Although logically true Obama was wise not to dignify her comment with a response. Logic is a great tool in finding truth but not always the best course of action. Anyone who's ever been married knows this.
That is not an ad hominem. She makes a claim about nuclear policies, and he points out her lack of expertise in the matter. This IS in fact a response to the claim. Sometimes refutations can be insulting and not be an ad hom. An ad hom in this case would be if Obama were to say something like "Well she's ugly" or "But she's from Alaska" or something irrelevant.
Seems to me she used an ad hominem first, by attempting to descredit obama's nuclear policy by comparing him to a schoolchild, clearly as explicit claim to make, yet, less grounded of an argument.
Sarah Palin put forward an argumentum ad populum fallacy. He acknowledged he didn't have a response because quite frankly the argument presented didn't warrent one.
If she'd presented a logical argument or supported her fallacious argument with fact then his response might have been a reverse appeal to authority. But not an ad hominem. She never presented a logical argument so his dismissal of the assertion is justified.
I wouldn't give any attention to Palin anyways. Even though it was a fallacious argument, it wasn't voiced out to mislead people as it is usually the case. To me, it was a proper response. You can't go around and reply to every single idiot.
yes,..yes...yes...whilte its clear barack is using ad hominem...can i point out to you that clearly there are times in which ad hominem is HIGHLY APPROPRIATE AND DEMONSTRATES MUCH MORE GOOD SENSE TO UTILIZE over debating the argument seriously. Here is an old paraphrased expression which I hope makes my point clearly : "When one argues with a FOOL it becomes increasingly difficult to determine just WHO is the FOOL and WHO is NOT". Obama ad hominem response in this case was 100% correctly used.
@keybobrob What if another person (one who is not typically referred to as an idiot) had made the same assertion Sarah Palin had made and Barack Obama responded in the same fashion? Would the ad hominem still be valid?
You have defended Obama's comment due to your personal views on Sarah Palin's character rather than on the validity of her comment. Your argument is an ad hominem, one that in this case was 100% incorrectly used.
@Southerner dude..I totally get ur point..i got it before u made it. I didn't need for you to point out the obvious.My first sentence should have CLEARLY pointed out that he was using ad hominem!! Hello..My point is NOT about the criteria that stipulates appropriate conduct when debating, if it were you would be100% correct! SO, to make my point even clearer...If Palin said that 2+2=4, I would DISMISS everyword that came out of her mouth, because to engage her is LUNACY even when she is CORRECT!
@keybobrob The point to which I responded is that you have defended an ad hominem argument. It is *never* appropriate to use or defend an ad hominem argument. You stated blatantly that this was acceptable behavior. The entire point of the video was to demonstrate Barack Obama's use of an ad hominem argument. Attempting to discuss the validity of Sarah Palin is not the point, so don't change the subject. You also never answered the question I posed to you. I await your reply on the matter.
@South Perhaps u just like 2believe that all things are as simple as u think. If u read what I wrote..i said in the context of ur argument u are 100% correct!...perhaps ur so wrapped up in ur need to be right that u missed the fact that I agreed with the fact that he used ad hominem..its obvious that he dismissed her comment based on the lack of respect he had for her. D-UH any idiot can see that. My point is ENTIRELY different.but ur caught into this notion of the TEN COMMANDMENTS of debating.
@keybobrob I have understood your point from the beginning. I also understand that it is off topic. My point is that your entire argument is invalid due to your ad hominem. People portraying ad hominems as legitimate arguments is among the many reasons why comment threads as a whole cannot be taken seriously by the public. Plus, you *still* have yet to address the question I posed in my initial comment. While you answer it, address this one: What do you mean by "u", "2believe", and "ur"?
@South YES,..NOW ur finally "closer" to getting the point, my locked in friend, Release urself from the box if ur able. It was ENTIRELY MEANT to be "apple&oranges". 100% intentional..because i already knew what ad hominem meant from the onset there was no need to debate or clairfy it with someone who agrees w/u,..thats kinda futile,.yes? I made an entirely different and yes OFF TOPIC point!..one of TRANSCENDENTAL significance..as opposed to an AP English project. Get it or not, i'm done. peace.
That wasn't just an ad hominem. That was an inverse appeal to authority (i.e. because I'm not an expert in bioethics, I can't make a tenable bioethical argument).
what retard made this video. sound like a dick sucking faggot too. Sarah Palin is no nuclear expert that is the truth not an attack on her. its just like a plumber telling a doctor how to perform a surgical or medical procedure and you refuse to listen to them because they have no training or experience in the medical field that's not an attack. Sarah Palin is an idiot anyway making decision to use nuclear bomb on any nation is not easy one it is a complex one that sets a lot of precedents
@coonlyncher Your handle says it all. Please go crawl back into your MIssissippi hole and leave the world to us humans. Incidentally, 'negroloid' is not a word. This IS 2012, isn't it?
