Posted on 02/11/2012 6:49:52 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
Suffer me to begin with a suggestion: if you ever have the chance to hear the Rev. William Dailey of Notre Dame law school speak, jump on it. Dailey is a stunningly brilliant advocate, among the best I have ever encountered on any issue.
Dailey appeared on today's Up With Chris Hayes on MSNBC, where he masterfully made the case against the Obama administration's order forcing Catholic institutions to provide services that violate their moral principles. Predictably, the panel resorted to an ad hominem argument against him. Panelist Michaela Angela David implicitly, and Hayes himself explicitly, argued that celibate Catholic priests lack the moral authority to make arguments on the issues at hand. Dailey adeptly turned the tables. Video
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
If you can’t beat them on the merits, play the old “celibate men have no right to speak on moral issues” card. Ping to Today show list.
PS: would appreciate people pinging this to Catholic and other appropriate ping lists.
They’re in a hole and they keep digging.
In the clip I watched at the link, he got under the table. :(
I did not hear him respond to that point effectively. Not even close.
That would not be by definition an “ad hominem” argument.
Hayes and Davis were claiming that because of their personal status, Catholic priests lack standing to argue the merits. I would call that a quintessential ad hominem argument.
I have a pretty good vocabulary, even in the realm of theology and I’m a lawyer but he used a word I don’t know and can’t even remember. I do think he rebutted their two points pretty effectively re: celibate priests and 98% although he should have mentioned (and maybe did elsewhere mention) that once you mandate contraception, then you can mandate abortion and the stats are much different in that regard. I also liked I think Dolan’s comment that we are not in the business of polls but of morality or words to that effect.
Might the word have been “epistemic”? It certainly sent me to the dictionary: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/epistemic
I’d appreciate your thoughts on a related matter. Occasionally when I write at NewsBusters I use, often but not always when quoting others, words with which I imagine many readers may be unfamiliar. Is it condescending or insulting to readers to link to the word’s definition in the body of the blog item?
You probably mean “epistemic?”
Far as I’m concerned he did not answer the question, but yeah, words like epistemic can certainly fill time and provide cover.
Well technically, he responded to an ad hominem with a tuo quoque so the fallacious reasoning is all around in the case.
And who the hell gave Zero any power to do any of this garbage? Where are the other two powers of government? Why do we have the legislative and judicial branches of government for checks and balance?
I would immediately respond that "The Government" led by a Muslim "lacks the moral authority to make arguments on the issues at hand", let alone the Contitution which BARS it!
per Governsleastgovernsbest request, pinging a few Catholic pingers. Notre Dame law professor’s wonderful comeback to MSNBC’s ever so worldly/sophisticated panel.
my earlier attempt to ping some FReepers holding Catholic ping lists doesn’t seem to have worked. This is a ‘must see.’
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
How does an argument this monumentally STOOPID keep getting trotted out? By that logic, every judge and jury in the country would have had to commit every crime known to man in order to be able to determine any defendant’s guilt.
I’d be delighted! Why is that any different from citing sources? At least the reader would be clued in to exactly what YOU meant by the word.
Menopausal lesbians lack the moral authority to make arguments on abortion.
People who make less than 250000 per year lack the moral authority to make arguments on taxes on income over 250000.
I'm sure I can think of some more after I've had some coffee.
I can’t tell you what other readers might think but I would always click that link. I just finished listening to Benedict’s first Jesus of Nazareth book. I love listening to both theology and physics because I don’t get bogged down as much as if I read the hard copy. I faintly remember seeing that word or a variation of it in that book but in context. I didn’t catch the context which this gentleman was using it. Perhaps if I had heard the entire interview but listening to the commentators on MSNBC is not something for which I am spiritually fit.
I can’t tell you what other readers might think but I would always click that link. I just finished listening to Benedict’s first Jesus of Nazareth book. I love listening to both theology and physics because I don’t get bogged down as much as if I read the hard copy. I faintly remember hearing that word or a variation of it in that book but in context. I didn’t catch the context which this gentleman was using it. Perhaps if I had heard the entire interview but listening to the commentators on MSNBC is not something for which I am spiritually fit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.