Al D’Amato? I don’t know if we should be looking to him or listening to him on many subjects. Please post just what he said so that we don’t have to go to the link to find it.Appalled at the now-daily assaults by the liberal media against the Church," a former United States senator has written a letter to The New York Times defending recent actions taken by American dioceses against abusive priests.
Your argument here is a classic example of the *ad hominem *fallacy.Al D’Amato? Didn’t he live with his paramour for 15 years while married? He of the notorious Nassau county Republicans and he who lied about county employees being required to kickback 1% of their salary to the GOP? Al who was voted out by the electorate, is that the D’Amato you are talking about? Al who called his campaign opponent the Yiddish term for ‘penis head’? Al who is now a lobbyist for the gambling interests in NY?
Actually, it is an *ad hominem *comment. The fallacy would be if I said that his argument is wrong because of his history.Your argument here is a classic example of the *ad hominem *fallacy.
This is the same Al D’Amato that once called Catholic teaching on social issues “wacky”:Al D’Amato? I don’t know if we should be looking to him or listening to him on many subjects. Please post just what he said so that we don’t have to go to the link to find it.
He said:
“Over the last few months, several cases have cropped up that took place decades ago and long before the Church’s all-out effort to acknowledge, make amends for and rectify its past failures,” he continued. “Some have seized upon those cases to attack the Church anew and with frightening vigor. Those attacks are unwarranted and unfair.”
I get it, the bishops didn’t know any better than to hide abuse and transfer abusive clergy? That argument is terribly thin.
“To simply reject out of hand the church’s extensive and intense program to heal and correct suggests the possibility of an anti-Catholic agenda more concerned with Catholic teachings than with child abuse,” he concluded."
I don’t know who has rejected the Church’s program. Myself, I think it is better to deal with the issue than to try to call accusers anti-Catholic. Are their criticisms accurate or not?
Al D’Amato? Didn’t he live with his paramour for 15 years while married? He of the notorious Nassau county Republicans and he who lied about county employees being required to kickback 1% of their salary to the GOP? Al who was voted out by the electorate, is that the D’Amato you are talking about? Al who called his campaign opponent the Yiddish term for ‘penis head’? Al who is now a lobbyist for the gambling interests in NY?
As for me, if Al said water was wet, I’d stick my finger in it.
You could say that about any *ad hominem *attack. They’re all intended to call into question the hominem’s credibility on grounds that are irrelevant to the issue in question. They are a kind of red herring.Actually, it is an *ad hominem *comment. The fallacy would be if I said that his argument is wrong because of his history.
I was commenting on his credibility, which may or may not be an issue.