posted July 12, 2010 03:30 PM         

These are often the most powerful and persuasive arguments, yet they can also provoke purely emotional responses. That is to say, the substance of the argument (which may be profoundly significant) is completely ignored, and the response is directed entirely at the sensational manner in which the argument has been put forward. This is unfortunate for both parties.

While we ought to endeavor to express ourselves in a way that will persuade, more than provoke, we ought also to endeavor to be receptive to the substance of an argument, and not use the manner in which it has been put forward as an excuse to ignore the valuable points raised. A person who does not wish to hear the truth will find fault with every part of your argument -- everything, that is, but the substance of it.

If you're dying of thirst and a person throws you a bottle of water, the reasonable response is not to cast the bottle aside and say, "I will consider it when you can hand it to me politely." The reasonable thing to do is to thank the person for saving your life, and not be concerned with the abrupt manner in which they did it.

posted July 12, 2010 04:40 PM         

are we talking of someone tossing a thirsty person some water, or are we talking about someone whipping a full water bottle at your head? does the person who is deemed thirsty actually thirsty? where thier throat feels dry, they long for a cool drink of water thier tounge sticks to the roof of thier mouth? ...or does it just seem that they look thirsty to the water bearer?

i mean i guess its all perspective. a very thirsty person, who is parched and see's water as a necessity, would do anything to get to the water, i suppose, they would crawl to it, fight for it, scratch for it..they want it, they need it and they know it.

a hand to pull up a brother is a faster way to get him out of the ditch than standing on his head pointing to him saying, look look, you are in a ditch..you can never help a person UP by putting them down.

i truly don't undersatnd this v. i guess you still see a bearer of gold nuggets, loaded up for the needy, and the needy would be greatful... but the reality is, we are all human, and like a puzzle, one has protrusions where another has a deficit, and that makes us fit together.

glad to see you back, and yin.

the same situation can seem so very different when looked at from other angles.

posted July 12, 2010 05:19 PM         

Here's my attempt:

First, since it was my analogy, I'll upgrade it for you a little so you can see where I'm coming from. Let's say you're walking with your children through the desert, and you're getting thirsty... You spot a man selling what looks like water. In fact, there are lots of them. Everywhere you look, somebody is selling what looks like water. But as it turns out, only one of the vendors is selling real water. The rest are selling you a poison that will make your thinking fuzzy, your pulse race, your muscles ache, your stress levels jump, and, over time, will break down all of your proper bodily functions, until you develop a horrible disease. Now, this desert is huge, and you're never going to get out of it, so this is pretty important. Luckily, as you are putting the poisoned "water" to your lips, somebody smacks the bottle out of your hand and shouts, "don't drink that! it's poison!" Your first reaction is to be upset with this person. All around you, people are drinking this stuff, and they seem okay. I mean, none of them look healthy, few can think clearly, some are hacking up stuff, and almost all of them are on their way to dying painful deaths, but that's only normal, right? All the kids are whining and grabbing at things, but that's normal, right? If there was really a danger, surely all these people would know about it and wouldn't be drinking contaminated fluids, right? But here is this upstart of a gentleman, knocking the bottle from your hand, and telling you where to go to get clean water. And he claims to have evidence, and he's doing his best to get you to look at it.

Do you:

A.)
Think to yourself, "What if he's right?
Maybe I should take a few moments to examine this?"

B.)
Say, "Hey! What the ---?!"
And go get another bottle of poison?

C.)
Tell him what an offensive narcissist he is,
resolve never to examine the evidence, and
go get yourself another bottle of poison?

Oh, did I mention that millions of animals
were tortured and slaughtered to make that
poisonous "water"?

Did I mention that the environment
(i.e. the planet) is being destroyed to make it?

Or that your mission in this incarnation
(which depends on fulfilling your potential)
is being compromised, and possibly abandoned
when you drink that toxic junk?

Or that you're addicting your children
to a degenerative lifestyle?

Honestly, if none of this matters to you,
then, by all means, drink the brown water,
and don't consider even watching documentaries
like "The Future of Food", "Dying To Have Known",
"The Beautiful Truth", "Earthlings", or "Food Inc."

But, if you want more for yourself,
for your children, for animals, and for the planet,
then you should think about hearing this man out.

I mean, what if he's right?

The only way to know for sure
is to weigh the evidence
and see for yourself.

Sincerely,
"the water bearer"

posted July 12, 2010 05:51 PM         

"Argument to the person" redirects here. It is not to be confused with Appeal to the people.
An ad hominem, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), is an attempt to persuade which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy.[2] The argumentum ad hominem is not always fallacious, for in some instances questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.[3]

Ad hominem abusive usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate their argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.

