join message

Rush Limbaugh has little standing to question others morality

(Click boxes for full text or to add/edit/delete node. More help?)
Rush Limbaugh has little standing to question others morality  Rush Limbaugh has little standing to question others morality
       He has been divorced three times  He has been divorced three times
       He has had multiple run-ins with the law involving drugs  He has had multiple run-ins with the law involving drugs
       He is a hypocrite  He is a hypocrite


Rush Limbaugh has *no* standing?

I like the argument, but try not to summarize it with such a generalization. Perhaps say he has "little standing" rather than "no standing" whatsoever.

Comment by: Smudge At: 2006-11-10 00:11:32

Re: comment: Rush Limbaugh has *no* standing?

noetd. Never let it be said that I shied away from controversy.

Comment by: Ulysses Berman At: 2006-11-10 06:16:36

ad hominem

Please clarify what you mean by "standing".... otherwise your whole argument is a simple demonstration of ad hominem. Quote from wikipedia:

"An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or he is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by him rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself. The implication is that the person's argument and/or ability to argue correctly lacks authority."

Now surely you could make a solid argument that Rush Limbaugh is a hypocrite: he loudly denounces others for engaging in certain behaviors (i.e. drug abuse) that he himself engages in. He complains that people no longer respect the "sanctity of marriage" while having married and divorced several times himself. BUT, being a hypocrite doesn't remove his right to speak his mind.

Comment by: zen At: 2006-11-14 08:15:08

Re: comment: ad hominem

Alright, my first fallacy callout.

My understanding of ad hominem - and my interpretation of your quote from Wikipedia - is that it would be wrong to attempt to discredit Limbaugh's arguments about, say, taxes or the Iraq war with an attack on the conduct of his personal life.

However, since we are specifically arguing about morality, and the hypocrisy with which he conducts his own life compared to his attacks on others, that it is germane and legitimate.

Am I wrong?

Comment by: Ulysses Berman At: 2006-11-14 15:23:30

Re: comment: ad hominem

Regarding Rush Limbaugh standing. He has none as an authority on moral behavior. He does not debate nor does he engaged a fully capable thinking human being in dialog. He is a radio personality and entertainer. He has a following and a constituency, but he is not a politician. He is a showman. He is paid to create division and controversy. In his niche he is a genius and a hero. To those who give real thought to the social realm, he is a buffoon and master manipulator.

It his job to be a target. It is his ability to draw the personal attack to himself that he is able to create a persona of righteousness that is neither genuine nor deserved. It his schtik, his act, his bit. He is the master ham. His authority is a veil of thin lies and misrepresentations.

Otherwise, he is a human being.

Comment by: Lantern Bearer At: 2006-11-18 16:30:40

You are not signed in. You need to be registered to comment on this site. Sign in or create account (all you need is a valid email address)

Pending Arguments

There are no pending Arguments.

Create an Argument!