Eons ago when I did my first under grad degree, I was for to take an introduction to logic course. I hated this course – the professor droned on in a monotone about set theory and group operators. Nonetheless, I did pickup some interesting and useful skills from the coursework. One of the more useful concepts was that of logical fallacies.
While trolling the news during lunch, I came across a terrible and inflammatory article about Cindy Sheehan. Michael J. Gaynor, the author, writes
“This year Cindy Sheehan is Michael Moore’s Woman of the Year, basking in the media spotlight as she demonstrates outside President Bush’s ranch, describing him as a liar and a war criminal who killed her son, and demanding a second meeting so that she can rail at him in person and order him to pull out of Iraq immediately.”
The only reason I post this drivel here is that it is a prime example of an ad hominem abusive fallacy. The fallacy involves replying to an argument by attacking the person rather then the argument. In this case:
- Sheehan = Michael Moore
- Michael Moore = evil America hating liberal
- Sheehan = evil America hating liberal
- Sheehan’s argument = false
This type of argument is very very common among right wing pundits and bureaucrats. And it’s important to note the fallacy when we see it.
2 Comments
While I have to agree with you that Gaynor’s article is both terrible and inflamatory, I’m not necessarily sure that his attack is purely ad hominem at least as far as Sheehan and Moore’s apparent alignment goes. Here is how I read the article and what Gaynor is saying:
* Sheehan used to be a steadfast Patriot
* After her son was killed “while serving his country and the cause of freedom” she embraced the resulting condolences as any steadfast Patriot would
* A year later, Sheehan is no longer a steadfast Patriot, ergo she is “a helper of terrorists”
* Here is my (Gaynor’s) evidence that Sheehan’s tranformation is as I have said:
– Michael Moore is aligned with her, implicating that she is probably aligned with him
– Sheehan’s family has formally & publicly disassociated themselves with her
– Sheehan’s husband has filed for a divorce (the implication being because she is no longer a steadfast Patriot)
In Gaynor’s “if not for us then against us” world, Moore’s “Woman of the Year” appointment only serves to drive home what is already apparent: Sheehan has fallen from her once righteous place of Patriotism. Not only has Sheehan been rejected by those closest to her, but Moore embraces her. For his intended audience, I’m sure that Moore’s association is intended to discredit Sheehan, but that association is only one of several nails in the coffin of her integrity.
Which reminds me: I’ve got a week of vacation coming up and an unread book by the supremely liberal coffin nail.
As a long-time reader, first-time poster I’ve got to say that I love what you’re doing here. When I get more time to post in my own blog, I hope to comment on yours more often!
All good points — though I believe multiple devices are in play here, this is a fine example of an ad hominem fallacy . Gaynor goes out of his way to link Sheehan to various peronalities, including Dan Rather, Michael Moore and “the Bush-hating leftist media”. Granted the mention of Sheehan’s divorce is a post hoc fallacy (Post hoc ergo propter hoc) – because of this therefore that: Sheehan began protesting against Bush therefore her husband filed for divorce.