We are in very dangerous times.
It is extremely important that we understand the rules.
One of the very common tools of the left to destroy our great Republic is to launch a personal attack on anyone who speaks common sense or is sounding an alarm that the left are concerned just might get off the ground and cause their agenda a problem.
The most blatant recent example of the Ad hominem attack has been on Sarah Palin. They mocked her and make up lies about her, they take every statement and twist it and do anything they can to discredit her. Never focusing on the truly relevant facts of her accomplishments, platforms, or worthiness to be considered. Also never using even a tenth of the same level of scrutiny for Obama.
They know they have no defense against her stand on the issues without revealing their own agenda so they launch an ad hominem attack.
We truly need to watch out for the situations where we hear or read of someone stepping up to the plate and sounding the alarm about what is happening in DC and the true agenda of Obama. And then someone comes along and tries to discredit the information by discrediting the source.
We all keep praying and hoping for leaders to come forward and help save our country and yet, we all too easily accept the ad hominem or other lame attacks on the very ones who are trying to do so. It doesn't really make a real leader want to step up to the plate now does it?
It is becoming common place for someone to come along (whether they realize what they are doing or are just parroting what they have been told) and try to discredit, through personal attacks, someone who is sounding the alarms.
So remember, according to these people, like David Letterman, most of Hollywood, and the rest of those who are determined to destroy this great republic, you better check with them first before you believe anything ANYONE says to make sure that the person has the right to speak let alone tell you the truth.
Unless, of course, that anyone is them and then you are to believe everything they say.
There are valid times when what people say and what they do are clearly contrasting messages and Obama and most of DC are excellent examples of such. Those clear conflicts are red flags that must be looked into further. But using the guilt by association only seems to work one way in the agenda of the left and always in their favor. It also is a convenient one way street on the racist tool used by the left to control their agendas but not something that they hold equally to themselves.
Every single human being on this planet has made mistakes and has made bad decisions and many for the sake of their career. But it doesn't make everything they say invalid. We each need to use discernment and our own common sense in everything we read and hear and stop letting some people destroy the message because they find some fault with the messenger. It just may be that the one coming in with the ad hominem attack is the dubious one.
Ad hominem attacks are against the person to discredit them so that nothing they say is considered valid. It is wrong, it is a tactic, and this is one of those situations where forewarned is forearmed.
Attacking the Person
(argumentum ad hominem)
Definition:
The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps. There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
Ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
Ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
Ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he preaches.
Examples:
You may argue that God doesn't exist, but you are just an idiot. (ad hominem abusive)
We should discount what Steve Forbes says about cutting taxes because he stands to benefit from a lower tax rate. (ad hominem circumstantial)
We should disregard Fred's argument because he is just angry about the fact that defendant once cheated him out of $100. (ad hominem circumstantial)
You say I should give up alcohol, but you haven't been sober for more than a year yourself. (ad hominem tu quoque)
You claim that Mr. Jones is innocent, but why should anyone listen to you? You are a moron after all. (ad hominem circumstantial)
Defense:
Identify the attack and show that the character or circumstances of the person has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the proposition being defended.
References:
Barker: 166, Cedarblom and Paulsen: 155, Copi and Cohen: 97, Davis: 80
There are many situations where a person is clearly someone who is biased, stands to gain a great deal, or is an untrustworthy person. Then, of course it would be wise to listen with a grain of salt or not at all.
But don't let the jab of someone who tells you to discredit what someone is saying because of reasons that paints a broad brush or are more circumstantial than conclusive.
If Mr. Smith is a member of the Ku Klux Klan and comes out and says that all white people are superior then obviously that is their opinion and is biased.
If Mr. Smith belongs to the Union and comes out and says that the union bosses are corrupt, just because he belongs to the union does not make his statement something we would automatically dismiss and it deserves a closer look.
