The CBS 60 Minutes Richard Clarke Interview

Which is, of course, exactly what you did, above.

Joe Nation's post was to announce that Dean "believes Bush has committed an impeachable offense by taking the USA to war on false information"- and for those who dont know Dean, he added the single thing Dean most acquired a name with.

You responded by ignoring the subject of the argument itself - that Bush etc - and instead opted merely to attack the person presenting the argument - Dean. Pretty much textbook definition of ad hom, as you posted it here, that.

Especially since you brought up something unrelated about the guy, that sounds bad but really has no bearing on the argument, whatsoever.

I'm glad you posted the definition of an ad hom here, tho. Especially since it continues stating that an ad hom is if:


The former of these, of course, has exactly been the grist of one of your most prominent arguments previously, here. So Blatham seems to be correct about you.

Tarantulas said

As Lola points out, you've missed how argumentum ad hominem applies to your comment(s). It isn't Joe Nation who is the subject, rather it is John Dean.

Or we could take the example of Frist's comments on Clarke, including, "He stands to make a lot of money, a lot of money." You've repeated this.

I'm going to bet that you'll resist including either case as an example of ad hominem. And I'll tell you (helpfully) why that is. The ad hominem fallacy has become such a staple of so many right wing commentators (Coulter, O'Reilly, Hannigan, etc) and of this administration (it's one of Rove's chief tools) that if the use of ad hominem was denied those voices, their columns and speeches would look like a redacted CIA document. It happens on the left too, yes, and I won't make the argument here that it happens on one side more than the other (though my opinion ought to be clear). The thing is, it's a logical failing and it degrades discourse, so we all have to avoid it and yell when we see its use.

Sumac
Sumac, I see you are a fan of Robert Pirsig: "When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt." - Robert M. Pirsig (1928- ), Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

I loved Persig's Zen, etc. I thought it was a dialogue between Plato and Aristotle.

BBB

Tarantulas
Tarantulas wrote: "If I had attacked Joe Nation for having blue eyes while posting a message, that's ad hominem. But Joe said that John Dean has integrity, so I pointed out that Dean is a felon to show how much "integrity" he has. In other words, committing a felony is not normally a sign of personal integrity. Since John Dean wasn't making the argument, my post was by definition not ad hominem."

Do you mean the felon, John Dean, who sacrificed his career and time in jail to blow the whistle on the illegal activities he discovered his boss, Richard Nixon, was involved in re the Watergate scandal?

John Dean, the felon you disparage, is a man I respect and admire for the courage he showed in defense of his country against Nixon.

BBB

And, of course, he only became a felon after he had done the brave and honorable thing, despsite the fact that it assured that he would go to jail. Somehow, although I'm not at all convinced, he might have saved himself from becoming a felon if he had kept his mouth shut. Honorable Felon, and I greatly admire him as well.

Tarantulas is correct. A fallacious ad hominem does not apply when the subject is the very man whose character is questioned.

If I say:

"Person A has great judgement."

And Tarantulas says:

"Person A raped 100 insects."

Then it is not a fallacious ad hominem. If Person A is the subject, then a comment about Person A is not fallaciously detracting from the subject to go for the messenger. In this case Person A's perceived qualities is the message itself.

Now if I say:

"Person A said that Bush told him he wanted to invade Canada."

And Tarantulas says:

"But Person A raped 100 insects."

Then Tarantulas would be constructing a fallacious ad hominem.

I did not read what Lola said, but if she said what you repeat here she said so in error.

If John Dean's integrity is the subject then comments about John Dean's integrity are not fallacious ad hominems unless they can be shown to be false or having a false premise.

Craven

How is it if you say,

"Person A said that Bush told him he wanted to invade Canada. Oh, in case you dont know who I'm talking about, A. is the guy who did that honorable thing in 1972."

and Tarantulas replies to the whole post by merely saying:

"His other attribute is that he raped 100 insects."

Isnt that an example of ignoring the argument (Bush wanted to invade Canada) and instead attacking the person who presents it (Why even think about the whole issue - after all, that A. guy raped 100 insects!)?

Yeh, see, thats my problem there, blue font or not. The subject of Joe Nation's post wasn't John Dean's integrity - it was his allegations about Bush. The reference to Dean's Nixon-era role was just an explanatory note to "those under 30" about who the guy was.

Here's the actual post, perhaps that helps.

nimh,

Did Joe Nation not make an appeal to integrity?

Sure, you can say Tarantulas avoided some other arguments but Joe made a clear appeal to integrity and Tarantulas response was not a fallacious ad hominem.

Now it can be criticized for not addressing the points you guys would like him to address but calling it an ad hominem is to bandy around the term without knowledge of what it means to critical thinking.

Joe made a direct appeal to integrity and Tarantulas response in that context was not fallacious unless it can be shown to be a falsehood or a false premise.

So the hypothetical example above would in your opinion not fit the definition of an ad hom?

Not at all, it's a direct challenge to a fallacy. The appeal to the man's integrity is the fallacious converse of the ad hominem.

Here's a clearer example:

Person A: "John says you are ugly, and BTW John's always right"

Person B: "John put his pants on backwards yesterday".

Yes, you are correct to say that Person B did not address his sheer ugliness, bit no, addressing the reverse ad hominem of Person A is not fallacious.

