This is a discussion on Roanoke Times OP Ed within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Pioneer Liberals define open mindedness as everyone agreeing with them . If you do not agree with them, you are a hate-filled, ...
Once you're granted "less-than" status, your ideas are void and they are no longer obligated to tolerate them or even acknowledge them. You are clearly "wrong-headed," and DESERVE the abuse they now heap on you. Classic Alinsky. They are experts at labeling you...'bigot,' 'extremist,' 'racist,' 'wingnut,' etc. Now the terms of the argument have shifted; you spend your time trying to argue that you're 'not' any of the above at the expense of the issue at hand. Now they don't have to spend any effort defending their positions, which are clearly indefensible 90% o' the time.
Time to fight back a bit.
Just wondering, because I'm definitely a Liberal . . .
Hey, Dave? It's already Wednesday. Where's the head-in-sand article that Roanoke Times has got up its sleeves? I had expected it to grace the front pages with its presence by now. Tick tock ... tick tock ...
Last edited by ccw9mm; September 10th, 2009 at 02:54 AM. Reason: gremmur
BTW -- check out:
Which I can't get to cut and paste. [sarcasm] But no one on this forum would ever use any of these dirty tricks.
Attack the Argument, Not the Person | Reasons To BelieveAttack the Argument, Not the Person
by Kenneth Richard Samples
General George S. Patton, Jr.’s standing order during the Second World War was to “attack, attack, attack, and, if in doubt, attack again!” That approach certainly worked well for the U.S. Army in Europe during World War II. However, when it comes to logic and peacetime, the attack needs to be focused on the argument, not on the person.
Informal fallacies—defects or errors in reasoning—cause arguments to break down. The ad hominem fallacy (argument against the person) occurs when one arguer presents his point and the second arguer ignores the point, instead attacking the character of his opponent. This tactic is not only personally offensive but also logically unacceptable because it violates two core principles of reasoning. First, a person has an intellectual responsibility to respond to the content of an argument. Second, the character attack itself is irrelevant to the person’s argument (whether or not it is true). Even morally flawed people can present sound arguments.
The ad hominem fallacy comes in three identifiable varieties:
abusive: directly denouncing character (old-fashioned name-calling).
circumstantial: raising special circumstances in an attempt to discredit a person’s motives (also known as “poisoning the well”).
tu quoque: accusing the other person of hypocrisy as an attempt to avoid personal criticism (tu quoque is Latin for “you too”).
To criticize a person’s character may be appropriate—if the person’s character is the logical issue at hand. For example, jurors in a courtroom need to know if a witness has been found guilty of perjury in the past. Believability is closely connected to the issue of discerning truth.
For dealing with ad hominem attacks, I offer two recommendations: (1) Don’t give in to the temptation to respond in the same abusive manner, and (2) help the arguer (and others) to see that the attack is logically irrelevant and then refocus attention on the argument at hand. Once the focus is back on arguments and not a person, listeners (even opponents) are likely to consider and be persuaded. The Christian’s goal is to present arguments shaped by sound logical and moral principles and to trust God to use them as He pleases.
I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.
I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.
Veni, Vidi, Velcro