Fred Stone wrote:

"magilla" <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1120060201.755026.268960@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

"magilla" <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1120058031.002498.59530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

"magilla" <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1120054243.853272.37020@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:_ICdnRI_X-NFZ1zfRVn-qQ@centurytel.net:

Until he sends both his children to Iraq to fight in the
war, his words are empty and meaningless. Which is par
for the course for this administration.

Sorry, towelie, but your ad hominem argument renders your
words empty and meaningless.

Logical fallacy: whether or not a statement is bundled with
an insult does not influence the veracity of the statment one
whit.

Ad hominem: the behavior or character of the speaker does not
influence the veracity of his statements one whit.

Well, yes, Fred. That is pretty much exactly what I wrote. You
engaged in the logical fallacy of conflating the supposed insult
(and that's a real borderline case of ad hominem, by the way)
with the initial statement.

You seem to be confused. Towelie's first sentence is pure ad
hominem all by itself. The gratuitous insult in the second
sentence makes no difference.

Fred, there is absolutely *nothing* in that sentence that can be
construed as an ad hominem. Nothing. Nothing you can write can ever
turn it into an ad hominem. It is simply a value judgement on the
part of towelie. It simply states a condition- that for towelie, no
words of GW Bush [concerning the Iraq war- that is obvious from
context] can have any meaningful content unless and until he has
his children help fight it.

Judging the value of a person's argument based on that person's
character or actions *is* ad hominem.

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/a.htm#ad-h

"ad hominem argument (argument against the person)

The informal fallacy of supposing that a proposition should be
denied because of some disqualifying feature of the person who
affirms it. This fallacy is the mirror image of the appeal to
authority. In its abusive form, ad hominem is a direct (and often
inflammatory) attack on the appearance, character, or personality of
the individual.

Example: "Jeremy claims that Susan was at the party, but since
Jeremy is the kind of person who has to ride to work on the city bus,
it must be false that she was there."

A circumstantial ad hominem accuses the person of having an
alternative motive for defending the proposition or points out its
inconsistency with the person's other views. Tu quoque (the "so do
you" fallacy) uses a similar method in response to criticism of a
position already held. "

Like I said, you're being silly. Note that, in your example, there is
no relation between Jeremy riding the bus to work and Jeremy telling
the truth about Susan''s presence at the party. However, if Bush wants
other parents to send their kids off to war, he should be willing-
especially as the leader of a nation at war- to have his own children
enlist. There is a distinct relationship between the two sets of
circumstances there.

No attack, no insult- merely a statement of fact.

Explicit attack is not necessary for an ad hominem argument.

Bollocks. Here's the fact in plain language: towelie believes nothing
Bush says because he won't set an example to the parents of this
country, by having his children share the burden of this war. Not an
insult- a personal testimony.

To make it
into anything else is simply Orwellian. The second sentence comes
close to an ad hominem, since it is unlikely that *every statement
from *every administration official is *always devoid of meaning.
Still it has no bearing on the truth or falsehood of the previous
statement.

Neither does the fact that Bush's *daughters* have not gone to fight
have any bearing on the truth of whether the war is worth it.

Non sequitur. The discussion is not about the worth of the war. It is
about Bush's asking parents to put their kids in harms' way when he
isn't willing to do so himself.

You're just being silly if you keep on with this.

You're just trying to defend the indefensible "chickenhawk" slur.

Another non-sequitur.

You're doing badly in the logic department
today. On top of that, you're wrong. Bush IS a chickenhawk who
supported the Vietnam War, knowing that he would never be sent there.
He knew he wouldn't go because strings were pulled to get him into a
rich white boys' country club outfit that was never slated to go
overseas.

Another non-sequitur. You're doing badly in the logic department today.
On top of that, you're wrong. Bush IS a chickenhawk who supported the
Vietnam War, knowing that he would never be sent there. He knew he
wouldn't go because strings were pulled to get him into a rich white
boys' country club outfit that was never slated to go overseas.

Chris
aa2186

Fred Stone wrote:

"magilla" <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1120060201.755026.268960@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

"magilla" <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1120058031.002498.59530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

"magilla" <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1120054243.853272.37020@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:_ICdnRI_X-NFZ1zfRVn-qQ@centurytel.net:

Until he sends both his children to Iraq to fight in the war,
his words are empty and meaningless. Which is par for the
course for this administration.

