A Quote by Jonah Goldberg

...associational ad hominem attacks remain the left's favorite rhetorical strategy for undermining opponents. — © Jonah Goldberg
...associational ad hominem attacks remain the left's favorite rhetorical strategy for undermining opponents.
We all resort to the ad hominem from time to time: in human affairs, it is difficult to avoid it, and probably not desirable. After all, our opponents are human. The proper use of an ad hominem argument, however, still requires evidence to back it up.
I love insults, devastating takedowns, things that could be described by Twitter hacks as 'shots fired,' and funny ad hominem attacks.
Reading a brief filled with ad hominem attacks is like listening to my kids fight, except that I have to wait until we're in the courtroom to tell the attacking lawyer what I think about it.
I've never been in a 'Twitter fight,' though I've witnessed my fair share. I do enjoy vigorous and informed debate, but the benefit is lost when the exchange becomes a series of petty ad hominem attacks. I don't see much value in it.
The world I want to live in is a world where everybody is a bit more uncertain about their arguments and is a bit more open to other people's arguments. I think that we can engage ideas without ad hominem attacks.
I shall not make an argument ad hominem. My argument is ad bullshitem.
When your reasons for believing something are justified ad hoc, you are left susceptible to further discoveries undermining the rationale for that belief.
A common rhetorical strategy of politicians and others is to frame their opponents' views in the worst possible light, tacitly suggesting that all versions of the view must be committed to some particularly deplorable conclusion. Philosophers are not immune to this way of arguing.
A lack of grace involves much more than critiquing an opponent. It looks a lot more like the ad hominem attacks the president launches nearly daily against all who aren't actively worshiping him. It looks like Trump's relentless attempts to pit Americans against one another.
I'm a fan of robust debate, and I'm not averse to engaging in the odd ad hominem attack myself.
Political correctness will die as it lived - kicking and screaming ad hominem abuse as a substitute for arguments.
But I think the goal of all these attacks is the same, which is to seize maximum media attention. Maybe some of these attacks were meant to be small. Some of them might have been failed larger attacks. And some of them are just part of a new strategy of doing lots of tiny attacks, as opposed to one large one.
The documentary style is an incredibly flexible and useful one. It's a wonderful tool for establishing the credibility of the version of things that's in the photograph - a kind of rhetorical device or rhetorical strategy. It's always felt very natural to me, because I want a person to end up thinking about the world, and to think about it in a way that is transformed by the experience of art.
In any piece of rhetorical discourse, one rhetorical term overcomes another rhetorical term only by being nearer to the term which stands ultimate. There is some ground for calling a rhetorical education necessarily aristocratic education in that the rhetorician has to deal with an aristocracy of notions.
An ad hominem attack against an individual, not against an idea, is highly flattering. It indicates that the person does not have anything intelligent to say about your message.
The Left discovered that its post-electoral strategy of constant confrontation was actually helping Felipe Calderon and his popularity instead of undermining it. So Marcelo Ebrard, the mayor of Mexico City, who's a very savvy politician, he changed course. He decided to actually govern instead of simply trying to bring the Calderon government down.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!