<strong>Ad hominem need not be directed at a specific person. It involves questioning the source of the message rather than the message itself, which is what you did.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well gee! I guess we should never question The Times, should we? Using the term as you did is at least debatable but arguing about it is beside the point. If you were to identify me as being reliably pro-Bush, would that be an ad hominem attack too? Or would it just be true? (Notwithstanding the handful of issues where I disagree with the President.) I doubt that you ever read anything I say about public policy without considering my point of view and I don't have a problem with that. Why shouldn't I take into consideration that The Times has a point of view also? Especially because we're talking about an editorial.
C'mon, spiff, it's much more interesting to debate the substance of the post than to start up, again, with the editorial bias of the New York Times.
Why don't we just agree that the Times skews left, WSJ right and the the Washington Times is owned by Moonies and get on with it? If the Time's editorial is a leftist blowhard puffpiece I'm sure you can make quick work of it. So how 'bout it?
***
It seems clear to me that any plan that doesn't included a sense of a complete management of the forests is just another governement give-away. I am of the opinion that natural resources are meant to be used, but long term sustainability is often at loggerheads with short term profit. This is a phenomena that we see over and over in many different areas: forests, options and stock prices, durable construction, etc.
<strong>C'mon, spiff, it's much more interesting to debate the substance of the post than to start up, again, with the editorial bias of the New York Times.
Why don't we just agree that the Times skews left, WSJ right and the the Washington Times is owned by Moonies and get on with it? If the Time's editorial is a leftist blowhard puffpiece I'm sure you can make quick work of it. So how 'bout it?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I really wasn't looking for a debate over The Times editorial bias. What's to debate? We are talking about the editorial page here. They can skew whichever way they want. My original post was just a pointed wisecrack about said bias.
Bush?s plan was essentially nothing more than an extension to other states of the exemptions that Tom Daschle slipped into a bill for his home state. If that kind of forestry is good enough for South Dakota, it should be good enough for everybody else.
Using the term as you did is at least debatable but arguing about it is beside the point. </strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote] 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. <hr></blockquote>
Basically you attacked the author's workplace and discredited what he said solely based on that. BRussell's usage of Ad hominem was perfectly correct.
Simple fact is if you are going to make a case against something do something better than attacking the source. Regardless of anything previously produced by the NY Times it ultimately has no impact on the here and now.
It's little surprise there are so many anti-Bush ediotorials coming out of the NY Times though. I have a very funny article around somewhere that I might try and dig up that goes over many of his funnier/sadder actions and things he has said.
Basically you attacked the author's workplace and discredited what he said solely based on that. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah! That's it! I based my attack solely on the workplace. It couldn't have had anything to do with the content of The Times editorials.
I didn't attack any person. I don't know who wrote the editorial in question. I don't know if he or she writes all their editorials or they have some kind of rotation that decides who writes each day's editorial. How could I be personal when attacking someone who is anonymous? Answer: I couldn't. And what was so personal about what I wrote? I attacked The Times. The Times isn't a person. Okay, in the legal sense it's a corporation, which is to say it's an aggregate of individuals formed by law to act as a single person. But that still doesn't make your case. Try again.
Comments
<strong>Ad hominem need not be directed at a specific person. It involves questioning the source of the message rather than the message itself, which is what you did.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well gee! I guess we should never question The Times, should we? Using the term as you did is at least debatable but arguing about it is beside the point. If you were to identify me as being reliably pro-Bush, would that be an ad hominem attack too? Or would it just be true? (Notwithstanding the handful of issues where I disagree with the President.) I doubt that you ever read anything I say about public policy without considering my point of view and I don't have a problem with that. Why shouldn't I take into consideration that The Times has a point of view also? Especially because we're talking about an editorial.
Why don't we just agree that the Times skews left, WSJ right and the the Washington Times is owned by Moonies and get on with it? If the Time's editorial is a leftist blowhard puffpiece I'm sure you can make quick work of it. So how 'bout it?
***
It seems clear to me that any plan that doesn't included a sense of a complete management of the forests is just another governement give-away. I am of the opinion that natural resources are meant to be used, but long term sustainability is often at loggerheads with short term profit. This is a phenomena that we see over and over in many different areas: forests, options and stock prices, durable construction, etc.
<strong>C'mon, spiff, it's much more interesting to debate the substance of the post than to start up, again, with the editorial bias of the New York Times.
Why don't we just agree that the Times skews left, WSJ right and the the Washington Times is owned by Moonies and get on with it? If the Time's editorial is a leftist blowhard puffpiece I'm sure you can make quick work of it. So how 'bout it?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I really wasn't looking for a debate over The Times editorial bias. What's to debate? We are talking about the editorial page here. They can skew whichever way they want. My original post was just a pointed wisecrack about said bias.
Bush?s plan was essentially nothing more than an extension to other states of the exemptions that Tom Daschle slipped into a bill for his home state. If that kind of forestry is good enough for South Dakota, it should be good enough for everybody else.
[ 08-29-2002: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
<strong>
Using the term as you did is at least debatable but arguing about it is beside the point. </strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote] 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. <hr></blockquote>
Basically you attacked the author's workplace and discredited what he said solely based on that. BRussell's usage of Ad hominem was perfectly correct.
Simple fact is if you are going to make a case against something do something better than attacking the source. Regardless of anything previously produced by the NY Times it ultimately has no impact on the here and now.
It's little surprise there are so many anti-Bush ediotorials coming out of the NY Times though. I have a very funny article around somewhere that I might try and dig up that goes over many of his funnier/sadder actions and things he has said.
<strong>
Basically you attacked the author's workplace and discredited what he said solely based on that. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah! That's it! I based my attack solely on the workplace. It couldn't have had anything to do with the content of The Times editorials.
I didn't attack any person. I don't know who wrote the editorial in question. I don't know if he or she writes all their editorials or they have some kind of rotation that decides who writes each day's editorial. How could I be personal when attacking someone who is anonymous? Answer: I couldn't. And what was so personal about what I wrote? I attacked The Times. The Times isn't a person. Okay, in the legal sense it's a corporation, which is to say it's an aggregate of individuals formed by law to act as a single person. But that still doesn't make your case. Try again.
[ 08-30-2002: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
like em...think they're pretty....but maybe i'm not the best person to ask...just look at what my interests are in my profile
[ 08-30-2002: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>