OK, but where is a substantive argument against Ms. Sheehan's position on this war? The above passage, part of an email circulated to untold thousands of people, is nothing more than an attempt to villify Ms. Sheehan without making one cogent argument against her position on the war. Webster's definition of ad hominem: "marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made". That is what this email is.

 

People may not agree with all of her statements, but she has laid out a far more precious sacrifice for this war than 99.998% of Americans and she doesn't deserve to be demonized. Regardless of whether or not she has placed a marker on her son's grave, who among the millions of Americans who have given nothing for this war is in a position to criticize her for that?

As soon as she stepped foot in Venezuela and praised Hugo Chavez ANY defense she had for herself went out the window. She deserves any and all criticism she gets.

 

Ask her hero Hugo how he deals with dissenting opinions.

OK, but where is a substantive argument against Ms. Sheehan's position on this war? The above passage, part of an email circulated to untold thousands of people, is nothing more than an attempt to villify Ms. Sheehan without making one cogent argument against her position on the war. Webster's definition of ad hominem: "marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made". That is what this email is.

 

People may not agree with all of her statements, but she has laid out a far more precious sacrifice for this war than 99.998% of Americans and she doesn't deserve to be demonized. Regardless of whether or not she has placed a marker on her son's grave, who among the millions of Americans who have given nothing for this war is in a position to criticize her for that?

 

 

One of the great things about living in America is that EVERYONE is allowed to form opinions of people. The fact that we live in this country gives us the right to criticize or praise anyone we want.

People may not agree with all of her statements, but she has laid out a far more precious sacrifice for this war than 99.998% of Americans and she doesn't deserve to be demonized.

The author of the email was not asked to make a substantive argument against her position. Therefore, he/she has no requirement to speak to Ms. Sheehan's position.

 

I think the point of the email is to suggest that perhaps she didn't make as big of a sacrifice as some might think. Whether right or wrong, that is the basis of the email. So, the REAL question lies in the validity of the accusations made. Can anyone refute the claims in the email?

Can anyone refute the claims in the email?

 

Here you go. Was true, now false.

 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/sheehangrave.asp

The author of the email was not asked to make a substantive argument against her position. Therefore, he/she has no requirement to speak to Ms. Sheehan's position.

 

 

I just think the practice of attacking someone's character instead of honestly disputing their position reflects the depths to which public dialogue has sunk in this country. It reflects an appeal to emotion rather than reason, and is a tactic more appropriate for fourth graders than for adults.

As soon as she stepped foot in Venezuela and praised Hugo Chavez ANY defense she had for herself went out the window. She deserves any and all criticism she gets.

 

Ask her hero Hugo how he deals with dissenting opinions.

 

And how is that relevant to the validity of her views on the decision to invade Iraq?

I just think the practice of attacking someone's character instead of honestly disputing their position reflects the depths to which public dialogue has sunk in this country.

I think it's meant to be more observational than rhetorical. It's mission is simply to suggest an element of hypocrisy on her part.

And how is that relevant to the validity of her views on the decision to invade Iraq?

 

It is relevent because there were those who claimed that because she had lost a son in the war that she had a special status and deserved to be heard. Wasn't that part of the rational behind her camping out at the Bush ranch? She claimed she was going to stay there until she was allowed to talk to Bush face-to-face. Didn't the MSM demonize Bush for not meeting with someone who had lost a son in the war?

 

Personally, I believe that losing a loved one in a war defending this country earns someone my sympathy. It does not bestow upon them a special status that requires me to heed their point of view. Her son's death did not raise Cindy's IQ nor did it validate (or invalidate) any of her political positions.

And how is that relevant to the validity of her views on the decision to invade Iraq?

 

I have NEVER, let me repeat that NEVER, said that she didn't have the right to protest the Iraqi war. I don't agree with one word that she says about it but I will fight for her right to say it, regardless of how misguided I think she is. Those of us who disagree with her have the same right to expression don't we?

 

Her actions by praising Hugo Chavez, an avowed enemy of the United States, made her not just a protester but a proponganda tool for a hostile foregin government. That's what I take issue with.

I just think the practice of attacking someone's character instead of honestly disputing their position reflects the depths to which public dialogue has sunk in this country. It reflects an appeal to emotion rather than reason, and is a tactic more appropriate for fourth graders than for adults.

 

H, I think you just made the case AGAINST Ms. Sheehan. The defense rests, your Honor.

H, I think you just made the case AGAINST Ms. Sheehan. The defense rests, your Honor.

 

 

Counselor Hearsay, this court awards a verdict in your client's favor and against Ms. Sheehan. This court wants to commend you on your very succinct yet convincing and insightful closing argument.

And so the very personal attacks (apparently based on stories of questionable veracity) are justified, while the substance of her arguments against the war and this Administration's distortions is conveniently glossed over. Nice.

And so the very personal attacks (apparently based on stories of questionable veracity) are justified, while the substance of her arguments against the war and this Administration's distortions is conveniently glossed over. Nice.

Well at least that answer wasn't slanted at all. :thumb:

 

 

 

 

 

 

And so the very personal attacks (apparently based on stories of questionable veracity) are justified, while the substance of her arguments against the war and this Administration's distortions is conveniently glossed over. Nice.

 

I think we used more than two pages of this thread debating the substance of her arguments.

Nice thread.....