Ray Saintonge wrote:
Chad Perrin wrote:
Ultimately we agree. A person killed in a hate crime is no more or less dead than one killed in the course of a bank robbery.
The lack of malevolence is a strong argument in favour of decriminalizing euthanasia.
We agree there, too. It's not a violation of a person's right, as far as I'm concerned.
And also, if we are to begin considering "indirect deaths", well, the US is responsible for quite a lot "indirectly".
Let's not start with the circumstantial ad hominem comparisons. It would be nice if you'd retract that statement.
I see nothing "ad hominem" in that general statement. No specific individual is being attacked.
circumstantial ad hominem (as distinct from the more commonly recognized argumentum ad hominem): the logically fallacious use, as an argument, of unflattering comparisons between disreputable or otherwise disliked figures with other participants in a debate, often achieved by implication rather than explicit statements
All "ad hominem" means is "to the person", in essence. An "argumentum ad hominem" or "ad hominem argument" is an argument that references the person, rather than the opposing argument. A "circumstantial ad hominem" is an implication of the person circumstantially with some subject of discourse, in this case mass-murdering tyrannical regimes.
The reference to the US had no value in proving the repugnance of the swastika in relation to other symbols, though it was an effective implication of unflattering comparisons of American participants in the debate to certain widely-loathed 20th century tyrants and their governments.
While I can readily recognize that there is such a phenomenon as "circumstantial ad hominem", I still can't see how it applies to the present circumstances. While the disreputable figures may have been very well identified, it strains the imagination to attempt to identify which participants were being thus compared. Any participant who so imagines himself to be the subject of such comparisons by virtue of that simple statement could very well be the victim of his own paranoid imagination.
On the other hand, I don't see why it's such a stretch to believe that the complete non-sequitur comparison of "the US" to the mass-murdering regimes of Stalin and other tyrannical dictators might be meant to cast aspersions on American participants in the discussion, particularly if they're known to be Americans (of which I'm not positive, admittedly).
I issue a conditional apology, here, though: If the statement was meant innocently, and a plausible explanation is offered for what it WAS meant to convey, I retract my statement. I should point out, thought, that I'm still not coming up with any alternative intended meanings.
The reference to the US may reflect upon the leadership of the US, whose stars and stripes are viewed by some with equal repugnance. But to the best of my knowledge the members of that leadership are not participants in our debate, and none of us living outside of the United States has suggested that our American participants should be held responsible for the excesses of their government.
No mention was made of leadership or symbolism: only to "the US". Whereas preceding discussion was confined to references to particular oppressive regimes, the statement about "the US" effectively encompasses all (roughly) 220 years of US history. Perhaps that was an oversight.
-- Chad