Examples:

"You can't believe Jack when he says the proposed policy would help the economy. He doesn't even have a job."
"Candidate Jane's proposal about zoning is ridiculous. She was caught cheating on her taxes in 2003."
See: Common misconceptions about argumentum ad hominem below

[edit] Ad hominem circumstantial
Ad hominem circumstantial points out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).

Where the source taking a position seeks to convince us by a claim of authority, or personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero.[4]

posted July 12, 2010 06:32 PM         

quote:

---

"based on or appealing to emotion rather than reason"
]http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ad+hominem

---

However, an ad hominem argument can appeal
to emotion while still appealing to reason.

posted July 12, 2010 07:11 PM         

Main Entry: 1ad ho·mi·nem
Pronunciation: \(ˈ ad-ˈhä-mə-ˌnem, -nəm\
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
Date: 1598
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad+hominem

posted July 12, 2010 10:40 PM         

It's up to you
what you're going to respond to,
and what you're going to overlook.

But that's beside the point, because
even an argument appealing purely to the heart,
rather than the intellect, may be profoundly valid.

After all, "The mind is always the dupe of the heart."
(~ La Rochefoucauld)

Logic only has merit, ultimately, when it's heartfelt.

I don't need to explain this stuff to you, do I?

So, do you have any comments to make
on the actual topic of the thread, kat,
as expressed in my initial posts?

Or do you want to keep splitting hairs
over the definition of the title?

posted July 13, 2010 10:11 AM         

i would just get it from the seller i connected with on some level, a joke, a look, something, bless it and get on with my life.

posted July 13, 2010 10:44 AM         

@amowls: exactly but some people only hear what is useful to THEIR argument no matter how it is phrased.

posted July 13, 2010 07:18 PM         

quote:

---

A person who does not wish to hear the truth will find fault with every part of your argument -- everything, that is, but the substance of it.

---

posted July 13, 2010 08:32 PM         

nothing wrong with appealing to the heart, as i said, but if there is no backup except how a person's emotions are engaged, they will soon find that out and move on, don't you think?

nothing wrong with making decisions from the heart either. but that is NOT what ad hominem is about, it's about BYPASSING objections the mind might reasonably come up with by appealing to someones "emotions AND prejudices" as per the definition.

thus are political candidates made and broken. this is what the wingnuts are using against obama - appealing to people's fear of socialism, black people and atheism over more reasonable objections they might have to the alternative. priming people's hatred of paying taxes, etc...

and insinuating that your opponent is not smart enough to understand what you have to say is another version of ad hominem.

just like it depends how you throw that bottle of water, ad hominem can blow up in your face...

posted July 13, 2010 10:37 PM         

quote:

---

As a final point, in many cases it will be difficult to distinguish an Appeal to Emotion from some other fallacies and in many cases multiple fallacies may be committed. For example, many Ad Hominems will be very similar to Appeals to Emotion and, in some cases, both fallacies will be committed. As an example, a leader might attempt to invoke hatred of a person to inspire his followers to accept that they should reject her claims. The same attack could function as an Appeal to Emotion and a Personal Attack. In the first case, the attack would be aimed at making the followers feel very favorable about rejecting her claims. In the second case, the attack would be aimed at making the followers reject the person's claims because of some perceived (or imagined) defect in her character.

---

posted July 13, 2010 10:43 PM         

quote:

---

A study conducted by the Institute for Ecological Economy Research concluded that a meat-eater’s diet is responsible for more than 7 times as much greenhouse gas emissions as a vegan’s diet.

On average a person switching from the standard American diet to a vegan diet will prevent the abuse and killing of over 100 animals per year.

And you save more water by not eating a pound of beef than you do by not showering for an entire year.

Now a new United Nations report calls cattle the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife.

Cattle are ‘responsible for 18%++ of greenhouse gases, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.’

This includes the fuel burned making fertilizer, to produce the meat and transport it, as well as the obvious cow fart and manure production of methane, 20 times more effective as a global warmer as CO2.

It takes 2,500 gallons of water to produce a pound of meat, but only 60 gallons to water to produce a pound of wheat!

And nearly 10 billion animals raised and slaughtered for food in the U.S. every year.

http://girliegirlarmy.com/blog/20100222/got-plants-is-animal-protein-necessary/

---

posted July 14, 2010 10:01 PM         

There were far far far less wild buffalo than there are factory farmed cows today.

posted July 15, 2010 02:41 PM         

global warming caused by cows aS$eS .

posted July 15, 2010 05:06 PM         

------------------
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted July 15, 2010 05:09 PM         

on the other hand peat is plentiful in the british isles and that is a BIG methane farm. organic though!!