When you read the attacks on Alabama Senate candidate Judge Roy Moore, one thing comes to mind. In all these attacks, there has yet to be a substantiated charge against the Judge. Apparently, if you do not like the Judge, that is enough to disqualify him from office. Here, the subtle and not so subtle ways of the left are closely examined. read and get educated.
As Written By Jeffrey Folks for the American Thinker:
They play the race card. If that doesn’t stick, they toss out the gender card, as they have with Judge Moore. If the opponent survives these attacks, then it’s the class card, as it was with Mitt Romney. If none of this works, it’s the LGBT card. Then there’s the “E” card – just “too extreme,” as with Barry Goldwater and Judge Bork. When all of these fail, as they did against candidate Donald Trump – and all of them were played – the left freaks out and starts throwing things.
All of these attacks are versions of the same logical fallacy: the ad hominem argument. Ad hominem attacks are called “fallacies” because they have nothing to do with logic per se. They intentionally deflect the discussion from ideas to personal issues instead of policy ideas or questions about one’s ability to perform the job. The fact that Mitt Romney’s wife owned two Cadillacs, something clueless Romney cited as evidence of her unpretentiousness (Cadillac, not Mercedes – get it?), was held up as damning evidence that the candidate was out of touch. In one poll, two thirds of respondents stated their opinion that Romney “doesn’t care about people like me.” It was over after that, all without discussion of a single idea.
By its very nature, ad hominem is an “impure” form of debate. It shifts the argument to the level of schoolyard accusations: “I don’t like you because you’re not nice.” “No, you’re the one who’s not nice.” That pretty much sums up the Democratic Party’s line, especially since the 2000 election. (Don’t vote for Bush – he’s a “cowboy,” and his supporters are “bushies.” Does that make sense?)
Actually, in the case of Judge Moore, as it was with Clarence Thomas, “I don’t like you because you’re not nice” presupposes that one’s opponent actually, in some respect, is not nice. In the case of Judge Moore, it’s “I don’t like you because you may have made advances to young women 38 years ago, although no compelling evidence of such exists.” In other words, it’s not just ad hominem, but ad hominem based on a personal failing that may or may not exist.
The clincher in the Moore case is the accusation, first published in the Washington Post, that he once made advances on a fourteen-year-old girl. The….
KEEP READING THERE IS WAY MORE HERE: