![\"\"](\"http:\/\/troll.me\/images2\/grammar-correction-guy\/thats-not-an-ad-hominem-you-dumb-fucker-thumb.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Iowa Representative Steven King\u00c2\u00a0reminds\u00c2\u00a0us of an important\u00c2\u00a0characteristic of ad hominem arguments–viz.,\u00c2\u00a0calling someone\u00c2\u00a0names is not a sufficient condition for an ad hominem.\u00c2\u00a0 The matter\u00c2\u00a0begins with the following remark<\/a> concerning granting amnesty to illegal immigrants:<\/p>\n “Some of them are valedictorians \u00e2\u20ac\u201d and their parents brought them in. It wasn’t their fault. It’s true in some cases, but they aren’t all valedictorians. They weren’t all brought in by their parents.<\/p>\n “For everyone who’s a valedictorian, there’s another 100 out there who weigh 130 pounds \u00e2\u20ac\u201d and they’ve got calves the size of cantaloupes because they’re hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert,” King tells Newsmax. “Those people would be legalized with the same act.”\u00c2\u00a0<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Naturally, people were quick to notice that this remark was “wrong<\/a>” (to use the words of John Boehner, House Republican Majority Leader).\u00c2\u00a0 Yet, in an all too common response to criticism such as this, King attempted to turn the tables<\/a>:<\/p>\n \u00e2\u20ac\u0153You know when people attack you\u00e2\u20ac\u201din this business, when you\u00e2\u20ac\u2122re in this business, you know that when people attack you, and they call you names, they\u00e2\u20ac\u2122re diverting from the topic matter,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d King told Breitbart. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153You know they\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ve lost the debate when they do that. We\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ve talked about it for years. Tom Tancredo and I joked about it that that\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s the pattern. When people start calling you names, that\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s what confirms you\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ve won the debate<\/strong>.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n No, that isn’t actually a rule.<\/p>\n This rule only works this way:\u00c2\u00a0Person A is wrong about policy X because Person A is an a-hole”.\u00c2\u00a0 But this isn’t how it went.\u00c2\u00a0 In the present case, we have Person A said something false so Person A is wrong.\u00c2\u00a0 It’s an inference to Person A’s character from Person A’s actions, deeds, or words.\u00c2\u00a0 This is very different.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Iowa Representative Steven King\u00c2\u00a0reminds\u00c2\u00a0us of an important\u00c2\u00a0characteristic of ad hominem arguments–viz.,\u00c2\u00a0calling someone\u00c2\u00a0names is not a sufficient condition for an ad hominem.\u00c2\u00a0 The matter\u00c2\u00a0begins with the following remark concerning granting amnesty to illegal immigrants: “Some of them are valedictorians \u00e2\u20ac\u201d and their parents brought them in. It wasn’t their fault. It’s true in some cases, but … Continue reading Diverting from the topic matter<\/span>