I hardly think that calling Obama uninformed qualifies as an “ad hominem” attack. Please know the definition of the phrases you use. Your stretching of the definition of “ad hominem” is practically “Clintonian”, for lack of a better term.
Translated from Latin to English, “Ad Hominem” means “against the man” or “against the person.”
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A’s claim is false.
Correct application of ad hominem attack:
Gandalf: Obama is right on foreign policy.
surveyor: Obama is a dumbass.
Incorrect application of ad hominem attack:
Gandalf: Obama is right on foreign policy
surveyor: Obama is not right on foreign policy because he knows little history.
Besides, I’ve supported my arguments that he knows little of history. And, (which I will emphasize here), if Obama’s slip-up was a singular event, I would have disregarded it. However, his slip-ups are a pattern that I have already established, and these slip-ups show a fundamental lack of understanding regarding history.
Note that I have never said anything derogatory towards Obama’s character, intelligence, or beliefs. I have stated certain things, and I have backed them up with facts, with things he has said. By the way, pointing out how I disagree with his policies is not an ad hominem attack. Maybe to Obamatons like they can seem like that, but that doesn’t make it correct.
As for my views on foreign policy, who cares? I’m not in government, I’m not a policy maker. Besides, if you had a good control on reading comprehension, you would see that I’ve already answered with my thoughts on the Israel/Palestine, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. And like I’ve said many times, who cares what’s the conservative view on it. While you’ve improved your arguments by not saying “neocon” to me at the end of your statements, you’re still living by labels that are ultimately irrelevant. The argument is about Obama, and I’ve been able to keep my statements about that. Any discussion of what I think is the solution to the middle east is irrelevant because we are voting for the ones who are going to do it. Suffice it to say that my thoughts on the middle east solution is not embraced by either candidate or the majority of the american people.
I will say it is odd that you are asking me to stick to the theme of the post, and then encourage me to go off the theme (by going into the middle east).
As for McCain, if his policies are more in line with Bush, that is more or less apt. Like I’ve said, history will decide whether what Bush did was correct or not.
Lastly, based on the pattern of Obama’s statements, including the “bomb in Pearl Harbor”, I can at least deduce that he has little knowledge of history. Your assertion that Obama “couldn’t possibly” be unaware of his state’s history is an assumption and is not backed with any identifiable facts. It is an ASSUMPTION. In debating, that means there is more evidence to my arguments than yours.
(hahaha, if I ever wrote a thesis on my solution to the middle east, I think even Allan would be disturbed. I will give you a hint though – I would start by giving all muslim women refugee status. I know, I know, too crazy).
