The Invalid Ad-Hominem: Rudd is a Poo Poo Head
A while back, I was going to blog about the notion of the valid ad-hominem as a dying Australian tradition within politics and the need for its revival. It’s come to my attention, that the Libs have done it once again; stuffed up the ad-hominem in their perpetually failed mission of being the funny guy.
In short, the valid ad-hominem needs to either be a pertinent conclusion supported by valid argument, or a truthful premise that supports a pertinent conclusion. For example;
Ad-Hominem as pertinent conclusion;
Premise 1: John Howard mislead parliament when he said he didn’t criticise/denigrate the US Democrats.
Premise 2: Misleading Parliament is the act of a politician not of suitable character for the role of Prime Minister.
Conclusions: John Howard is not of suitable character to be the Prime Minister of Australia.
Ad-Hominem as valid premise;
Premise 1: Eddie Likes-Too-Feel-Kids Brown is an unrepentant nonce.
Premise 2: A Minister for Children’s Services needs to understand principles of children’s welfare.
Conclusion: Eddie shouldn’t be given a Children’s Services portfolio.
Neither of these were particularly funny mind you. I’ll save the funny stuff for my valid ad-hominem post proper. This is about the Liberals attempt and I wouldn’t want their sad act to have to follow mine.
The Invalid Ad-Hominem: ‘Different Leader, Same Old Labor.” – Liberal Pary Committee for faltering attempts at political humor.
(Copyright Liberal Party of Australia 2007 – Permission not sought; used under the “fair dealing for purpose of criticism or review” section 41 of the Copyright Act 1968.)
The fly-on-the-wall version of the thought that went into this little gem;
“Haw haw! He’s pink! Pink equals pinko! Classic Mccarthyist! Haw haw haw!” – Liberal Genius #1.
“And he’s got a tear in his eye! Crybaby wha wha! Hee hee hee! I’m so clever!” – Liberal Genius #2.
“He’s being pushed along by the ACTU! Shady backers! Haw!” – Liberal Genius #1.
“Yeah, just like we are by the Exclusive Brethren and Mining Companies, but nobody notices! Haw!” – Liberal Genius #3.
“Shut Up!” – Liberal Genius #1 & #2.
“And the car’s not working! It’s broke! Labor doesn’t work! Haw Haw!” – Liberal Genius #2.
“Yeah! Yeah! Um! That’ll like stop people from thinking about how we are broke in the polls! Right guys?!?” – Liberal Genius #3
“Shut Up! Shut Up!” – Liberal Genius #1 & #2.
“Kevin Rudd is a poo poo head?” – Liberal Genius #3.
“By Jobe I think he’s got it!” – Liberal Genius #1 & #2.
And how much has this all to do with Rudd’s suitability as PM? Nada. Stay tuned for ‘The Valid Ad-Hominem: Darth Vapid‘ to see how it’s supposed to be done.
~ Bruce
Not that lefties don’t indulge in the practice too from time to time . . . but it strikes me that conservatives in particular favour name-calling and playing the man. Why do you think this might be?
Actually, I was trying to distinguish between a valid ad-hominem and an invalid ad-hominem. While some of say The Glass House’s (if you want to call them lefties, I can’t think of a better example at this time of the morning) ad-hominems were invalid, most of the were actually valid commentary.
I think that fallacious arguments are tolerated more within extremist political poles (more fundamentalism, suppression of critical thought etc) and with the political pendulum so far to the right, the fallacious arguments currently getting coinage are those of the right. Hence, a greater tendency for invalid ad-hominems from conservatives at present.
The converse can be seen in older anti-vietnam ad-hominems during the cultural revolution, which incidentally were never funny either.
I think that fallacious arguments are tolerated more within extremist political poles (more fundamentalism, suppression of critical thought etc) and with the political pendulum so far to the right, the fallacious arguments currently getting coinage are those of the right. Hence, a greater tendency for invalid ad-hominems from conservatives at present.
On that note . . .
You said poo poo head.
Hee Hee
Good points. Their website is preaching to the converted anyway. And the converted Lib follower does not have reason as a guiding principle. Unless that principle is ‘me, me me’.
Which is why I hate the right.
Hey, I’ve got friends in the Liberal party!
I was led to this post from a more recent one, and am not sure that it’s one of the best in this blog.
Call me a pedant, but I can’t see how “the valid ad-hominem needs to either be a pertinent conclusions supported by valid argument, or a truthful premise that supports a pertinent conclusion” makes sense. Is there even such a thing?
Is not an ad-hominem argument one where, rather than dealing with the substance of the argument, it deals instead with the person making the argument? Because, if so, a “valid ad-hominem” seems an oxymoron.
ad-hominem can deal with the substance of an argument if a person is the substance of an argument. The assumption that all ad-hominem are false derives from the false assumption that a person’s character etc can’t be the substance discussed.
As for “is there even such a thing?” I’ve given you two examples.
Ad hominem is latin for “to the man”, it is true, and so in some sense your examples are ad-hominem. It is also true that, in politics, the character and opinions of a person are relevant issues for argument.
I concede your point.
However the normal sense of the term when unqualified(I refer you to the Wikipedia) is that of the fallacy, especially in a critical piece.
Regardless of any validity of your choice of words for the distinction between the ad-hominem fallacy and the ad-hominem argument, the term “valid ad-hominem” still grates.
Someone’s updated or changed the wikipedia definition I think. Had a look at the history of the document but there have been so many edits (and admittedly I haven’t read the wikipedia version in a while so I can’t remember when) that I can’t find the version I last looked at.
In any case, I find ad-hominem as always invalid tautologous because when invalid, an ad-hominem is always a non-sequitur. Admittedly, the current wikipedia definition is pretty restrictive (attacking a person instead of their argument, rather than just attacking a person) so I guess it’s all a bit flexible.
Put the differences down to discourse I think.
On an entirely different issue, regarding the first sentence of your post, is this what you miss?
Because I do.
Been visiting Harry Clarke have we?
No, but it’s very apposite.