The ad hominem attacks are not necessary to support his argument that dropping the bomb was the right decision because he refutes opponents’ arguments before resorting to ad hominem, so the ad hominem must have a different purpose altogether. Instead, the ad hominem adds to his argument about the necessity of experience. Fussell explicitly admits his use of ad hominem attacks, which are valid because they occur after the target’s argument had already been refuted and just help connect the disproven arguments to their owner’s lack of experience, which is further associated with an impractical, idealistic mindset. Fussell brings up the arguments of people who opposed dropping the atom bomb on Japan and then argues that their arguments are not valid because they do not have correct information or experience in war. John Kenneth Galbraith believed that the bomb should not have been dropped because he said that the war would end in only a few weeks (Fussell, 18).
On the one hand, "the attack on moral relativism was part of an effort to rearm the West spiritually" for the battle ahead, while "the attack on cognitive relativism aimed at making a clear distinction between the scholarship and science of the Free World and the debased practices of its enemies" (282). In the long run, the opinions should fall beyond the margins of historiography, and therefore the judgment of any work of historiography should not be preset by a conceptual disagreement. Novick's perspective on the objectivity question undoubtedly guided his book. However, his beliefs are unable to create the past. Even the most simple personal beliefs and bias can skew the appearance we see of the
The CE/BCE notation has been adopted by numerous authors and publishers wishing to be neutral or sensitive to non-Christians[9][10][11] because it does not explicitly make use of religious titles for Jesus, such as "Christ" and Domin- ("Lord"), which are used in the BC/AD notation, nor does it give implicit expression to the Christian creed that Jesus was the Christ. [9][12][13][14][15] Among the reasons given by those who oppose the use of Common Era notation is that it is selective as other aspects of the Western calendar have origins in various belief systems (e.g., January is named for Janus),[16] and claims that its propagation is the result of secularization, anti-supernaturalism, religious pluralism,
Ibbetson makes a blatant appeal to authority by saying that lack of god in the debate over stem cell research will lead to “…an ending point worse than past atrocities.” Not only does Ibbetson contradict himself by having earlier criticized Bush for basing his stance on stem cell research on his religious beliefs, he also manages to somehow tie Hitler back into the debate, although far more subtly this time around through the use of the phrase “past atrocities.” When taking an outward perspective at the argument Ibbetson makes one can realize how ridiculous it truly is. Aside from actually providing any legitimate solutions, Ibbetson essentially states that Stem cell research is a godless and vile science and in Obama’s support of it he will only succeed in reenacting actions brought forth by Hitler. Based merely on the first amendment alone Ibbetson’s final statement clearly has no place in the real life debate on stem cell research, however aside from that its only purpose is the same as any of his other arguments, to demonize those that actually support stem cells by essentially stating they are going against
“Logos” describes a kind of truth that strives for objectivitythrought the use of critical reason, while “mythos” describes a truth whose purpose is to overcome our subjective sense of separateness from the world and other living beings. Though past societies understood the distinction betwwn the two, Armstrong contends that in our time both skeptics and religious people treat mythos as a set of objective claims. After reading “Homo Religiosus,” the concept of keeping mythos separate from logos is impossible to
Americans remembered with hostility the fervor of World War I propaganda efforts, which were later regarded as violating basic rights as well as conveying misinformation. At first, the government was reluctant to engage in propaganda campaigns, but pressure from the media, the business sector and advertisers who wanted direction persuaded the government to take an active role. Regardless, the government insisted that its actions were not propaganda, but a means of providing information. These efforts were slowly and haphazardly formed into a more unified propaganda effort, although never to the level of World War I. President Franklin D. Roosevelt created the Office of War Information (OWI) in 1942.
British poet Samuel Butler once said, “God cannot alter the past, though historians can.” This sarcastic comment accurately reflects what historians so often do with the history of their respective civilizations. They are constantly searching for why things happened the way they did. However, the sooner after the event, the more romanticized it becomes in their hypotheses. War becomes a duty to uphold honor and human rights, and peace is a proverbial olive branch, created purely for its own sake. Then, historians analyze events many decades after their spawning and discover, especially in a capitalist country like the United States, that the true causes are less wholesome.
It is a technological dominance on a higher level. There is no individuality in the Brave New World, but an illusion individuality that is instilled with the unreal world. Yet, in the both worlds the struggle of the individual against technology is evident. In Brave New World, John was 'abducted' from a world of individuality into the perfect world of Bernard's and Lenina's collectivity. John looks at both worlds through the lenses of the religion he got from the Reservation-a mixture of Christianity and American Indian beliefs - and the old-fashioned morality he learned from reading Shakespeare.
He opens his speech by acknowledging the role of religious groups in the building of the American society. This is an issue that had no coverage in Johnson’s address. While Reagan concentrates on religious beliefs as the instigators of social growth and development, Johnson preferred that use of education and riches as the means to achieve the same goal. This contrast is evident in the way these two presidents gave their opening speeches. The other big contrast between these two speeches is Reagan’s reiteration the freedom and liberty are things that can only be enjoyed with the full blessings of God (Rodgers, 2011, p164).
While these two foreigners are able to understand and relate to the “original habitants” (Shelley, 109) of the areas conquered by Westerners, Felix does not show any such identification or emotion. Rather, he is the one who has been giving “very minute explanations” (Shelley, 108) about Volney’s history, thus suggesting that he has been heavily influenced by the ethnocentric Westernized view of the world, making him unable to understand other cultures. Mary Shelley seeks to portray the Westerners (Felix) as being unsympathetic with those they conquered in comparison to the foreigners in the novel (the creature and Safie). By first allowing the reader to understand and sympathize with the monster through hearing his point of view and his history, Shelley seeks to suggest that it is important that we understand foreigners and get away from an ethnocentric form of thinking. The creature has already been deemed an outsider from the Western society but, the reader is able to relate