they (read: you) are worried because they expend so much effort tearing her down–nobody would spend that much time and effort going after someone that’s powerless. (See: the last 8 years of GWB derangement.)

By: Repack Rider

Repack Rider — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:04:40 +0000

Palin will never be a political candidate again. It’s hard work and she can’t control the message. People tend to ask harsh questions that can’t be answered with a bumper sticker philosophy. If Katie Couric was a tough interview, the threshold of toughness is in the negative figures.

I don’t know why conservatives think liberals are worried about the possibility of Palin running for president. She wouldn’t get past the other Republicans.

By: Catron

Catron — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:23:47 +0000

Well, 090, you might want to look up “syllogism,” because your grasp of this type of discourse is … er … tenuous.

By: 090

090 — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:18:54 +0000

Your argument seems to go like this:

1. X lost and feels bitterness towards the winner
2. Anything said by someone who loses and feels bitterness towards the winner is false.
3. X said Y about Palin.
So,
4. Y is false.

This is valid, but the 3rd premise is clearly false.

By: Catron

Catron — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:02:35 +0000

Er … nope. The ad hominem argument (there is no such thing as an ad hominem fallacy) is based on some personal trait of its subject.

My essential argument against this guy’s credibility is based on his inability to be objective due to bitterness over his defeat at Palin’s hands.

In other words, he is LITERALLY a “loser” in the political sense. That he is also a misogynist (and generally pathetic) is just icing on the cake.

By: 090

090 — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:36:17 +0000

Er, isn’t that post of yours about Halco a classic ad hominem fallacy?