Support for Ad Hominem Attack

[UPDATE Below] [Second UPDATE Below]

Do you know what an "Ad Hominem" attack is?

You can bet the people at the Times-Standard newspaper do. If not, they will after reading what's written below:

Dictionary definition for, ad hominem:

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.

Also: adj. Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives. And under Usage Notes:
"The phrase denoted an argument designed to appeal to the listener's emotions rather than to reason."

 
The following definition is from Wikipedia:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument toward the person" or "argument against the person"), is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem argument is not a fallacy despite there being fallacious instances of the argument.[2] Fallacious instances of the ad hominem argument are presented below.

Structure of the argument - An ad hominem argument has the basic form:
Person 1 makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person 1
Therefore claim X is false

The first premise is called a 'factual claim' and is the pivot point of much debate. The contention is referred to as an 'inferential claim' and represents the reasoning process. There are two types of inferential claim, explicit and implicit. The fallacy does not represent a valid form of reasoning because even if you accept both co-premises, that does not guarantee the truthfulness of the contention. This can also be thought of as the argument having an un-stated co-premise.

Figure that out.

---

So, an ad hominem attack is about making it personal - attacking the person without any proof or substance to backup the personal accusations. Because I'm a bastard everything I say is worthless!

Here is a classic example left on this blog by Dave Stancliff, owner and writer of the "As It Stands" blog and Times-Standard newspaper column by the same name.

1) Dave has left a new comment on your post "The Face of a Pompous Thug":

Sure did Joe,
You made an anonymous post and said "it raised the hair on your neck," when you read it.
Fact.
You are conducting a personal vendetta despite everything you claim.
Fact.
Look at the things you called me and tell me that they aren't an opinion on your part.
Fact.
The reason you seldom get anyone to comment here is because you attack them. Note, I'm the only one to respond to this post. Scroll down.
How many more posts have comments? (Emphasis mine)

---

The reason people make ad hominem attacks is because they are devoid of reality; they are conflicted. They can't separate what they think, believe or say from who or what they are. This is Stancliff's latest:

---

The following is a classic example of either a deviate liar or paranoid psychotic. In this case the facts indicate a combination of the two. He first trys to make everyone, including me, think he's really dealing with the issues, about what he wrote, then he immediately assaults me for attacking his person as if what he wrote is really about him. What kind of a person does he say I am? What is the reason no one comments on my blog? "Because you (I) attack them (you)." What does that make me in this day and age? A radical, extremist terrorist that attacks innocent people because they don't agree with me? Here's how it breaks down:

Dave has left a new comment on your post "A Lightweight Makes Heavyweight":

Don't be shy Joe. Go ahead and just subscribe to my blog.
As you are a regular reader of my newspaper column it should continue to provide you with things to atatck. (Here he says I'm attacking things he wrote.)

Read the comment section in the T-S The only one that agrees with you is your buddy Joshua who wrote the piece. You and he spend a lot of time attacking anyone that doesn't agree with you. (Here he changes his accusation. Now he says I'm personally attacking him, when at the same time he said I was attacking what he wrote.) That meets the definition of paranoid psychosis.

what fun it must be to attack people anonymously. See ya soon. (Now, since I personally attacked him, he has the right to threaten me.) Threatening me for not agreeing with his right to tell me and everyone else how to think.
BTY - I hope your not threatening me when you say you "wouldn't want to be in my shoes."

The authorities frown at bad boys like you... (And finally, a not so veiled threat to report me to the police.)

---

There are more examples of his ad hominem personal attacks in the comment section of "Trolls versus The Thought Police."

Considering that the current management of Times-Standard newspaper's continues support of this kind of ad hominem, substance-free ranting as legitimate representation of them and their advertisers, perhaps the time has come to take this matter to the next step. When I read this, How a law student used Twitter to pressure dozens of Glenn Beck’s advertisers into dropping their support -- the next step revealed itself.

