Tea Party speaker recalls American patriots words

Southern Man said:
More irony. :)
Click to expand...

But still no discussion from you on the topic.


Let me ask you a question. Do you think Roy Moore is a good choice to represent the Tea Party conventions and the work they are trying to do?

And do you think he is a credible politician?
 
Southern Man said:
I saw the usual wuss tactic of attacking the messenger and pointed it out. :)
Click to expand...

If you had read the message he delivered, and actually took the time to educate yourself about Roy Moore, you would have seen that the message and messenger were linked.

When someone tries to say someone is unfit to lead, the fact that the person making the accusation has been shown to be unfit to lead is part & parcel of the message.
 
Southern Man said:
Wrong. Each argument stands on its own merit.
Click to expand...

The fact that you make such a hypocritical statement is almost funny.

Roy Moore's actions when he was in public office make him unfit to lead. When he did something as blatantly unconstitutional, and then he tries to stand in front of a crowd as a representative of a movement to bring us back to a more constitutional gov't, he is part of the message.

I attacked the credibility of the source. That is a perfectly acceptable tactic. I do not necessarily disagree with much of his message.
 
Southern Man said:
Dude you tried that before and failed.
Click to expand...


No, really. You don't know what it means. It refers to attacking a disinterested third-party transmitter of information as opposed to attacking the actual source of the information. In this instance, Roy Moore is not a disinterested third-party transmitter of information. Attacking Roy Moore is not attacking the messenger.
 
NigelTufnel said:
No, really. You don't know what it means. It refers to attacking a disinterested third-party transmitter of information as opposed to attacking the actual source of the information. In this instance, Roy Moore is not a disinterested third-party transmitter of information. Attacking Roy Moore is not attacking the messenger.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The message given by Moore was bullshit because Moore delivered it.

Much like the Who albumns became garbage because of what Townsend did.
 
NigelTufnel said:
No, really. You don't know what it means. It refers to attacking a disinterested third-party transmitter of information as opposed to attacking the actual source of the information. In this instance, Roy Moore is not a disinterested third-party transmitter of information. Attacking Roy Moore is not attacking the messenger.
Click to expand...
That's apparently your definition only.

Argumentum Ad-hominem: Shoot the messenger fallacy.

This is a common logical fallacy. Argumentum ad hominem basically means that the argument becomes directed towards the individual as opposed towards the crucial issues being discussed.
Click to expand...
http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article....cle=Seven_fallacies_of_thought_and_reason.php
 
Southern Man said:
That's apparently your definition only.


http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article....cle=Seven_fallacies_of_thought_and_reason.php
Click to expand...

When Moore's message was about fitness to lead, and the need to get back to a constitutional gov't, his actions do indeed count in evaluating his message.


If the messenger is a disinterested third party, then they should certainly not be attacked. But this is not the case. This is akin to hearing Hitler accuse someone of being anti semitic. Coming from Hitler it becomes ridiculous.
 
Southern Man said:
That's apparently your definition only.


http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article....cle=Seven_fallacies_of_thought_and_reason.php
Click to expand...

Also, the definition is:

"Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid."



Moore's statements go directly against what he actually did when he held public office.


And there is more to the explanation at http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html :

"But there are some cases when it is not really a fallacy, such as when one needs to evaluate the truth of factual statements (as opposed to lines of argument or statements of value) made by interested parties. If someone has an incentive to lie about something, then it would be naive to accept his statements about that subject without question. It is also possible to restate many ad hominem arguments so as to redirect them toward ideas rather than people, such as by replacing "My opponents are fascists" with "My opponents' arguments are fascist.""


I am attacking Moore's message by making sure everyone know exactly what Roy Moore did when he was an Alabama Supreme Court Justice.

SM, you said yourself that you had never heard of him. So there must be many people who have not heard of him, and will afford him plenty of credibility instead of nailing him for being a hypocrite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top