The technical name in rhetoric is actually the argumetum ad hominem,a term
that has a more familiar meaning, quite distinct, in naming a fallacy of
attacking a view because of who says it. ("Well, _Justin_ believes that
too!). But it also names the (nonfallacious and indeed dialectical) approach
of arguing from premises accepted by your interlocutor. --jks
>
>I think what Charles is pointing to is the 'strategic' use of arguments
>that one's audience might find persuasive, even if one arguing it doesn't
>necessarily accept those basic premises. There must be a technical name for
>it in rhetorical studies, like "showing your opponent is a hypocrite." In
>one of my interviews on reps. I said something like "Those who hold
>property rights dear must find cause for concern when a most fundamental
>property right--the property in one's own labor--is violated." mat
>
>
>-----Original Message----- From: Charles Brown
>[mailto:CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us] Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 11:43
>AM To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com Subject: paying off ex-slaves: patriotism
>as a double edged sword
>
>
>
>
> >>> ForstaterM at umkc.edu 03/26/01 11:27AM >>> in my recent debates around
>kc on the issue, i've formulated a few responses to the 'usual'
>myths/arguments against reps. when someone says that 'it happened a long
>time ago...' my basic response is: the issue is not the amount of time that
>has passed, but rather, first, whether or not an injustice was committed
>(are there time limits to addressing injustices?) and, second, are there
>present effects of the past injustice?
>
>(((((((((
>
>CB: On long term historical cause, I sometimes try to use patriotism and
>patriotic sentiment but with an opposite implication than most patriots,
>flagwavers I mean , draw. In other words, patriotic Americans have no
>problem identifying personally with all the good stuff they think happened
>in U.S. history. Fighting for and worshipping the flag , and "freedom"
>even, is rooted in a notion that causes and links to a long time ago are
>alive and well. I mean how do Americans and America rationalize their
>rights to the land they stand on except by tracing that "title" through
>events long ago in history.
>
>Well, if history's causes are alive and well for what you like in them,
>they are also alive and well for what you don't like in them. Just as
>rights to land and property here are rooted in history, debts and
>obligations from wealth transactions from history have present day
>substance.
>
>Anyone who feels a personal patriotic connection to America's history for
>freedom, with its consequent privileges of citizenship is logically bound
>to accept a connection to America's history of unfreedom, with its
>consequent obligations of citizenship. Patriotism is a doubleedged sword,
>and we should use the rarely used edge in this debate.
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com