Perhaps selective and not at the hight of intellectual rigour but not the fallacy it's being labeled as either.

OK.

The same Richard (Dick) Clarke - below?

We don't need a "commission" to find out how 9-11 happened. The truth is in the timeline:

PRESIDENT CARTER, DEMOCRAT

In 1979, President Jimmy Carter allowed the Shah of Iran to be deposed by a mob of Islamic fanatics. A few months later, Muslims stormed the U.S. Embassy in Iran and took American Embassy staff hostage.

Carter retaliated by canceling Iranian visas. He eventually ordered a disastrous and humiliating rescue attempt, crashing helicopters in the desert.

PRESIDENT REAGAN, REPUBLICAN

The day of Reagan's inauguration, the hostages were released.

In 1982, the U.S. Embassy in Beirut was bombed by Muslim extremists.

President Reagan sent U.S. Marines to Beirut.

In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut were blown up by Muslim extremists.

Reagan said the U.S. would not surrender, but Democrats threw a hissy fit, introducing a resolution demanding that our troops be withdrawn. Reagan caved in to Democrat caterwauling in an election year and withdrew our troops - bombing Syrian-controlled areas on the way out. Democrats complained about that, too.

In 1985, an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, was seized and a 69-year-old American was shot and thrown overboard by Muslim extremists.

Reagan ordered a heart-stopping mission to capture the hijackers after "the allies" promised them safe passage. In a daring operation, American fighter pilots captured the hijackers and turned them over to the Italians - who then released them to safe harbor in Iraq.

On April 5, 1986, a West Berlin discotheque frequented by U.S. servicemen was bombed by Muslim extremists from the Libyan Embassy in East Berlin, killing an American.

Ten days later, Reagan bombed Libya, despite our dear ally France refusing the use of their airspace. Americans bombed Gadhafi's residence, killing his daughter, and dropped a bomb on the French Embassy "by mistake."

Reagan also stoked a long, bloody war between heinous regimes in Iran and Iraq. All this was while winning a final victory over Soviet totalitarianism.

PRESIDENT BUSH I, MODERATE REPUBLICAN

In December 1988, a passenger jet, Pan Am Flight 103, was bombed over Lockerbie, Scotland, by Muslim extremists.

President-elect George Bush claimed he would continue Reagan's policy of retaliating against terrorism, but did not. Without Reagan to gin her up, even Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher went wobbly, saying there would be no revenge for the bombing.

In 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.

In early 1991, Bush went to war with Iraq. A majority of Democrats opposed the war, and later complained that Bush didn't "finish off the job" with Saddam.

PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON, DEMOCRAT

In February 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by Muslim fanatics, killing five people and injuring hundreds.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

In October 1993, 18 American troops were killed in a savage firefight in Somalia. The body of one American was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu as the Somalian hordes cheered.

Clinton responded by calling off the hunt for Mohammed Farrah Aidid and ordering our troops home. Osama bin Laden later told ABC News: "The youth ... realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat."

In November 1995, five Americans were killed and 30 wounded by a car bomb in Saudi Arabia set by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

In June 1996, a U.S. Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia was bombed by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

Months later, Saddam attacked the Kurdish-controlled city of Erbil.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, lobbed some bombs into Iraq hundreds of miles from Saddam's forces.

In November 1997, Iraq refused to allow U.N. weapons inspections to do their jobs and threatened to shoot down a U.S. U-2 spy plane.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

In February 1998, Clinton threatened to bomb Iraq, but called it off when the United Nations said no.

On Aug. 7, 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

On Aug. 20, Monica Lewinsky appeared for the second time to testify before the grand jury.

Clinton responded by bombing Afghanistan and Sudan, severely damaging a camel and an aspirin factory.

On Dec. 16, the House of Representatives prepared to impeach Clinton the next day.

Clinton retaliated by ordering major air strikes against Iraq, described by the New York Times as "by far the largest military action in Iraq since the end of the Gulf War in 1991."

The only time Clinton decided to go to war with anyone in the vicinity of Muslim fanatics was in 1999 - when Clinton attacked Serbians who were fighting Islamic fanatics.

In October 2000, our warship, the USS Cole, was attacked by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH, REPUBLICAN

Bush came into office telling his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, he was "tired of swatting flies" - he wanted to eliminate al-Qaida.

On Sept. 11, 2001, when Bush had been in office for barely seven months, 3,000 Americans were murdered in a savage terrorist attack on U.S. soil by Muslim extremists.

Since then, Bush has won two wars against countries that harbored Muslim fanatics, captured Saddam Hussein, immobilized Osama bin Laden, destroyed al-Qaida's base, and begun to create the only functioning democracy in the Middle East other than Israel. Democrats opposed it all - except their phony support for war with Afghanistan, which they immediately complained about and said would be a Vietnam quagmire. And now they claim to be outraged that in the months before 9-11, Bush did not do everything Democrats opposed doing after 9-11.

What a surprise.


Ann Coulter is host of AnnCoulter.org, a Townhall.com member group.

timelines are unusually effective when the events are carefully chosen and/or omitted.

Like in Clarke's book too...

That's the fifth time that Coulter vomitus has been posted here, husker.

of course

I don't think he's around here enough to keep up with the thousand or so posts per day... :wink:

Speaking of vomitus, didn't BBB just post that "Bush Resume" again today?

Why yes, yes she did...