Sorry, towelie, but your ad hominem argument renders your words
empty and meaningless.

Logical fallacy: whether or not a statement is bundled with an
insult does not influence the veracity of the statment one whit.

Ad hominem: the behavior or character of the speaker does not
influence the veracity of his statements one whit.

Well, yes, Fred. That is pretty much exactly what I wrote. You
engaged in the logical fallacy of conflating the supposed insult
(and that's a real borderline case of ad hominem, by the way) with
the initial statement.

You seem to be confused. Towelie's first sentence is pure ad hominem
all by itself. The gratuitous insult in the second sentence makes no
difference.

Fred, there is absolutely *nothing* in that sentence that can be
construed as an ad hominem. Nothing. Nothing you can write can ever
turn it into an ad hominem. It is simply a value judgement on the
part of towelie. It simply states a condition- that for towelie, no
words of GW Bush [concerning the Iraq war- that is obvious from
context] can have any meaningful content unless and until he has his
children help fight it.

Judging the value of a person's argument based on that person's
character or actions *is* ad hominem.

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/a.htm#ad-h

"ad hominem argument (argument against the person)

The informal fallacy of supposing that a proposition should be
denied because of some disqualifying feature of the person who
affirms it. This fallacy is the mirror image of the appeal to
authority. In its abusive form, ad hominem is a direct (and often
inflammatory) attack on the appearance, character, or personality of
the individual.

Example: "Jeremy claims that Susan was at the party, but since
Jeremy is the kind of person who has to ride to work on the city bus,
it must be false that she was there."

A circumstantial ad hominem accuses the person of having an
alternative motive for defending the proposition or points out its
inconsistency with the person's other views. Tu quoque (the "so do
you" fallacy) uses a similar method in response to criticism of a
position already held. "

No attack, no insult- merely a statement of fact.

Explicit attack is not necessary for an ad hominem argument.

To make it
into anything else is simply Orwellian. The second sentence comes
close to an ad hominem, since it is unlikely that *every statement
from *every administration official is *always devoid of meaning.
Still it has no bearing on the truth or falsehood of the previous
statement.

Neither does the fact that Bush's *daughters* have not gone to fight
have any bearing on the truth of whether the war is worth it.

You're probably correct here, Fred. Only time will tell it the war is
worth it. But, I think the fact that Bush has not convinced his
daughters to join this worthy cause tells us a lot about whether or
not Bush really believes what he's saying.

Fred Stone wrote:

snip

You're just trying to defend the indefensible "chickenhawk" slur.

It occured to me that perhaps I was being unfair to President Bush.
After all, how many US Presidents have offered up their kids to serve
in the military during wartime? This being the Internet Age, I was
quickly able to discover that:

Robert Todd Lincoln, son of Abraham Lincoln, served as an aide to
General Grant during the Civil War.

Theodore Roosevelt Jr., son of Teddy Roosevelt, served in World War I,
earning a DSC and Silver Star. In World War II he landed in Normandy
on June 6.

Kermit Roosevelt, another son of Teddy's, also served in World War I
with both the British and the AEF. In World War II he was stationed at
Fort Richardson, AK, and accompanied bombing missions on Japanese
positions in the Aleutians.

Archie Roosevelt, Teddy's third son, earned a Bronze Star, two Silver
Stars, a Purple Heart and was awarded the Croix de Guerre- in World
War I. In World War II he fought in the Pacific and attained the rank
of Lt. Col. A ridge in New Guinea is named after him. He is the only
American to have been retired with 100% disability in both World War I
and World War II. Don't ask me how he managed that.

Quentin Roosevelt, the youngest son of Teddy, was a fighter pilot in
World War One. He shot down and killed over France on 7/14/18.

Franklin Roosevelt Jr. was an ensign in the Navy in World War II, and
served in both the European and Pacific theatres.

FDR's other son, James Roosevelt, joined the Marines in 1940. He was
executive officer of a Raider Battalion that made independent landings
on several islands in the Pacific, including Guadalcanal, where they
operated for almost a month.

Looking at GW Bush, all I can say is BAWK!BOKBOKBOK!