Pope should resign, says O'Connor

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1holycatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Beau_Ouiville said:
Perhaps we should avoid the ad hominem.
Click to expand...
Quite the opposite, we should address this type of issue of celebrity ad hominem. When a celebrity uses their name and status as a platform to address an issue beyong their competence, then it is surely legitimate to question who they are to be making such statements. They rely on a positive ad hominem to gain support for this issue, or that one. It is good to call to mind the person making the statement.
 
pnewton said:
Quite the opposite, we should address this type of issue of celebrity ad hominem. When a celebrity uses their name and status as a platform to address an issue beyong their competence, then it is surely legitimate to question who they are to be making such statements. They rely on a positive ad hominem to gain support for this issue, or that one. It is good to call to mind the person making the statement.
Click to expand...
Are you sure you are using the phrase ad hominem correctly?

ad ho·mi·nem

  1. appealing to one’s prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one’s intellect or reason.
  2. attacking an opponent’s character rather than answering his argument.
Estes Bob called her something like a bald headed lesbian priestess and that did seem ad hominem to me. Beau called him on it.
Are you saying you agree with him( estessbob) ? I don’t quite understand your thought nor your use of the phrase ad hominem. Can you explain.
 
Via_Dolorosa said:
Are you sure you are using the phrase ad hominem correctly?
Click to expand...
The phrase literally means, to the man; an argument that deals with the person, not the issue. This is sometimes called inverse ad hominem. As in:

That man was smartly-dressed, so I’ll accept his argument for the existence of God.

or

That Sinead sure can sing so she is bound to be right about Catholicism

or

*Tom Cruse is my favorite actor so maybe Scientology is where I belong. *

The celebrity often will use their status for their agenda. Therefore I have no issue with pointing out the flaws in the celebrities character that makes them a poor spokesman.
 
pnewton said:
The phrase literally means, to the man; an argument that deals with the person, not the issue. This is sometimes called inverse ad hominem. As in:

That man was smartly-dressed, so I’ll accept his argument for the existence of God.

or

That Sinead sure can sing so she is bound to be right about Catholicism

or

*Tom Cruse is my favorite actor so maybe Scientology is where I belong. *

The celebrity often will use their status for their agenda. Therefore I have no issue with pointing out the flaws in the celebrities character that makes them a poor spokesman.
Click to expand...
thanks for the explanation. The original attack said she was a bald, lesbian, sort-of priestess anti catholic. Would you consider that ad hominem?
I’m not defending her, but I do understand where she is coming from.
Here’s a Q and A posted after her WaPo editorial: ( She does address the priestess thing)
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/04/29/DI2009042902200.html
 
Via_Dolorosa said:
thanks for the explanation. The original attack said she was a bald, lesbian, sort-of priestess anti catholic. Would you consider that ad hominem?
Click to expand...
“Bald”, yes. The rest directly shows how she lacks qualifications for any such informed opinion on what would be appropriate for the head of the Catholic Church.
 
Via_Dolorosa said:
thanks for the explanation. The original attack said she was a bald, lesbian, sort-of priestess anti catholic. Would you consider that ad hominem?
I’m not defending her, but I do understand where she is coming from.
Here’s a Q and A posted after her WaPo editorial: ( She does address the priestess thing)
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/04/29/DI2009042902200.html
Click to expand...
I believe the term I used was " baldheaded lesbian bisexual pseudo priest country-western singer ".
 
Via_Dolorosa said:
thanks for the explanation. The original attack said she was a bald, lesbian, sort-of priestess anti catholic. Would you consider that ad hominem?
I’m not defending her, but I do understand where she is coming from.
Here’s a Q and A posted after her WaPo editorial: ( She does address the priestess thing)
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/04/29/DI2009042902200.html
Click to expand...
That’s not ad hominum,that’s fact.Huge difference in Ad Hominum attack and stating the facts.Look it up in Debate 101.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
😃 I didn’t know she was a country and western singer. 😉
Click to expand...
But she forgot the dog, grandma, and the train :rotfl:

The same old dilemma occurs to me. None of us, from what I read cares a hoot what the poor dear has to say, yet here we all are discussing it. :doh2: :ehh:
 
Soutane said:
That’s not ad hominum,that’s fact.Huge difference in Ad Hominum attack and stating the facts.Look it up in Debate 101.
Click to expand...
An ad hominem can also use facts, if the facts are not relevant. An example is her being bald. Yes, she is, but it is not relevant.
 
pnewton said:
An ad hominem can also use facts, if the facts are not relevant. An example is her being bald. Yes, she is, but it is not relevant.
Click to expand...
It was an apt descriptor.How many bald women do ypo know?Deliberately bald?There is usually significance behind this act,lunacy or extremist feminism,so I would say it’s inclusion is appropos and not ad hominum.If she was bald due to disease or female baldness,then,yes it would be ad hominum.
 
She looks like she has a buzzcut to me and from what I’ve seen such cuts are not unusal on black women.However totally bald white women are usually making a statement and therefore it is relevant and not ad hominum as in’she’s really got big feet too’.
 
Soutane said:
She looks like she has a buzzcut to me and from what I’ve seen such cuts are not unusal on black women.However totally bald white women are usually making a statement and therefore it is relevant and not ad hominum as in’she’s really got big feet too’.
Click to expand...
Not in my neighborhood. I live in a college town and, believe me, there are some bald white woman traipsing around.
 
Soutane said:
She looks like she has a buzzcut to me and from what I’ve seen such cuts are not unusal on black women.However totally bald white women are usually making a statement and therefore it is relevant and not ad hominum as in’she’s really got big feet too’.
Click to expand...
I believe she has actually said that she did do it originally as a statement, but now it’s such a habit that she would feel weird if she stopped.

I’m not entirely certain that her feelings about traditional female roles are strictly relevant to the discussion at hand, but the “hairstyle” was a purposeful statement and so not in the “big feet” category, anyway.

–Jen
 
Soutane said:
It was an apt descriptor.How many bald women do ypo know?Deliberately bald?There is usually significance behind this act,lunacy or extremist feminism,so I would say it’s inclusion is appropos and not ad hominum.If she was bald due to disease or female baldness,then,yes it would be ad hominum.
Click to expand...
I guess I’ll just have to disagree on this one then.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top