This is an ad hominem attack from Sarah Palin against Barak Obama due to his policy; which you omit. His response is not an attack on Sarah Palin. It is a doubt of the validity of her claim. Which implies that the claim is unsound, not false. This is basic logic. It is the same as a claim that is true but based on irrational methods.
Actually, President Obama was right to say she doesn't know anything about the subject. However, he might have backed this up with his own reasoning. Either way, this was a conversation, not a debate. He had no reason to. If someone asked me about Kent Hovind's theory about peach pits being good for you, I would say that Hovind is a moron, and has no clue what he is talking about. There is no reason to add anything else. There is more info, but listing a slew of facts stops a conversation dead.
@skywize As for Palin herself, I would simply assume she is wrong until I get facts to prove otherwise since she has proved herself to be quite the dimwit.
Instead of addressing the content of this video, If I were to refer to the poster of this video as a naive child lacking the wisdom to produce an accurate analysis of any political issue, would that be an ad hominem fallacy?
In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. ALSO ONLY IRRELEVANT use of it is an ad hominem, it was relevant in this case. Red herring.
Clearly some fallacies and insults being made, not sure if it really fits an ad hominem though. He didn't really attack her in my point of view just pointed out that he wasn't aware she was an expert in that field, to me an ad hominem is taking place only when the insult is aimed at avoiding the argument by degrading one's character. If in fact the statement that she is not an expert is true, then it's relevant to the argument. If anything it was just a red herring as he didn't want to answer.
@dreamerwebdev It does not have to be an attack or insult to be an ad hominem, simply put, ad hominem is addressing the person, instead of addressing the argument the person makes.
The fact that it is relevant to the argument is still addressing the person and not the argument, also see argumentum ad verecundiam and credentialism.
And Palin's argument is based on a Strawman argument. "You're like a kid on the playground who says punch me in the face and I'm not going to retaliate." She made a stupid claim so she deserves a dismissive answer.
your absolutely right it was a ad hominem but Sarah Palin's assessment on nuclear non-proliferation is asinine and what he said isn't untrue either. She is the furthest thing from an expert, this shit is weak
What you're overlooking here is that not all questions that are asked, nor statements made, are worthy of an answer/response simply because they were asked/made. Obama was dismissing her criticism out of hand because it was erroneous and a waste of his time, and the interviewer should have realized that. He handled the question well.
Also, he never said Sarah Palin was wrong. He just didn't take her opinion into consideration being she is not an expert on nuclear issues. There is nothing wrong with that because Palin only insinuated that Obama was wrong and did not present her own argument as to why he is.
@DeekyDicawdo No he didn't say it, but he implied it. Politicians imply things all the time, so they can spin it later on if necessary to mean something else.
@kriskats19 Obama can't imply she is wrong about something when she didn't say anything. He did imply that she was wrong about himself being wrong, but Palin did not make any argument for another strategy.
The example you used doesn't really work that well. First of all he did not respond to what Palin said at all and made it clear. Second, what is Palin's claim besides describing how he is making decisions? Palin did not claim to have or present a better way of handling things. Palin's claim had a fallacy too, she states "no other administration would do it". The amount of administrations that do or don't do something is irrelevant to whether something works. And it is true, she is not an expert.
NOT AD HOMINEM. He's not arguing with Sarah Palin. His dialogue is with the newscaster. The newscaster is using appeal to authority, Sarah Palin. Obama claims Sarah Palin is not an authority.
Nice try. Ad hominem against sarah palin would have to involve an argument with sarah palin.
...I mean technically it would be ad hominem to say hey that plumber isn't qualified to really comment on brain surgery too because maybe the comment is correct. But it would be just as silly to let Sarah Palin make policy about nuclear proliferation as it would be to let Joe the Plumber perform brain surgery. More so.
Hmm, I reckon BOTH politicians are full of baloney. Sarah Palin started off with a false analogy: Obama is like a kid on a playground saying, "Punch me in the face and I'm not going to retaliate." Obama's ad hominem was, "The last I checked, Sarah Palin's not much of an expert on nuclear issues."
I feel like Obama engaged in this ad hominem because the way Palin phrased her claim made it impossible to be taken serious. To me it was a rightful ad hominem.
Given the fact that Palin's initial 'point' was in itself an Ad-hom, should Obama have even given it, or her the credence he actually did with his answer?
To call "Ad-hom" one first needs to have an 'argument' to present - she didn't, all she did was liken Obama to a schoolyard mentality...
So while the definition is spot on, the example you've chosen actually plays the other way...
Questioning Credential of an opinion person on an relevant issue is not Ad Hominem. For example, you could not prescribe drugs to tread an illness unless you are a doctor. Sarah Palin claim was simple false, and since she is not known to be a foreign affairs expert of any kind, it was correct to dismiss her.
Basically it is you who is making the Ad Hominem attack.
I thought ad hominems were insults with no relevance to the topic of argument. If not then ad hominems just means any insult brought into the argument, period.
