Burnt Orange Report

I believe this was in reference to Dick Cheney.

Yeah, just updated it some.

"Exemplified: Max Cleland lost three limbs. What a sacrifice he made, and they beat him in the election, beat him in the polls because they characterized him as soft on defense."

This is a paradigmatic logical fallacy. Just because a person is a triple-amputee Vietnam veteran doesn't automatically make them strong on defense. Alone, it says nothing about their stances and record on defense issues. As much as Democrats would like to nullify defense issues by running veteran candidates, it's all irrational nonsense.

If Democrats like Lautenberg can't defend their views, however, I suppose all they can do is resort to absurd personal attacks. It's pathetic.

Owen,

It's not nearly as absurd as the Bush / Cheney campaign attacking John Kerry for being soft on defense when it was Dick Cheney that proposed the very cuts that he is attacking Kerry for supporting. Hypocrisy anyone?

absurd political attacks...kinda like Matt Drudge and those "Kerry has sex with his mistress stories" and the rationale that "so and so is a Republican, therefore they must be strong on defense".

What the hell is strong on defense supposed to mean. Can someone be strong on peace as a policy?

Owen makes a link a page defining ad hominem atack. Yet, even if the argument that "Cleland was a wounded veteran and therefore good on defense" is a logical fallacy (as Owen claims), it is certainly NOT an ad hominem attack.

You almost pity the Right with their standard-bearers who cannot even sift through the most basic principles of rhetoric.

Byron,

The lion's share of what Kerry's being criticized for has nothing to do with those specific cuts, but I'll grant that if they've been brought up then there is hypocrisy afoot. Still, though -- two wrongs don't make a right.

WhoMe?

No, ad hominem applies here. Whenever you bring into account irrelevant attacks concerning character (i.e. 'Max Cleland is a veteran and his opponent isn't'), you're perpetrating an ad hominem. In fact, the Webster's definition of ad hominem is quite broad: "appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect."

Perhaps you should read more and criticize less.

Hey guys answer me this. Why doesn't Max Cleland have a Purple Heart for his injuries during the war? "whome" above says he is wounded vet. How come reference isn't accompanied by the award given to service personel who are wounded in battle? I think you will find out his injuries are a result of friendly fire.

Owen,

I should read more? Why don't you read the original Cicero (you can even read it in English translation if your Latin is deficient, or non-existent) and you will see that while an ad hominem attack may appeal to the emotions, the sine qua non of an ad hominem attack is a personal attack on the character of the messenger of an argument and not an attack of the merits of the argument. Thus, not every emotional attack is an ad hominem attack.

As an aside, what are your thoughts on the topos of the ubi sunt as a rhetorical device?

WhoMe?

Well, as I demonstrated, the argument vis-a-vis Max Cleland did indeed perpetrate an attack on his opponent's character by bringing his lack of Vietnam service into the debate. The entire of issue of Vietnam service was irrelevant, and by bringing it up for one candidate it necessarily involved an attack on another. Moreover, this entire post -- entitled 'chickenhawks -- deals with that very issue.

Furthermore, I showed how a respected source for contemporary English, i.e. Webster's Dictionary, clearly endorses a broader conception of what ad hominem means. As much as you may prefer his definition, Cicero isn't a modern linguist. He isn't the final authority on the meaning of ad hominem.

Face it, WhoMe. You're acting like a fanatic who jumps on those with opposing views sans justification.

As an aside, what are your thoughts on the topos of the ubi sunt as a rhetorical device?

What does this have to do with anything?