Two wrongs don’t make a right
By
Dr. Danielson’s explanation of the ad hominem abusive was suberb as always. I would like to add a bit of explanation on a related variety of argument called the ad hominem tu quoque. This is sometimes called the hypocrisy argument. It usually runs something like this “You can’t accuse me of lying because you’ve been caught lying yourself in the past.” Of course this doesn’t address the merits of whether the accused had actually been lying. Indeed he may have been lying. A related form of the ad hominem quoque dismisses the position of one person simply because it is inconsistent with past positions taken by the person. This is another very common form of personal attack that doesn’t address the actual issues involved. An example of this variation would be “Why should I take your arguments for lower taxes seriously, when you advocated greater spending on “X” just last year.”
Everyone who has watched the pro-school crowd attack Mr. Weese has seen ad hominem attacks aplenty. Ruthless listed a few of these in “Unhappy with personal attacks” and taxmealotmore added a few more. Their point is well taken. The other side has certainly stooped to these tactics. The use of the ad hominem is usually a sign of a weak argument and Bob B & Bob M have little else to use.
Ruthless and taxmemore responded to my “mild rebuke” with classic ad hominem quoque. Pointing out that the other side has done it too is a classic example of the “two wrongs make a right” fallacy. Yes, they have thrown mud, but that doesn’t make throwing mud right. We shouldn’t need to be down in the mud with them. In fact, by getting down in the mud we run the risk of losing the middle of the political spectrum.
So as Mr. Danielson writes, let “the facts stand on their own”. Citizen Joe wrote that Supt. Bowen-Eggebraaten had published a school calendar message supporting the notion of a shortage of space. She actually wrote that “Our growing student enrollment continues to challenge the district’s facilities, with space at a premium”. This may not be the best sentence ever written, but let’s parse her statement. “Our growing student enrollment…” is a fact. It isn’t growing anywhere near the rate projected, but it is growing. She continues with “…continues to challenge our facilities”, which is amusingly reminiscent of the headlines in the vein of “SUV kills 3 in highway accident” in ascribing human characteristics to inanimate objects. What she meant to say was the the growth in the district “continues to challenge our administration“. This is clearly a fact. Nothing to be proud of but indisputedly a fact. Sort of like an eighth grader who never memorized the multiplication tables “continues to be challenged by long division”. It shouldn’t be that hard but he really struggles with it. And finally the phrase “with space at a premium” cannot be challenged. This is why addressing space utilization and curriculum issues is important, because space is at a premium and we don’t have space to waste on fishing classes and ninth grade “transition” classes.
Follow the lead of the good Dr. Bil. The facts and actions are fair game. Personal attacks rarely advance your cause and are a sign of weakness.
No related posts.
Interesting reading Mobius. Part of what is done here on the blog is with tongue in cheek, simply to point out the absurdity of the other side. But let me ask you another more important question. If our state allowed tuition tax credits or vouchers for individuals to attend the school of their choice, be it public or private, how much of this wrangling would be taking place? I question whether or not this blog would even have much use. It is because of this lack of competition and the stranglehold that the NEA has on our children and our wallets that these conversations even take place. Now who is to blame for that?
Facts and action are fair game,so are those who thrust themselves into my pocket book.And I am sure I remember something I once read regarding my freedom of speech”?I know this is not a popular opinion when lil jimmy, our fearles leader can whore himself out to the nea and accept 10 grand from the travel company that ‘just happened’ to get the state bid and no one seems to care…mobius,turning the other cheek to these folks is inviting them to sucker punch you on both sides.Take care borderline faithfull!
PS-It has not changed,one appeases the tiger in the hope that the tiger will eat you last
conn
Well stated, one and all. Just for the record, my view on “personal attack” is that it is absolutely justified and will most certainly advance one’s cause (especially with the middle ground), but only in certain specific situations. Generally, it’s bad form and ineffective. One is much better off by nailing your opponent on the facts with hard edged and high brow rhetoric and rock solid argument.
However, personal attack or “going negative” is very effective when one from the redistributionist/expropriation class steps in it big time -either as a liar, a purportrator of more socialism, or any of a list of what I would characterize as obscene gestures by public class looters. The beauty of a personal attack when justified is that it rallys the coffee shop and water cooler joke system into full gear, further destroying the rightfully impugned… There are times when the only way you can get a change in behavior is to clobber these people over the head with a personal attack hammer!
.
Case in point, Kathleen “two-names” Blanko – she’s arguably the dumbest governor in America and should resign yesterday. The former superintendent was also deserving of personal attacks because he lied, and cheated the taxpayers of Hudson and the surrounding communities. Furthermore, he stated publicly his distaste for complying with Wisconsin’s open records law – we provided the proof here ontheborderline and NOTHING WAS DONE ABOUT IT BY THE SCHOOL BOARD, except to appease and sweep it under the proverbial rug – shamelessly.
.
Let not my commentary imply that a good jab under the belt is not warranted from time to time. There are times when certain public figures have disgraced themselves sufficiently to earn the wrath of personal attack. It comes with the territory. My point is that it needs to be reserved and used judiciously so that its effect is of maximum power…