Informal Logic and Cindy Sheehan
Ad Hominem attack has long been known recognized as an invalid argument.
Let us say I am against the war in Iraq. Let us say that someone calls me a nut case, traitor, or dupe of the enemy. It is unfortunate that some use those labels as a form of ad hominem attack. When they do, their argument immediately becomes invalid.
However, another move might be to give evidence for my insanity, being a willful traitor, or being a dupe. Does that necessarily invalidate any argument I may have for opposing the Iraq War? It depends. How it invalidates my argument needs to be proved also. There is the old saw, just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
Another invalid argument related to the ad hominem attack is the guilt by association move. Someone may claim I consort with reprehensible characters, and it might be true, but it remains a form of invalid argument under the time honored rules of informal logic.
What can we say about Cindy Sheehan and President Bush? Cindy Sheehan protests the Iraq War on the basis of conscience. She demands a justification for the death of her son from the President of the United States. She has served the ball into President Bush's side of the court. President Bush has the choice of hitting it back onto Cindy's side of the court, or not.
That could lead one into a discussion about Noblesse Oblige, but that leads us away from logic.
posted by Lynn @ 9:17 AM
3 comments
3 Comments:
There is the old saw, just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
If I can remember this old saw for more than five seconds, I'll use it someday. :)
I agree that there are attacks on Sheehan that are reprehensible on their face. I've stopped really caring what Sean Hannity thinks (and believe me, I didn't think much of his views anyway) due to his blatant disrespect for her.
There is a legitimate and important question about Cindy Sheehan's apparent reversal; she did, after all, meet with the President once and came away from the meeting with a much more positive outlook on the President than she does now. I don't have a problem with her changing her position, but I think that she hasn't shown us why she did so.
Secondly, although pointing out that Cindy Sheehan consorts and is being supported by folks like Michael Moore may say nothing about her argument intrinsically, but given her clearly strong support for these groups (she's blogging on Michael Moore.com), and I think its legitimate to point out that some- not all- of them are radical and dishonest. Again, this may not address her actual argument, but amidst the media circus that's been gathering around her, I'd think that she wouldn't want to be associated with these folk, and I think its unfortunate that she's chosen to do so.
Also, although she certainly has a right to ask for a justification for the death of her son, she has done more than that- going so far as to accuse President Bush of killing him. While I certainly think that any leader owes the families of the fallen serious and honest answers, there's a difference between demanding them and accusing him of being the cause of their death.
Curtis,
I wouldn't expect Ms. Sheehan to develop a fully articulated argument for her position suitable for Foreign Policy magazine. There will be people who are very much for the war today who will change their opinion by 2008 when the war is still going on. Some positions and reversals will be well articulated and reasoned, and some won't.
I'll have to plead a certain amount of ignorance about Michael Moore and what he is up to now. I know some consider him the devil incarnate. I've only seen his movie 'Roger and Me'. However, Ms. Sheehan is taking on a vast power structure. I can't say why she has chosen the venues she has, but her options are limited if she wants to reach a broad audience because of the nature of the power structure.
During the past 45 years the Senate has persisted in giving Presidents broad war making powers. I think they have abrogated their Constitutional duties, but that's just me. President Bush made the decision to fight the Iraq War. He is accountable for the deaths. Accountable is a more subtle term than killed, but the dead would be alive if President Bush hadn't made the decision he did.
There will be more families who eventually take the position of Ms. Sheehan has. Dealing with it comes with the territory for those in power who made the decisions they did.
There are those who will defend leaders' decisions by any means possible. I don't think one has to go any farther than a few basic rules of informal logic to refute their claims.
Post a Comment
<< Home