I always knew argumentum ad hominem as a personal attack on a person (he stinks, his teeth are yellow, he beats his dog) as a means of distracting you from the argument he is making. Father John Hunwicke tells us of another meaning of the term that is probably beyond the ken of those who make these slanderous types of attacks.
Allow me to explain what [John] Locke and I mean by Argumentum ad hominem.
If a man says "Matilda never lies", and two paragraphs later he says "Matilda lied when she said X", then you are entitled to 'press' him with this. Logically, he must withdraw one of these two statements, or he is involved in a contradiction and cannot expect us to follow him. (He can, of course, also withdraw both.) Whether or not Matilda is truthful is, at least for the time being, irrelevant. It is the speaker's inconsistency which requires analysis.
If a man says "I believe A" and later says "I do not believe B because it is not explicitly in Scripture", he has handed you a hostage to fortune: if you can successfully demonstrate that A also is 'not explicitly in Scripture', then either he must preserve the 'principle' in his second statement "I do not believe B" by also discarding his belief in A; or, continuing to believe in A, he must cease to deny B on the grounds that it is not explicitly in Scripture (he might, of course, if he is quick on his feet, be able to think up a different reason for denying B and argue that; what he cannot maintain is his original and stated reason for denying it.)
This is called an argumentum ad hominem because, strictly speaking it does not prove anything at all; it only demonstrates that this particular man cannot maintain two contradictory or inconsistent statements. So it is "an Argument against [that particular] Man".
Via Monday Evening
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. - Upton SinclairVia Zerohedge
My increasing feelings of irrelevance also came with a corresponding pressure to cover what, for me, were the less and less interesting topics that my editors felt would be better at maintaining my impact—general-interest arts stories and mainstream popular culture. That pressure, I felt, came largely from the huge moving electronic graph that now hangs over most newsrooms, tracking the articles causing the most reader interest in real time.
I have ridden on all forms of public transportation, airliners, trains, light rail, and buses. I don't make a habit of it, but every once in a while I need to go somewhere and they get the job done. They function but they aren't pleasant or enjoyable. Okay, I did get a flight in first class once. The flight itself was pleasant enough but all the rest of it was just like any other airline flight. So I have traveled on these various conveyances. They get you where you want to go, but they are not pleasant or enjoyable. City buses and light rail are the worst because there always seems to be at least one very unpleasant person on board causing everyone else to avoid any conversation for fear of attracting the attention of the lunatic.
Light rail is promoted like a Disneyland ride, clean and safe and happy, but like Disneyland it is expensive as hell and not very efficient. A single lane of highway can easily accommodate 1800 people an hour (assuming one person per car). A four-car light rail train can accommodate 268 people, so you would need a train every 9 minutes to match that. And the train will only get you to the station. You still need some way of getting from the station to your ultimate destination.
The problem with cars is that highways often get jammed up with cars that getting anywhere becomes am unpleasant tedious session of creeping along at what seems to be a walking pace. A train ride can appear very attractive when you are in that situation. But maybe it's just your attitude.
Being in a hurry is a state of mind. If you can relax and listen to music or someone talking, it can be, if not pleasant, at least it won't drive you insane. I know, I've been there. Shoot, I spent the first 40 years of driving in the insane mode. I hated it but I had no idea how to deal with it. Drugs might have helped, but drugs are illegal. Everyone needs to be keyed up and angry if we are going to win whatever war American was currently fighting.
So cars are great except for the traffic jams. But light rail is not helping. Coyote Blog explains:
The problem with light rail (and the reason it is popular with government officials) is that it is an upper middle class boondoggle. There can be no higher use of transit than to provide mobility to poorer people who can't afford reliable automobiles. Buses fulfill this goal better than any mode of transit. They are flexible and can reach into many corners of the city. The problem with buses, from the perspective of government officials, is that upper middle class people don't like to ride on them. They like trains. So the government builds hugely expensive trains for these influential, wealthier voters. Since the trains are so expensive, the government can only build a few routes, so those routes end up being down upper middle class commuting corridors. As the costs mount for the trains, the bus routes that serve the poor and their dispersed commuting destinations are steadily cut.