The last time I tried to communicate with Dave Kuta, Kimberly Wear or James Faulk, the Times-Standard's management, I got ignored or a form denial. If the local business people and readers believe they are being well served by the Times-Standard, its reporting the kind of facts they tell us are "facts," subvert and pervert public opinion to their kind of dictates, then informing advertisers shouldn't be a bother to anyone.

Considering what Dave Stancliff has publicly said about me, and the integrity of the Joe Blow Report, he is not to far off from a Glenn Beck. He could have defended what he wrote at any time. He did not. He took deference to himself and personally attacked me for what this Report observed in his writings. It's clear from what he said above that he is incapable of separating himself as a person from his written worthless opinions. If that's the quality and character of Time-Standard writers, then perhaps it's time the community was informed of the facts so they could make an informed decision about their continued support.

Maybe it's time to find out if Joe Blow is the bastard they say he is.

--Joe

[UPDATE :: Thursday, April 22, 2010]

Another example of an Ad Hominem personal assault.

People that read my blogs ask me why I let Dave Stancliff continue say the things he does and leave it right out there for everyone to read. Frankly, because I want people to see who the bully is. I want people to see and understand from his own actions what his obscene diatribe and vitriol reveals about him and about what he writes and has to say anywhere on the Internet and in the newspaper.

One thing about law, is it cuts both ways. If the Times-Standard wants to support this kind of Ad Hominem behavior and justify it to their advertisers, that's there business. Those of us who do not, however, do not need to business with these people either. All I did was bring to their attention what he said about me for making my observations on one of his As It Stands “opinion” articles in the Times-Standard newspaper. That's taking responsibility for what you do and say.

Read the latest example from Dave Stancliff: 
Dave said...

I think it's time you get some help Joe. Seriously.
Your fasination with me and what I write is just not healthy.

What I don't understand is why you claim not to have opinions when you make statements like "his worthless writings." Can't you see what you're doing?

The reason you don't have any credibility is because of endless rants against people like me, or in another case, Ernie (who has a great blog).

All a person has to do is look at your comments here, and at the Times-Standard reader's forum where you constantly troll around looking for trouble.

Then you whine when someone says you're wrong about something and you personally attack them. The comment archives prove this regardless of what you claim. Facts are uncomfortable, but then you already know that and avoid them whenever possible if they don't fit into your narrow world view.

You don't seem to realize the reason why people don't visit your blog is because it's like entering the home of a grumpy troll.

You'll continue to prove this by your ongoing campaign against me.

First you tried to get me fired, and now you think you can talk advertisers into not advertising because they don't pay attention to trouble-makers like you.

Better get help soon, before this problem of yours gets out of hand and you find yourself in a rubber room.

And yes, you are getting close to violating the new "cyberbully laws," recently passed. Keep going like you are and you will be in trouble with the law soon enough.

April 22, 2010 8:02 AM

---

UPDATE II :: Thursday, April 22, 2010

I posted on The Joe Blow Report 2 the following commentary on Marijuana: “Help name Firedoglake’s Marijuana Legalization Campaign" – Our contribution to the latest marijuana legalization campaign. At the end of the article I added an observation on the Times-Standard newspaper's Wednesday, April 21, 2010 front-page story titled: “Cold rain, police don't deter 4/20 revelers in Arcata; hundreds spend afternoon in Redwood Park for annual pot celebration.”

I got a comment from Kevin L. Hoover, Editor and Publisher of the Arcata Eye. For the record I personally don't know the guy nor do I have anything to do with his paper. When I answered his comment I worked off my email notice and didn't realize who he was. I did realize that what he said was Ad Hominem and that he had crossed the line. That line being DECENCY – YOU DON'T GET PERSONAL.

GET PERSONAL, YOU CHANGE THE RULES. If you want to talk about what is written, then that is exactly what we will do. You want to get personal with your insulting demeaning, ridiculing insults then we'll deal with that. The road runs both ways. Personal threats, bravado and bullying don't impress me. If you can't tell the difference between what you think or what you believe from who you are, don't come on my blog with your little dreams and expect me to engage you.