You do not have to be an expert on nuclear issues to be right. You do not have to be a scientist to be right on scientific claims or be a musician to be right on musical claims.
but its still ad hominem because he indicated she must be wrong just because she isnt an expert in that area. as well as that may be, that does not render her point invalid.
@THEwinsauceofTETRIS I agree that both are exercising the hominem fallacy but Obama also recognizes the straw man fallacy and we're taught that the best response to this is to ignore her. The inherent invalidity of her point renders it invalid. Using nuclear weaponry on a defenseless nation is bad? Get real Palin...
@THEwinsauceofTETRIS This is NOT an ad hominem attack. If Pres Obama was saying she's an idiot so don't listen to her, THAT would be ad hominem. Simply saying that she lacks expertise is arguable and/or demonstrable, therefore allowed. The trouble is people like this poster who have a little bit of knowledge (in this case, about logic) and are dangerous. BTW, her point is indeed invalid.
@thoof2001 "Simply saying that she lacks expertise is arguable and/or demonstrable, therefore allowed."
No, you're dishonest. "Simply saying that she lacks expertise" = "...saying that she lacks expertise" = "...that she lacks expertise" = "...she lacks expertise" = "...so don't listen to her."
You're a hypocrite. I see through your pointless argument, look how easily I boiled it down to you. You think you're smart but you're simply not. You're biased, naive, irrational, elitist.
@DOHC2L Wow, thank you for that very fine demonstration of an ad hominem attack. Here's mine: you are delusional. do not know me at all. You dismiss me as irrational. I ask any other posters here - "Did I really come off as irrational in my original comment?" Oh, and thank you for characterizing me as one of the elite; not smart, alas, but elite nonetheless.
@thoof2001 "...that very fine demonstration of an ad hominem attack."
My attacked you because of the merit-less argument you made: "Simply saying that she lacks expertise is arguable and/or demonstrable, therefore allowed" That's not a valid argument, because something "is arguable and/or demonstrable" doesn't imply it is "...therefore allowed". That's not deduction, that's you being presumptuous.
I called you elitist, not an 'elite'. You have an elitist attitude towards Palin.
It's good that you recognize a logical fallacy when you see one. And kudos for scouring Obama interviews to find something that could loosely fit the description. A much easier task would be to watch Fox News for any given 5 minutes --you could find about 8. :)
@sinistar99 No, actually, that exactly fits the description. Irrelevant to whether it's bill o'rielly, John Stewart, Sarah Palin, Michelle bachman, Obama, G dubya, or any other governmental or media retard. They all pull the ad hom bullshit. This EXACTLY fits the description of ad hominem. But I guess your def and didn't hear the part where he defines ad hominem. Or you are retarded. Sorry, but your lord and savior Obama is a piece of shit, just like the rest of em.
Actually Obama never says her claim is true or false. He just says he's not going to respond to her claims. The implication is he's only going to listen to claims by people with some proven qualifications.
why didn't he respond with evidence that the claims aren't true? it wasn't that bogus of a claim even though she said it. he evaded responding with regards to the claim, and responded at her instead. @sinistar99
@seanmartvt09 Ad Hominem would be to imply that her claims are false on the basis of her character. He's not addressing her claims at all. Therefor it's not an ad hominem argument. He's simply taking the natural approach any intelligent person would take. If you have a brain tumor you're going to want advice from neurosergeons, not basketball coaches. He's simply stating an odvious fact. Why should he or anyone else a crap what she thinks about nuclear proliferation?
@sinistar99 this is different then seeking advice from a credible source, this is addressing criticism from a woman representing a much larger view about how to handle ourselves as a country in the face of unknown hypothetical future threats. i really don't know how to articulate it anymore than that. If it is acceptable for Obama to avoid criticism from anyone who is not an expert in things he is not an expert in himself, then what use is there to dissent?
@seanmartvt09 That's true. This is technically an example of the ad hominem fallacy. If they were in a debate and he used that as his retort to some or other point of hers it would not be acceptable.
@seanmartvt09 One could dissent with a well educated world view based on facts rather than ideology. Why should Obama waste his time arguing nuclear policy with someone who's qualifications on the subject doesn't stretch beyond "hockey mom." What more is there to say?
@sinistar99 This issue at its heart is a questioning of whether or not he is even listening to the experts, or maybe if there even is a expert in handling the morals and ethics of determining the action of our country against an unknown hypothetical future threat form a nonnuclear country. I really think we should question this decision, so that there is clarity for all of us. avoiding talking about the reasoning by writing her off ignores the motivations for asking such questions.
@seanmartvt09 Obama has a secretary of defense and other foreign policy advisors as all presidents do and neither Palin's nor her speechwriter's(who provided Palin's quote) expertise stack up. In either event the key phrase is "self-protection", implying that Obama puts himself before the good of his country. This was about putting Obama on the defensive and Obama was wise not to engage that. Obama has explained and defended the idea before and after Palin's remark.
