Shirley Maclaine's book-And a question

[Felipe Sanchez]

"Isn't it amazing that by and large women like and understand Shirley MacLaine whereas men are critical of her and sometimes express almost hatred for her? Doesn't that tell you anything?"

The above quote from a recent posting provides a sterling example of a logical fallacy:  ad hominem.  

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/

I include a quote from the above URL:  Definition: 
  The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
  argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the
  person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked.
  Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to
  gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be
  attacked by association, or by the company he keeps. 
  There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
  (1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion,
  the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
  (2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an
  assertion the author points to the relationship between the
  person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
  (3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the
  person notes that a person does not practise what he
  preaches.

  The authoress of the cited passage from the Newsgroup assumes that any comments critical of SM's assertions classify the male as a misogynist.  Please read my posting prior to this and note that almost all my mentors have been female:  Ayn Rand, intellectual; Betty Friedan, inter-sexual; Rachel Carson, environmental.  Paul Ehrlich in regard to over-population is one of the few exceptions.  Invariably it appears more facile to think in generalities than to labor with specifics:  "by and large."  Felipe Sanchez  



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.oakapple.net/pipermail/gocamino/attachments/20020209/cdb40a54/attachment.htm