Ad Hominem
An A2 resident who views the anti-Israel protesters at Temple Beth Israel as “cordial neighbors” sees an argumentative fallacy in a counter-protester’s sign:
[W]hen [the counter-protester] turned toward me, I was able to read what was written on it: THESE PEOPLE ARE IDIOTS … Being analytic by nature, I first began to think of the logic of the statement in the abstract. The ad hominem fallacy — the use of language directed against an opponent in debate rather than against the opponent’s position — was well known to the ancient masters of rhetoric, and its popularity has regrettably not diminished over the centuries. It occurred to me that the anti-protester’s banner would have been more to the point had it read: THESE PEOPLE ARE WRONG … “These people are wrong'’ is a statement that challenges, but in so doing challenges the challenger to back the claim fair and square — it implies a good, clean intellectual fight.
Yeah, why couldn’t the guy just have made a reasoned, intellectual argument against his opponents’ position that Mayor Hieftje is a racist, cowardly cracker and the media is controlled by Zionists?
I’m curious. Under what circumstances do you feel that would it be appropriate to participate in a political protest in front of a place of worship? I’ll be darned if I can come up with one.
These people *are* wrong, but I doubt that counter-protest will correct the problem.
posted by LittleB on August 26th, 2006 at 12:12 pmIt would be appropriate to participate in a political protest in front of a place of worship if one’s political agenda dictated opposition to the practice of that faith.
posted by PoV on August 26th, 2006 at 12:52 pmYeah. That would be it. How silly of me to overlook that.
posted by LittleB on August 26th, 2006 at 3:31 pmSorry dude, the ad hominem is still around because IT WORKS. The average murkin wants someone to make them feel better about the way they already feel, but not make them think too much, because that’s hard.
BTW, those people were douchebags.
posted by Jake on August 26th, 2006 at 3:35 pmWill this thread see 500+ comments, like the two recent Arbor Update “discussions” related to these protests?
posted by hale on August 26th, 2006 at 7:38 pmHmm.
Don’t jinx it, or else you-know-who might show up.
posted by Jared Goldberg on August 26th, 2006 at 8:44 pmBlainey Mary, Blainey Mary, Blainey Mary
[irresistable]
posted by Jeff Dean on August 27th, 2006 at 11:28 amActually, I disagree with the article writer. I don’t really think that they are wrong - I agree with 90% of their positions, but really disagree with their methods and their hatred. Hence I would agree with the ‘idiots’ sign, and not the ‘wrong’ sign. However, my sign would say ‘Your vigils are turning people against your cause’. But that’s me.
posted by Sara on August 27th, 2006 at 11:51 amC’mon, fellas. Am I the only one that sees the direct logical link between Israel’s foreign policy and Ann Arbor Jews conducting their Sabbath worship? I mean, after all, I used to spend my Sunday mornings protesting at the St Thomas Catholic church every time controversy arose in Northern Ireland.
Oh, and while this is a bit off topic, I thought it would be appropriate to note that for about the same rent that I paid for a crammed campus slum on Washtenaw Ave, I’m now living in a spacious 2-bedroom luxury apartment with hardwood floors and a 2-car garage that overlooks the ocean in Hermosa Beach, CA.
posted by deez on August 30th, 2006 at 12:47 am“I agree with 90% of their positions, but really disagree with their methods and their hatred.”
At the risk of igniting new activity on this thread, here’s a couple recent links that are “on topic” in a “big picture” sense of the term. Both of these originally appeared as columns in a recent issue of The Nation.
One is the latest screed by Alex Cockburn, Israel on the Slide: Who’s to Blame? It provides more reasons why you may want to agree “with 90% of their positions” while hinting at the diversity of politics within Israel. Along the way, it also mentions Hezbollah workers entering the southern Lebanon bombing zone to provide one-on-one support and begin rebuilding neighborhoods (in some cases even while bombs were still falling). Hezbollah gets genuine local credibility this way.
In turn, the local A2 protesters opposed to the Israeli government’s policies would make their case better heard by also emphasizing mutual aid, relief and empathy for Lebanese and Palestinian civilians under fire, instead of focusing so singularly on financial support to Israel. Some of those who can’t be convinced to back divestment might be willing to, say, give to Red Cross / Red Crescent efforts in southern Lebanon — especially if they are approached in a more considerate manner. This could help begin real conversations on a range of related issues.
The other column is Katha Pollitt’s piece on Bush’s Islamofascism. This has to do less directly with Israel/Palestine/Lebanon, but successful broad-stroke demonization of Islam intentionally distracts the public from the bad U.S. behavior in the Mideast, blocks dwindling hopes for regional peace, and denies the area’s complexity of culture and politics. Plus, it’s a really well written article. (Links to other K.P. columns can be found on this page.)
posted by hale on September 2nd, 2006 at 9:00 pmOops… the Nation link for the Cockburn column worked earlier, but a test now gives the “subscriber only” message. The counterpunch.org version is accessible.
posted by hale on September 2nd, 2006 at 9:14 pmThe protesters are doing their thing at the synagogue to show that being anti-Israel is the same as being anti-Jewish.
posted by sue on September 18th, 2006 at 6:52 pm