Now, If i (..a northern european) was to propogate that the US definately ought to become a nation headed by a moronic, belligerant housewife, -and that any controversy thus regarding would be parallel with a crave for satanic communism, -
..Would any expressed reservations
-regarding my entitlement to have a say - the relevance of my opinion -or my irrational argumentation-
Well that was a circumstantial ad hominem attack in which in this case it wasn't necessarily a fallacy - the questioning of credibility of the person is also important. In this case Palin's credibility was attacked.
Abusive ad hominems for example are fallacies for sure.
Andy Chan, brush up on your vocabulary. Obama did not attack Palin, he simply responded to an attack BY Palin. You are right about the ad hominem but that is an appropriate response for a detractor who is out to antagonize and slander rather than debate.
the attack was not on him, it was on the fact that no other administration would contrive of such a policy of avoidance based on trust and not reality, in the matter of self protection. the attack was on her, using the fact that shes not a nuclear expert to avoid discussing the claim. @funkbrother216
@seanmartvt09 Palin did attack Obama first by accusing him of "contriving a policy of avoidance based on trust and not reality in the matter of self protection". Ditch your zealotry for a second and ask yourself rather or not this is an attack on Obama's character rather than just his judgement. When a political celebrity who holds no office attacks a sitting president's character with an already disproven fact, that president should dismiss them via ad hominem rather than take the bait.
@funkbrother216 i'm not being a zealot., that term is loaded with assumptions i'm not making, nor is she. I'd like to avoid getting 'meta' on this debate, if you please. This is not an attack on Obama's character in as far as its not concerning him as a person, its concerning his actions. If he thinks it will do good, then he should have no problems defending his beliefs on this. Your assumption here is that it is already a proven fact, that is not true, that ignores the controversy entirely.
Although logically true Obama was wise not to dignify her comment with a response. Logic is a great tool in finding truth but not always the best course of action. Anyone who's ever been married knows this.
ShadeToSun 1 week ago
It's not a fallacy if it's widely known that Person A is a reliable producer of false claims. :-p
tlcambell 1 week ago
That is not an ad hominem. She makes a claim about nuclear policies, and he points out her lack of expertise in the matter. This IS in fact a response to the claim. Sometimes refutations can be insulting and not be an ad hom. An ad hom in this case would be if Obama were to say something like "Well she's ugly" or "But she's from Alaska" or something irrelevant.
Quetzalcoatlv3p14 2 weeks ago
Seems to me she used an ad hominem first, by attempting to descredit obama's nuclear policy by comparing him to a schoolchild, clearly as explicit claim to make, yet, less grounded of an argument.
UtopiaMinor666 1 month ago
@UtopiaMinor666 Correct.
newyawker123 4 weeks ago
It wasn't an ad hominem.
Sarah Palin put forward an argumentum ad populum fallacy. He acknowledged he didn't have a response because quite frankly the argument presented didn't warrent one.
If she'd presented a logical argument or supported her fallacious argument with fact then his response might have been a reverse appeal to authority. But not an ad hominem. She never presented a logical argument so his dismissal of the assertion is justified.
I may dislike Obama but I value integrity.
DieudonneSeal 1 month ago
I wouldn't give any attention to Palin anyways. Even though it was a fallacious argument, it wasn't voiced out to mislead people as it is usually the case. To me, it was a proper response. You can't go around and reply to every single idiot.
MihaZ 1 month ago
yes,..yes...yes...whilte its clear barack is using ad hominem...can i point out to you that clearly there are times in which ad hominem is HIGHLY APPROPRIATE AND DEMONSTRATES MUCH MORE GOOD SENSE TO UTILIZE over debating the argument seriously. Here is an old paraphrased expression which I hope makes my point clearly : "When one argues with a FOOL it becomes increasingly difficult to determine just WHO is the FOOL and WHO is NOT". Obama ad hominem response in this case was 100% correctly used.
keybobrob 1 month ago
@keybobrob What if another person (one who is not typically referred to as an idiot) had made the same assertion Sarah Palin had made and Barack Obama responded in the same fashion? Would the ad hominem still be valid?
You have defended Obama's comment due to your personal views on Sarah Palin's character rather than on the validity of her comment. Your argument is an ad hominem, one that in this case was 100% incorrectly used.
SouthernersSax 1 month ago
@Southerner dude..I totally get ur point..i got it before u made it. I didn't need for you to point out the obvious.My first sentence should have CLEARLY pointed out that he was using ad hominem!! Hello..My point is NOT about the criteria that stipulates appropriate conduct when debating, if it were you would be100% correct! SO, to make my point even clearer...If Palin said that 2+2=4, I would DISMISS everyword that came out of her mouth, because to engage her is LUNACY even when she is CORRECT!
keybobrob 1 month ago
@keybobrob The point to which I responded is that you have defended an ad hominem argument. It is *never* appropriate to use or defend an ad hominem argument. You stated blatantly that this was acceptable behavior. The entire point of the video was to demonstrate Barack Obama's use of an ad hominem argument. Attempting to discuss the validity of Sarah Palin is not the point, so don't change the subject. You also never answered the question I posed to you. I await your reply on the matter.
SouthernersSax 1 month ago
@South Perhaps u just like 2believe that all things are as simple as u think. If u read what I wrote..i said in the context of ur argument u are 100% correct!...perhaps ur so wrapped up in ur need to be right that u missed the fact that I agreed with the fact that he used ad hominem..its obvious that he dismissed her comment based on the lack of respect he had for her. D-UH any idiot can see that. My point is ENTIRELY different.but ur caught into this notion of the TEN COMMANDMENTS of debating.
keybobrob 1 month ago
@keybobrob I have understood your point from the beginning. I also understand that it is off topic. My point is that your entire argument is invalid due to your ad hominem. People portraying ad hominems as legitimate arguments is among the many reasons why comment threads as a whole cannot be taken seriously by the public. Plus, you *still* have yet to address the question I posed in my initial comment. While you answer it, address this one: What do you mean by "u", "2believe", and "ur"?
SouthernersSax 1 month ago
Comment removed
keybobrob 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@South YES,..NOW ur finally "closer" to getting the point, my locked in friend, Release urself from the box if ur able. It was ENTIRELY MEANT to be "apple&oranges". 100% intentional..because i already knew what ad hominem meant from the onset there was no need to debate or clairfy it with someone who agrees w/u,..thats kinda futile,.yes? I made an entirely different and yes OFF TOPIC point!..one of TRANSCENDENTAL significance..as opposed to an AP English project. Get it or not, i'm done. peace.
keybobrob 1 month ago
That wasn't just an ad hominem. That was an inverse appeal to authority (i.e. because I'm not an expert in bioethics, I can't make a tenable bioethical argument).
AlxyWZ 2 months ago
This is not an Ad Hominem.
Obama simply refuses to answer and gives Palin's poor expertise as a reason to not reply.
He doesn't agree nor disagree with Palin, so no argument, no fallacy.
In fact, you might be committing a "begging the question" yourself here.
henkvanderlaak 2 months ago
what retard made this video. sound like a dick sucking faggot too. Sarah Palin is no nuclear expert that is the truth not an attack on her. its just like a plumber telling a doctor how to perform a surgical or medical procedure and you refuse to listen to them because they have no training or experience in the medical field that's not an attack. Sarah Palin is an idiot anyway making decision to use nuclear bomb on any nation is not easy one it is a complex one that sets a lot of precedents
flintskull1 2 months ago
Well done. You found a politician using ad homs.
Welcome to reality.
Artwich 2 months ago
Obama is a dumb negroloid therefore he is just another liar put in position by bleeding heart liberals and other dumb negroloids.
coonlyncher 2 months ago
@coonlyncher Your handle says it all. Please go crawl back into your MIssissippi hole and leave the world to us humans. Incidentally, 'negroloid' is not a word. This IS 2012, isn't it?
thoof2001 2 months ago
@thoof2001 Negroloid is a Retarded nigger. I.E. every fucking bootlip burrhead in the world.
coonlyncher 2 months ago
This is an ad hominem attack from Sarah Palin against Barak Obama due to his policy; which you omit. His response is not an attack on Sarah Palin. It is a doubt of the validity of her claim. Which implies that the claim is unsound, not false. This is basic logic. It is the same as a claim that is true but based on irrational methods.
senglord 3 months ago
Actually, President Obama was right to say she doesn't know anything about the subject. However, he might have backed this up with his own reasoning. Either way, this was a conversation, not a debate. He had no reason to. If someone asked me about Kent Hovind's theory about peach pits being good for you, I would say that Hovind is a moron, and has no clue what he is talking about. There is no reason to add anything else. There is more info, but listing a slew of facts stops a conversation dead.
skywize 3 months ago
@skywize As for Palin herself, I would simply assume she is wrong until I get facts to prove otherwise since she has proved herself to be quite the dimwit.
skywize 3 months ago
This guy's video is stupid, he doesn't know anything!
JonasPolsky 3 months ago
Instead of addressing the content of this video, If I were to refer to the poster of this video as a naive child lacking the wisdom to produce an accurate analysis of any political issue, would that be an ad hominem fallacy?
User5973 3 months ago
and the irony is.............. neither is he.
Eyes1919 3 months ago
In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. ALSO ONLY IRRELEVANT use of it is an ad hominem, it was relevant in this case. Red herring.
MrAgnosticFundy 3 months ago 5
Comment removed
MrAgnosticFundy 3 months ago
Comment removed
MrAgnosticFundy 3 months ago
Clearly some fallacies and insults being made, not sure if it really fits an ad hominem though. He didn't really attack her in my point of view just pointed out that he wasn't aware she was an expert in that field, to me an ad hominem is taking place only when the insult is aimed at avoiding the argument by degrading one's character. If in fact the statement that she is not an expert is true, then it's relevant to the argument. If anything it was just a red herring as he didn't want to answer.
dreamerwebdev 3 months ago
@dreamerwebdev It does not have to be an attack or insult to be an ad hominem, simply put, ad hominem is addressing the person, instead of addressing the argument the person makes.
The fact that it is relevant to the argument is still addressing the person and not the argument, also see argumentum ad verecundiam and credentialism.
TheStrangerInTheRye 3 months ago
Didn't Sarah Palin create a false comparison via straw man argument?
Barack says "I won't attack those who pose no threat to me."
Sarah says "Barack won't punch if he gets punched."
It would follow that using an ad hominem against a straw man is fine. You can't hurt a straw man anyway. They aren't alive.
UniversalPotentate 4 months ago
@UniversalPotentate Nice...but straw men are people too, aren't they?
Proteus311 3 months ago
yea, he's right because he never bothers to support his decision, just immediately discredits her.
mgreene11111 4 months ago
They were deemed false when she opened her mouth, hence obama ignoring them.
skydome29 4 months ago
And Palin's argument is based on a Strawman argument. "You're like a kid on the playground who says punch me in the face and I'm not going to retaliate." She made a stupid claim so she deserves a dismissive answer.
Klinkerklunk 4 months ago 2
I think he committed a Red Herring. Because what he said is true but he avoided the question;)
GreenDivaStore 4 months ago
well she used a false analogy fallacy. look that one up.
dadbernbullmess 4 months ago
your absolutely right it was a ad hominem but Sarah Palin's assessment on nuclear non-proliferation is asinine and what he said isn't untrue either. She is the furthest thing from an expert, this shit is weak
Tmonstaa 4 months ago
What you're overlooking here is that not all questions that are asked, nor statements made, are worthy of an answer/response simply because they were asked/made. Obama was dismissing her criticism out of hand because it was erroneous and a waste of his time, and the interviewer should have realized that. He handled the question well.
2048scotty 4 months ago
Also, he never said Sarah Palin was wrong. He just didn't take her opinion into consideration being she is not an expert on nuclear issues. There is nothing wrong with that because Palin only insinuated that Obama was wrong and did not present her own argument as to why he is.
DeekyDicawdo 4 months ago
@DeekyDicawdo You support credentials? Credentials can be falsified and run by way of money.
TimJSwan89 4 months ago
@DeekyDicawdo No he didn't say it, but he implied it. Politicians imply things all the time, so they can spin it later on if necessary to mean something else.
kriskats19 4 months ago
@kriskats19 Obama can't imply she is wrong about something when she didn't say anything. He did imply that she was wrong about himself being wrong, but Palin did not make any argument for another strategy.
DeekyDicawdo 4 months ago
The example you used doesn't really work that well. First of all he did not respond to what Palin said at all and made it clear. Second, what is Palin's claim besides describing how he is making decisions? Palin did not claim to have or present a better way of handling things. Palin's claim had a fallacy too, she states "no other administration would do it". The amount of administrations that do or don't do something is irrelevant to whether something works. And it is true, she is not an expert.
DeekyDicawdo 4 months ago
Sarah Palin herself is using appeal to tradition, and Obama retaliates with another fallacy. Haiz politics nowadays
williamjpiano 5 months ago
NOT AD HOMINEM. He's not arguing with Sarah Palin. His dialogue is with the newscaster. The newscaster is using appeal to authority, Sarah Palin. Obama claims Sarah Palin is not an authority.
Nice try. Ad hominem against sarah palin would have to involve an argument with sarah palin.
bvolsky 6 months ago 4
...I mean technically it would be ad hominem to say hey that plumber isn't qualified to really comment on brain surgery too because maybe the comment is correct. But it would be just as silly to let Sarah Palin make policy about nuclear proliferation as it would be to let Joe the Plumber perform brain surgery. More so.
sinistar99 6 months ago
Hmm, I reckon BOTH politicians are full of baloney. Sarah Palin started off with a false analogy: Obama is like a kid on a playground saying, "Punch me in the face and I'm not going to retaliate." Obama's ad hominem was, "The last I checked, Sarah Palin's not much of an expert on nuclear issues."
drsingingeagle 6 months ago
I feel like Obama engaged in this ad hominem because the way Palin phrased her claim made it impossible to be taken serious. To me it was a rightful ad hominem.
esiosan 6 months ago 2
Thanks. Knowledge is POWER!!!
darrouken 7 months ago
Thank you! Great example
:D
SlashKidGuitar 7 months ago
Given the fact that Palin's initial 'point' was in itself an Ad-hom, should Obama have even given it, or her the credence he actually did with his answer?
To call "Ad-hom" one first needs to have an 'argument' to present - she didn't, all she did was liken Obama to a schoolyard mentality...
So while the definition is spot on, the example you've chosen actually plays the other way...
Good video, though, nonetheless for that :-)
BrianJ1962 8 months ago
Questioning Credential of an opinion person on an relevant issue is not Ad Hominem. For example, you could not prescribe drugs to tread an illness unless you are a doctor. Sarah Palin claim was simple false, and since she is not known to be a foreign affairs expert of any kind, it was correct to dismiss her.
