From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dust In The Wind)
Subject: Re: On Not Living in a Vaccum
Organization: Glassboro State College
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 14:57:47 GMT


Marty Helgesen writes (to me):

> Your comments on responses to Hillary Clinton's ideas about children being
> able to divorce their parents seem to ignore the social context in which we
> are living.

If you haven't read the specific details of her ideas from something she has
written herself, who cares what you think?  Why should I be interested in an
"argument from ignorance"?

I accept that you have opinions about Ms Clinton's ideas -- but you have given
me no reason to accept that you even know what those ideas are, let alone that
you have studied them in any detail.  Do some research.  Present some quotes.
Get some expert testimony from someone who does this for a living.

If you want to convince me, you'll have to provide some reason for me to
believe that you know what you are talking about.


> Everything I've read or heard about Hillary Clinton suggests that she is a
> radical feminist and in general a member of the liberal or radical left.
> Adding that information suggests that her views are even more dangerous than
> the first fact would suggest.

Those on CHRISTIA who've gone and gotten Howard Kahane's _Logic and
Contemporary Rhetoric_ will quickly identify this as a paradigm example of
an "Ad Hominem" fallacy (in particular, "guilt by association").  Quoting
Mr Kahane:

  The fallacy of _ad hominem argument_, sometimes called the _genetic
  fallacy_, consists of an irrelevant attack on the person argued against,
  rather than his argument.

  One of the more important variations on _ad hominem_ arguments is _guilt
  by association_.  [...]

  As [Joseph] Duffey himself pointed out, we cannot hold a person responsible
  for the opinions of everyone he has ever associated with.  To do so surely
  is to commit the fallacy of _guilt by association_.


Mr Helgesen, having provided no direct quotes or references to Ms Clinton's
ideas, suggests that her views are `dangerous' because of certain groups that
she is a member of.  The groups in question do have opinions about the issues
under discussion, but without knowing Hillary Clinton's opinions we cannot go
about passing judgement on her.

To illustrate this, consider this argument:

  Bill Clinton is a Southern Baptist; that is a conservative Christian
  denomination which strongly holds to a traditional family model.  That
  suggests that Bill Clinton believes in family values, and that his views are
  exactly consonant with what most conservative Christians think.  So
  Mr Clinton disagrees with his wife about these issues, since we have reason
  to believe that she is anti-family.

When we guess about someone's opinions based on the groups he is in, the
results are often contradictory (as in the above hypothetical example).  I do
not believe it is acceptable for Christians to make snap judgements of this
kind -- most especially against their brothers and sisters in Christ.  When
someone claims that a given person has immoral ideas, or that a given idea
will result in disaster, I expect him to have facts, references, details and
reasoning prepared.

Mr Helgesen has provided nothing worth mentioning or considering; a few
fallacies and a bit of hearsay, but no actual evidence - no actual argument.

I suspect that there will be more followups in this thread; unless another
standard fallacy goes by that I consider worth pointing out, I will probably
not reply.  None of the anti-Clinton people has given an argument worth
replying to.


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
"All opinions are not created equal, and those based on an admitted lack of
 knowledge of the subject under discussion are less equal than most."
                                                  -- Gene Ward Smith
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU