Post
by Wieber » Fri Jun 30, 2017 7:04 am
I don't know if this is the place for this but it's been on my mind for some time and I think it might be relevant here.
First off here's a term with a definition. I took the definition from Wikipedia. Check with other sources, if you like. I recommend doing that.
Ad Hominem
"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is now usually understood as a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."
It occurred to me that all of L. Ron Hubbard's directives with regard to handling Scientology's critics and people speaking out about their negative experiences within Scientology, are directives to enact ad hominems. Almost nothing Scientology does by way of rebuttal has to do with dealing with the substance of the criticism directed at the organization, its members or its behavior.
Is Mark Rathbun following the Scientology party line? Can the things he is saying in his videos be classified as ad hominems?
“Think wrongly if you please, but in all cases think for yourself.”
Doris Lessing
