2 svend robinson is a homosexual 3 we should reserve

This preview shows page 27 - 31 out of 49 pages.

2. SVEND ROBINSON is A HOMOSEXUAL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. We should reserve judgement about the claim that THE SITTING GOVERNMENT’S MINISTRY OF DEFENSE HOLDS AT LEAST ONE INCORRECT STANCE. DISCUSSION We need to determine whether being Q:”A HOMOSEXUAL” provides us with grounds for thinking that someone might not be impartial about the the claim t hat P: “THE SITTING GOVERNMENT’S MINISTRY OF DEFENSE HOLDS AT LEAST ONE INCORRECT STANCE”. Suppose someone is a homosexual. This means that someone is sexually attracted to people of one’s own sex. Beyond someone’s personal life, specifically their interpersonal relationships, homosexuality does not in general affect things. Q would therefore not give us grounds for thinking that someone might not be impartial about P. This does not meet the first condition for a good abusive ad hominem condition. This makes the argument fallacious. The conclusion states that we should reserve judgement about the claim P. This meets the second condition for a good abusive ad hominem argument and would strengthen the argument. This argument is fallacious. Passage 38.
Al Gore left not a dry eye in the house at the Democratic Convention as he described his sis ter’s death from smoking - induced cancer. Gore failed to mention that for some years following her death, his family continued to grow tobacco and that be continued to accept campaign money from tobacco interests. argument type - circumstantial ad hominem STANDARD FORM 1. AL GORE claimed that WE SHOULD STOP SMOKING. 2. AL GORE was BENEFITING FROM THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY THROUGH ACCEPTING CAMPAIGN MONEY FROM TOBACCO INTERESTS AND HIS FAMILY GROWING TOBACCO. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. We should reserve judgement about the claim that WE SHOULD STOP SMOKING. DISCUSSION We need to determine whether Q: “BENEFITTING FROM THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY THROUGH ACCEPTING CAMPAIGN MONEY FROM TOBACCO INTERESTS AND HIS FAMILY GROWING TOBACCO” is pragmatically inconsistent with the claim that P: “WE SHOULD STOP SMOKING”. The condition of pragmatic inconsistency is met when P is logically inconsistent with a sentence R in which X: “AL GORE” is committed to accepting by virtu e of Q. P is logically inconsistent with that sentence if and only if they cannot be true at the same time. From this passage, when Q is a feature that someone possesses, they are by no means
Passage 39. Dr. Jones is of course a student of the environment. However he is an employee of the forest industry. This indicates that we should not simply accept what he says about clear-cutting without further information. argument type - abusive ad hominem STANDARD FORM 1. DR. JONES claims that WE SHOULD PRACTICE CLEAR CUTTING. 2. DR. JONES is AN EMPLOYEE OF THE FOREST INDUSTRY. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. We should reserve judgement about the claim that WE SHOULD PRACTICE CLEAR CUTTING. DISCUSSION
Passage 40. David Suzuki is one of those noisy environmental activists. He talks constantly about global warming. But I pay no attention to tree huggers like him.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture