I try to stick to names that everyone recognises when I discuss debating tactics, and *ad hom* is the usual description for using insults rather than reasoned arguments (if you want to demonstrate my point further by calling me pompous, don't let me stop you).
You can of course use *ad hominem* attacks against a group. There are presumably people who commission reports and people who make policy in the GGP, and from what you've said, you think they are basing their decisions on their desire for political power rather than their avowed interest in saving the environment. All I can say is perhaps you don't know many Green party politicians, because if they're anything like the ones I know in NZ they really *do* care about the environment, maybe too much rather than too little, since as a (cautious) advocate of nuclear power I often find they're blinded to my arguments by their ideology. As for the Russian study, of course it's still *ad hominem* if it attacks their motives rather than the science. That's what *ad hominem* means. However, as you say, it isn't *ad hom* if it can be shown to be true, *and*to have had a measurable influence on their reporting or decision making - i.e. if you can show that their bias has made them distort evidence, or do something that goes against their stated objectives. I await with interest your study on the intellectual abilities of Germans who have voted for the Green Party. On 22 November 2013 10:14, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 3:27 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> The WHO is much more trustworthy than the German Green Party, the WHO >>> has no ax to grind but if people don't think a environmental catastrophe is >>> imminent nobody is going to vote for the German Green Party. >>> >> >> > This response is an unworthy* ad hominem* attack on the German Green >> Party, >> > > I didn't know you could ad hominem (God I hate that pompous phrase for > name calling) a organization, I thought it only worked for people. Let me > ask you this, if the study was conducted by a Russian electrical > corporation that still operated nuclear power plants would you also say it > was "ad hominem" if I didn't expect the report to be unbiased? I see no > reason to believe the Green Party's report on the subject to be closer to > the truth than the Russian utility. It's just a fact of life that it's in > the interests of utility corporations to downplay the harm caused by > nuclear accidents and in the interests of the Green Party and other > environmental organizations to exaggerate them. > > > and the German people who vote for them. >> > > People who vote for the German Green Party are dimwits, and it ain't ad > hominem if it's true. > > John K Clark > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
