Author Topic: Personal Attack (Read 1077 times)

Mini D · « **Reply #15 on:** August 31, 2004, 11:56:58 AM »

Sandman is a lefty passifist wimp
MT is not black and drives a very gay car
Skuzzy is IT - nuff said
Furious is a loser and anyone that associates with him is a loser

Those weren't personal attacks, but rather descriptions of the individuals. You see, I'm not "resorting" to name calling. I'm starting with it.

Oh yea... HiTech is a sheep shagging putz

slimm50 · « **Reply #16 on:** August 31, 2004, 12:01:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
And why should we believe a person of "your" ilk about this issue?

: Isn't it true that you're a booger-eater?! Admit it!

Ahhh...so this is how it works, eh? Hmmmm...I feel.....empowered, somehow.

Sandman · « **Reply #17 on:** August 31, 2004, 12:02:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
Sandman is a lefty passifist wimp
MT is not black and drives a very gay car
Skuzzy is IT - nuff said
Furious is a loser and anyone that associates with him is a loser

Those weren't personal attacks, but rather descriptions of the individuals. You see, I'm not "resorting" to name calling. I'm starting with it.

Oh yea... HiTech is a sheep shagging putz

lazs2 · « **Reply #18 on:** August 31, 2004, 12:04:02 PM »

"For example:
Witness: "I saw X murder the shopkeeper."
Defense attorney: "Isn't it true that you are a convicted felon?""

maybe but... if the defense attorney said.. "isn't it true that you are blind as a bat and had to have a seeing eye dog just to get to the courtroom?"

that would be a personal attack and a reasonable one.

lazs

boxboy28 · « **Reply #19 on:** August 31, 2004, 12:05:23 PM »

Well ill post here just to show off my new Sig line which is sure to envoke a personal attack! Then we can see the definition in action!

slimm50 · « **Reply #20 on:** August 31, 2004, 12:08:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by boxboy28
Well ill post here just to show off my new Sig line which is sure to envoke a personal attack! Then we can see the definition in action!

Heh, wouldn't touch that sig line with a 10-foot pole.

SOB · « **Reply #21 on:** August 31, 2004, 12:51:22 PM »

All I know for sure is that Sandman is a big pansie.

Dinger · « **Reply #22 on:** August 31, 2004, 01:55:25 PM »

Fallacy of the Excluded Middle:

All cats are animals
All dogs are animals
Therefore, All Cats are Dogs

Addressing an argument with a personal attack constitutes an example of the ad hominem abusive fallacy.

ad hominem abusive is a class of ad hominem fallacy.

Calling into question the person making the argument, and not the argument itself constitutes an example of the ad hominem circumstantial fallacy.

ad hominem circumstantial is a class of ad hominem fallacy.

Therefore (by the fallacy of excluded middle): All ad hominem circumstantial arguments are ad hominem abusive ones.

And so, all ad hominem circumstantial arguments are personal attacks.

Now, concerning what constitutes an ad hominem circumstantial:

ad hominem as a class is a fallacy that involves arguing against the person (ad hominem) making the argument and not against the argument itself (ad argumentum).
Lazs' example of the blind man seeing isn't one, since in that case, the blind man is part of the argument: "I, person X, saw Y" is invalid if Person X is incapable of seeing.

On the other hand, if someone is arguing, "Invading Iraq is a bad idea because A) there's no evidence of WMD and B) It will only engender generations of hostility towards Americans", the fact that that person dodged the draft, has frequent sexual liaisons with farm animals, and wears Axe body spray has nothing to do witht the argument.

ad hominem circumstantial is the most common form of ad hominem on bulletin boards, ("I don't care what michael moore says; the very fact that he said it makes it untrue")

Other forms of ad hominem are the aforementioned abusive, "A: We should not invade Iraq. B: A is an ******* and a terrorist", and the always popular tu quoque ("you too"), as in, "A: We should not invade Iraq., B: but A invaded Vietnam". The question isn't what the other person did or is doing, but rather what should b edone.

midnight Target · « **Reply #23 on:** August 31, 2004, 02:12:24 PM »

Dinger is a word nerd.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #24 on:** August 31, 2004, 02:15:35 PM »

I thought fallacy was a reference to state of the non-aroused male organ.

Dune · « **Reply #25 on:** August 31, 2004, 03:01:53 PM »

One thing you must remember about the "aren't you a convicted felon" line.

Yes, you are attacking the character of the person. The belief is that someone who has a criminal record, especially if it involves a crime of moral terpitude (sp), is less trustworthy than someone who is not. Maybe the jury buys this, maybe they don't. But part of the decision process is making sure the jury knows who they are listening to.

However, when you do this, you have to be telling the truth. If not, you either get slapped down by the judge or you end up looking silly. Which is a bad thing. So there are safeguards built in that make sure anything you bring up is the truth.

Here, I can call Airhead a gay mushroom farmer who wouldn't know the truth if it crawled in his shoe, or that Funked is a really an undersexed librarian who doesn't even have license and nobody knows the truth. You can say any untrue statement you want, and there is no real way to be called on it.

Dune · « **Reply #26 on:** August 31, 2004, 03:06:44 PM »

Oh, and one other thing. By pointing out that the witness is a felon, you make them more suceptable to an attack on their testimony. Or by pointing out their relationship to the people involved in the case and how it would affect their tesitmony.

An attorney who just attacks the person risks being seen through by the jury and having them turn on him. And there are different ways to do it. Personally, I prefer to attack the witness' argument/testimony and go after him. After the jury has seen me attack him and call what he's said into question, it creates a doubt in their mind. Then I'll end with pointing out that along with the points I've made about how he's full of crap, there's another reason you shouldn't believe this person...he's a felon, theif, robber, etc.

This is also why if your witness has a felony conviction/moral terpitude convcition, you bring it up on direct. Take the wind out of the other side's sails and remove some of the sting. That way, if the witness is confronted with his past, the jury has had time to digest the news and it wont shock them.

SOB · « **Reply #27 on:** August 31, 2004, 03:09:25 PM »

Blah blah blah...Your honor, Dune is ghey.

cpxxx · « **Reply #28 on:** August 31, 2004, 03:37:19 PM »

I don't really know how you can term anything said here as a personal attack. After all I don't really know any of you ( children of unmarried parents). Even if I was to describe any of you as a (having a propensity to self abuse) or being a (head resembling a part of the body referred to using the shortened version of the name Richard.) . You could hardly take offence. But if you do you can all (anglo saxon word with vulgar connotations. ) off.

NUTTZ · « **Reply #29 on:** August 31, 2004, 05:47:00 PM »

I have to go to court soon, the defendant is a convited felon who has done the same thing. The past felony charges CAN be brought up as evidence to his character. Now HOW you bring this evidence up is the tricky part.

NUTTZ

Quote

Originally posted by Dune
Oh, and one other thing. By pointing out that the witness is a felon, you make them more suceptable to an attack on their testimony. Or by pointing out their relationship to the people involved in the case and how it would affect their tesitmony.

An attorney who just attacks the person risks being seen through by the jury and having them turn on him. And there are different ways to do it. Personally, I prefer to attack the witness' argument/testimony and go after him. After the jury has seen me attack him and call what he's said into question, it creates a doubt in their mind. Then I'll end with pointing out that along with the points I've made about how he's full of crap, there's another reason you shouldn't believe this person...he's a felon, theif, robber, etc.

This is also why if your witness has a felony conviction/moral terpitude convcition, you bring it up on direct. Take the wind out of the other side's sails and remove some of the sting. That way, if the witness is confronted with his past, the jury has had time to digest the news and it wont shock them.