@ WD
I'm trying to get you out of arguing in such a flawed way.
Didn't think I'd have to do this but you forced my hand...
Ad hominem(as if you don't already know what this is)
One of the most well-known fallacies is the ad hominem or “against the man” fallacy, which looks like this:
Hitler believed whites were superior to non-whites. But Hitler was a genocidal maniac. So, whites are not superior to non-whites.
It might be true that whites are not superior to non-whites. But this is a poor argument for that conclusion. In fact, it is a change of subject. The traits of the person supporting a proposition have nothing to do with whether or not the proposition is true. Consider:
Hitler believed the earth was round. But Hitler was a genocidal maniac. So, the earth is not round.
This is an example of ad hominem abusive. It takes the general form:
- Person A claims X.
- There is something objectionable about Person A.
- Therefore, X is false.
Politicians(and seemingly most kiwis) often use ad hominem arguments to discredit their opponent’s policies not by attacking the merits of the policy but by attacking the merits of their opponent.
Another type is ad hominem circumstantial, which points out that someone may be biased because of their circumstances (pretty apt EG the Boks suck lately so this must be the reason for our claim...despite Saffa fans not being the only ones to make these claims)
So, in conclusion...
Do you actually have a counter argument or are you just gonna trip over every hurdle on the way, frothing at the gills while wondering if you're being victimised?
It's almost as though their actually isn't a counter to this accusation by Reason. There has to be, right?
Cumon, enough name calling at let's actually discuss it.
Here, I'll make the same offer as before.
Bakkies Botha was a dirty player. He on many occasions sought to injure opposition players outside the laws of the game. He is one of SA's favorite players and many of us gloss over much of his dark/foul side. Rugby is already a dangerous sport rife with career threatening injuries to players who sacrificed everything to play at the highest level. Should we really hold players like this in such high regard?
Do players like this add to or detract from the game and sportsmanship in general? Are they a necessary devil much like guardians/protectors/brawlers in ice hockey?
In brings into question what we believe to be heros these days. Cheat on your wife and everyone hates you. Break another person's leg intentionally and you're a hero.
Obviously cheating your wife is wrong. So is breaking someone's leg. The latter actually being a rather serious crime.
The way people balance their morality is pretty interesting.
Yes, we're still talking about rugby.
See, discussion. Easy
These are interesting talks to have. Maybe to some the answers are pretty straight forward. But that's subsidiary to this specific discussion.
The real issue here is that if you always exclude your own players from this type of scrutiny then aside from coming accross as unreasonably patriotic you also by default exclude yourself from potentially interesting discussion points which go well beyond what jersey the player is wearing or what country he comes from.
IE the bigger picture almost always involves more than your sense of national pride.
The above was a statement about Bakkies, yet it culminated in a broad question on human morality and shone a spotlight on us as sports fans. Not just Saffa fans, not just rugby fans...all fans, in all sports.
Some people are happy to watch a game and forget it. Like many things thtough, sport exists within the human sphere and if you're only talking about the ball then you' re missing out.
PS Note, I managed all the above without any name calling or silly tactics.
PSS Heads up, your next hurdle is gonna be The Appeal To Hypocrisy. It's just as flawed
PSSS What a sly and reprehensible creature I am
