The Globe and Mail and its sundry propagandists (excepting the principled Lawrence Martin, of course) continue their Sisyphean task of defending the indefensible by issuing almost daily dismissals both of the seriousness of the voter suppression crimes and of those who see those crimes as part of the pattern of Harper malfeasance evident since dear leader assumed office.
By contrast, The Toronto Star has consistently displayed its journalistic integrity and independence through relentless coverage and commentary that doesn't insult the intelligence of its readers. The latest example is to be found in Bob Hepburn's piece entitled Brian Mulroney: I owe you an apology, in which the writer argues that many of the ills of our democracy are directly attributable to Stephen Harper, who has so lowered the level of Canadian politics through his crimes and misdemeanours that huge numbers of citizens have opted out of the political process entirely.
It is an article well-worth reading, as Hepburn demonstrates what happens when an individual and his party puts winning above all else, including the good of the country.
Showing posts with label bob hepburn attack ads. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bob hepburn attack ads. Show all posts
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Are All Attack Ads The Same?
In today's Star, Bob Hepburn has an interesting article entitled Harper the king of nasty attack ads, an article well-worth reading. It got me thinking about fallacies of reason and the importance of critical thinking, subjects about which I have previously written.
So I decided to make a brief post here on one of the most common fallacies, the ad hominem, followed by video of two attack ads, one from the Liberal Party and one from The Conservatives. I will then leave you to consider whether one or both of the ads fall under the ad hominem label.
About.com offers some interesting insight on the purpose served by the fallacy known as the ad hominem, which means the attack on the person rather than on his/her arguments:
The abusive ad hominem is not just a case of directing abusive language toward another person. . . . The fallacy is committed when one engages in a personal attack as a means of ignoring, discrediting, or blunting the force of another's argument.
An example of an ad hominem would be the following statement:
I can't believe a word that Al Gore says about climate change because he couldn't even keep his marriage together.
You will notice the fact that Gore's marital status has nothing to do with the facts that he has been promoting for many years on global warming, yet the purpose here is for you to dismiss those facts by cultivating a disdain for those who experience marital failure.
Enjoy the videos:
So I decided to make a brief post here on one of the most common fallacies, the ad hominem, followed by video of two attack ads, one from the Liberal Party and one from The Conservatives. I will then leave you to consider whether one or both of the ads fall under the ad hominem label.
About.com offers some interesting insight on the purpose served by the fallacy known as the ad hominem, which means the attack on the person rather than on his/her arguments:
The abusive ad hominem is not just a case of directing abusive language toward another person. . . . The fallacy is committed when one engages in a personal attack as a means of ignoring, discrediting, or blunting the force of another's argument.
An example of an ad hominem would be the following statement:
I can't believe a word that Al Gore says about climate change because he couldn't even keep his marriage together.
You will notice the fact that Gore's marital status has nothing to do with the facts that he has been promoting for many years on global warming, yet the purpose here is for you to dismiss those facts by cultivating a disdain for those who experience marital failure.
Enjoy the videos:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)