Basically it is you who is making the Ad Hominem attack.
JerezJulio 8 months ago
Get a life ;)
ZBaly 8 months ago
I thought ad hominems were insults with no relevance to the topic of argument. If not then ad hominems just means any insult brought into the argument, period.
KittyzKatterz 9 months ago
He didn't question credentials. He never questioned credentials. He claimed she wasn't an expert.
Both committed the same fallacy, though.
Audiofalcon7 9 months ago
Questioning someones credentials is NOT an ad hominem.
ryan84160 9 months ago
That's not really an ad hom attack. The fact that she is not an expert on nuclear non-proliferation is a perfectly valid response to that claim.
Had he said, "Well, she's a woman, so she's in no position to comment on nuclear non-proliferation..." that would be a fallacious ad hom statement.
wuphat 10 months ago
@wuphat It is not.
You do not have to be an expert on nuclear issues to be right. You do not have to be a scientist to be right on scientific claims or be a musician to be right on musical claims.
idricool 10 months ago
@idricool I agree, but that doesn't make it an ad hom attack.
wuphat 10 months ago
this can be termed as a valid ad hominem terrible example
krakmynutz 10 months ago
This isn't really a very good example. Obama didn't attack Sara Palin personally, he just questioned her credentials to opine about nuclear policy.
Failcotai 10 months ago
This is not ad hominem. It's perfectly legitimate to question the expertise of someone making a claim.
wideheadofknowledge 11 months ago 2
@wideheadofknowledge
but its still ad hominem because he indicated she must be wrong just because she isnt an expert in that area. as well as that may be, that does not render her point invalid.
THEwinsauceofTETRIS 10 months ago 19
@THEwinsauceofTETRIS I agree that both are exercising the hominem fallacy but Obama also recognizes the straw man fallacy and we're taught that the best response to this is to ignore her. The inherent invalidity of her point renders it invalid. Using nuclear weaponry on a defenseless nation is bad? Get real Palin...
Brysey19 3 months ago
@THEwinsauceofTETRIS This is NOT an ad hominem attack. If Pres Obama was saying she's an idiot so don't listen to her, THAT would be ad hominem. Simply saying that she lacks expertise is arguable and/or demonstrable, therefore allowed. The trouble is people like this poster who have a little bit of knowledge (in this case, about logic) and are dangerous. BTW, her point is indeed invalid.
thoof2001 2 months ago
@thoof2001 "Simply saying that she lacks expertise is arguable and/or demonstrable, therefore allowed."
No, you're dishonest. "Simply saying that she lacks expertise" = "...saying that she lacks expertise" = "...that she lacks expertise" = "...she lacks expertise" = "...so don't listen to her."
You're a hypocrite. I see through your pointless argument, look how easily I boiled it down to you. You think you're smart but you're simply not. You're biased, naive, irrational, elitist.
DOHC2L 2 months ago
@DOHC2L Wow, thank you for that very fine demonstration of an ad hominem attack. Here's mine: you are delusional. do not know me at all. You dismiss me as irrational. I ask any other posters here - "Did I really come off as irrational in my original comment?" Oh, and thank you for characterizing me as one of the elite; not smart, alas, but elite nonetheless.
thoof2001 1 month ago
@thoof2001 "...that very fine demonstration of an ad hominem attack."
My attacked you because of the merit-less argument you made: "Simply saying that she lacks expertise is arguable and/or demonstrable, therefore allowed" That's not a valid argument, because something "is arguable and/or demonstrable" doesn't imply it is "...therefore allowed". That's not deduction, that's you being presumptuous.
I called you elitist, not an 'elite'. You have an elitist attitude towards Palin.
DOHC2L 1 month ago
It's good that you recognize a logical fallacy when you see one. And kudos for scouring Obama interviews to find something that could loosely fit the description. A much easier task would be to watch Fox News for any given 5 minutes --you could find about 8. :)
sinistar99 1 year ago 26
@sinistar99 No, actually, that exactly fits the description. Irrelevant to whether it's bill o'rielly, John Stewart, Sarah Palin, Michelle bachman, Obama, G dubya, or any other governmental or media retard. They all pull the ad hom bullshit. This EXACTLY fits the description of ad hominem. But I guess your def and didn't hear the part where he defines ad hominem. Or you are retarded. Sorry, but your lord and savior Obama is a piece of shit, just like the rest of em.
PaperSoapy 7 months ago
@sinistar99 fox news is too easy
codywrite 6 months ago
@sinistar99 oh so you can interperit what he said differently?
jo3jo3221 4 months ago
@sinistar99 "kudos for scouring Obama interviews to find something that could loosely fit the description" u mad. sinistar99 disliked this 13 times.
xxxxAXIxxxx 3 months ago
Although it IS an ad hominem, Palin IS an idiot. And so is HE. And so are YOU. And so am I. This is a world full of idiots.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
Actually Obama never says her claim is true or false. He just says he's not going to respond to her claims. The implication is he's only going to listen to claims by people with some proven qualifications.
sinistar99 1 year ago
why didn't he respond with evidence that the claims aren't true? it wasn't that bogus of a claim even though she said it. he evaded responding with regards to the claim, and responded at her instead. @sinistar99
seanmartvt09 1 year ago
@seanmartvt09 Ad Hominem would be to imply that her claims are false on the basis of her character. He's not addressing her claims at all. Therefor it's not an ad hominem argument. He's simply taking the natural approach any intelligent person would take. If you have a brain tumor you're going to want advice from neurosergeons, not basketball coaches. He's simply stating an odvious fact. Why should he or anyone else a crap what she thinks about nuclear proliferation?
sinistar99 1 year ago
@sinistar99 this is different then seeking advice from a credible source, this is addressing criticism from a woman representing a much larger view about how to handle ourselves as a country in the face of unknown hypothetical future threats. i really don't know how to articulate it anymore than that. If it is acceptable for Obama to avoid criticism from anyone who is not an expert in things he is not an expert in himself, then what use is there to dissent?
seanmartvt09 1 year ago
@seanmartvt09 That's true. This is technically an example of the ad hominem fallacy. If they were in a debate and he used that as his retort to some or other point of hers it would not be acceptable.
sinistar99 1 year ago
@sinistar99
sinistar99 1 year ago
@seanmartvt09 One could dissent with a well educated world view based on facts rather than ideology. Why should Obama waste his time arguing nuclear policy with someone who's qualifications on the subject doesn't stretch beyond "hockey mom." What more is there to say?
sinistar99 4 months ago
@sinistar99 This issue at its heart is a questioning of whether or not he is even listening to the experts, or maybe if there even is a expert in handling the morals and ethics of determining the action of our country against an unknown hypothetical future threat form a nonnuclear country. I really think we should question this decision, so that there is clarity for all of us. avoiding talking about the reasoning by writing her off ignores the motivations for asking such questions.
seanmartvt09 1 year ago
@seanmartvt09 Obama has a secretary of defense and other foreign policy advisors as all presidents do and neither Palin's nor her speechwriter's(who provided Palin's quote) expertise stack up. In either event the key phrase is "self-protection", implying that Obama puts himself before the good of his country. This was about putting Obama on the defensive and Obama was wise not to engage that. Obama has explained and defended the idea before and after Palin's remark.
funkbrother216 1 year ago
@funkbrother216 well thats good, i'll look into it more and educate myself.
seanmartvt09 1 year ago
Ok, then..
Now, If i (..a northern european) was to propogate that the US definately ought to become a nation headed by a moronic, belligerant housewife, -and that any controversy thus regarding would be parallel with a crave for satanic communism, -
..Would any expressed reservations
-regarding my entitlement to have a say - the relevance of my opinion -or my irrational argumentation-
..be considered Ad Hominem-attacks?
RePetes1 1 year ago
@SomeWhiteDude3 Whether or not Sarah Palin knows the first thing about nuclear issues is hardly irrelevant to this particular argument.
Fangs1978 1 year ago
That which is claimed without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Fangs1978 1 year ago
Well that was a circumstantial ad hominem attack in which in this case it wasn't necessarily a fallacy - the questioning of credibility of the person is also important. In this case Palin's credibility was attacked.
Abusive ad hominems for example are fallacies for sure.
ISMASHYOUBRO 1 year ago
Andy Chan, brush up on your vocabulary. Obama did not attack Palin, he simply responded to an attack BY Palin. You are right about the ad hominem but that is an appropriate response for a detractor who is out to antagonize and slander rather than debate.
funkbrother216 1 year ago
the attack was not on him, it was on the fact that no other administration would contrive of such a policy of avoidance based on trust and not reality, in the matter of self protection. the attack was on her, using the fact that shes not a nuclear expert to avoid discussing the claim. @funkbrother216
seanmartvt09 1 year ago
Comment removed
funkbrother216 1 year ago
@seanmartvt09 Palin did attack Obama first by accusing him of "contriving a policy of avoidance based on trust and not reality in the matter of self protection". Ditch your zealotry for a second and ask yourself rather or not this is an attack on Obama's character rather than just his judgement. When a political celebrity who holds no office attacks a sitting president's character with an already disproven fact, that president should dismiss them via ad hominem rather than take the bait.
funkbrother216 1 year ago
@funkbrother216 i'm not being a zealot., that term is loaded with assumptions i'm not making, nor is she. I'd like to avoid getting 'meta' on this debate, if you please. This is not an attack on Obama's character in as far as its not concerning him as a person, its concerning his actions. If he thinks it will do good, then he should have no problems defending his beliefs on this. Your assumption here is that it is already a proven fact, that is not true, that ignores the controversy entirely.
seanmartvt09 1 year ago
Nice example, Sarah Palin is an idiot though!
MaghoxFr 1 year ago