juliann Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 So here's the dynamic which is going on:1. Non-apologists accuse the polemicists within MI of using ad hominem attacks, having in mind the dictionary definition cited above, which means that the polemicist directs his attack guns toward the character, motives, beliefs, intelligence, or honesty of the author.2. MI apologists and their cheerleeders say no, such attacks are not ad hominem, because they don't meet the technical definition of "ad hominem fallacy" used by logicians.That justification rings hollow to me. It sounds like a technical argument--like arguing you didn't defraud the old widow because you never technically lied when you induced her to sign over to you her life savings. I'm also not very impressed by the "everybody is doing it" argument. Even if everyone in academia were always attacking everybody else's character, beliefs, honesty, sexual orientation, and hair color, then that doesn't mean that BYU professors, acting under the umbrella of an organization whose mission is supposed to be strengthening people's faith in Jesus Christ and fostering respect for Mormonism, should be doing the same.What an angry, hostile, seething tone to insert in a calm thread. Should you not be fostering respect and strengthening faith in those you affiliate with as well? There is no way the spotlight will not eventually turn on the accusing polemicists, if for no other reason than beating the same drum becomes so tiresome after awhile. Which is why I wonder what the unfriendly polemicists are going to accomplish once they stamp out what they dub "ad hominem" and be left with making angry attacks like this one on those who are now everyone's definition of polite. You will kind of stand out as the problem, doncha think?Back to the topic, however, I do notice a shift towards attacking "tone" as the misuse of ad hominem becomes more apparent (and embarrassing for anyone trying to claim the intellectual high ground). Tone is actually a much more rhetorically useful word because it is in the eye of the beholder. It does make the accusing polemicist sound a bit wussy, however. 1
Recommended Posts