Tag Archives: ad hominem tu quoque arguments

General discussion

You had only one job

2 Comments

Yesterday we saw the AP check President Clinton's facts by pointing out an instance in which he failed to tell the truth.  This occasioned a chorus of boos from the world.  Undaunted, the AP clarified its position.  Before we get to that, here is the original passage.

CLINTON: "Their campaign pollster said, 'We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers.' Now that is true. I couldn't have said it better myself — I just hope you remember that every time you see the ad."

THE FACTS: Clinton, who famously finger-wagged a denial on national television about his sexual relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky and was subsequently impeached in the House on a perjury charge, has had his own uncomfortable moments over telling the truth. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky," Clinton told television viewers. Later, after he was forced to testify to a grand jury, Clinton said his statements were "legally accurate" but also allowed that he "misled people, including even my wife."

The job of a fact checker seems simple enough in this case.  You merely need to see whether Clinton has accurately represented the words of the Romney campaign's Pollster.  The answer is yes, by the way.  Whether Clinton lied in the past is completely irrelevant.

Perplexed at all of the hoopla over this manifestly ridiculous passage, the AP defended themselves as follows.

The reference was not about that woman, Miss Lewinsky. It was about facts. Clinton challenged the Republicans for their attitude toward facts. We were simply pointing out that as president Clinton had his own challenges in this area.

Yes, we got that.  But it's still irrelevant to whether what Clinton said was true. 

In case anyone is still confused, this is the way ad hominems work.  When a person's character tends to make that person's judgments suspect, then it is legitimate to point that out.  When such facts about a person are irrelevant to whether the claims they make are true, pointing out those facts are irrelevant and so fallacious.  People may have a tendency to disbelieve Clinton, the fact checker's one single job in this case is to tell us whether he was lying.  He wasn't.

Besides, how does Clinton's having lied in the past excuse the Romney campaign from lying now?

 

General discussion

Slut shaming CNN style

That Rush Limbaugh makes horrible, fallacious ad hominem arguments against people (especially women) who disagree with whatever his view is does not surprise me, nor, sadly does the fact some people–who probably ought to know better–jump to his defense.

The issue lately is of course the congressional testimony of Sandra Fluke, a third-year law student and reproductive rights activist.  Limbaugh thought her advocacy made her a slut or a prostitute.  To be fair, Limbaugh apologized (twice, I think) for using those two terms.  He did not apologize, however, for demanding that she provide the paying public access to her non reproductive sexual activity in the form of internet videos.  Nor did he apologize for the 45 or so other vile things he said or implied about her.

Limbaugh ought also to apologize to the legions of people who think he has offered views worthy of defense.  This is, after all, the worst crime.  He makes, by all accounts, millions of dollars and has legions of loyal fans, among them Steven Landsburg, a professor of economics at the University of Rochester.  He makes one realize what academic freedom and tenure is all about.  Read about his intervention in this discussion here.  And here. 

Now comes CNN's Dana Loesch, displaying all of the acumen of a barely plausible introduction to logic text book example:

Maybe Fluke's boyfriend, the son of entrenched Democrat William Mutterperl, can pay for her contraception. His father donates heavily to Democrat candidates. The couple is currently enjoying spring break in California, which poses the question of how Fluke can afford a trip across the country when she can't afford birth control pills.

This, posted on the late Andrew Bretibart's site, is just plain creepy.  How does this person know who Fluke's boyfriend is, where she is going on spring break, and whether she can afford a certain pharmaceutical?  Besides, Fluke (see at the link above) never argued that she couldn't afford her contraception.

But, tragically, this debate has never been about facts.  It's always been about how much women must pay for sex.  A lot.  Loesch's interest in Fluke's personal life just enacts the very demand Limbaugh made of Fluke.  

 

General discussion

Marriage is between one man and a series of women

1 Comment

Disgraced former Speaker of the House and current Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich on Gay Marriage:

"I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I think that's what marriage ought to be and I would like to find ways to defend that view as legitimately and effectively as possible."

Getting hetero-married over and over (Gingrich is on his third wife) is not perhaps one of those ways.

In other news–every read this awesome post by Scott and Rob Talisse at 3 Quarks Daily.