Is showing this picture an ad hominem attack? (Link via Andrew Sullivan.)

If there is anyone who lures me into the evil temptation to engage in ad hominem attacks, it is this man, because he has long championed ad hominem attacks against people for their lifestyles, for the content of their orgasms. (Also, I haven't forgiven his cleverly orchestrated smears of Senator John McCain.)

Still, I really try not to engage in ad hominem attacks, so I do hope that telling people to look at this picture is not that.

But can a picture ever be an ad hominem attack? After all, pictures are like facts. They speak for themselves, and unless doctored, they simply show what the camera saw at the instant the shutter was depressed.

Yet primitive peoples have long considered photographs to be a form of attack, or invasion. "Stealing the soul" seems to be a frequent complaint.

I'll try to stay with logic. This means that in some cultures, a photograph is not so much an attack upon the person, but an attack against that person's soul.

Was Mr. Robertson's very soul captured by this photograph?

Surely, it is not an ad hominem attack merely to pose such a question....

UPDATE: On the other hand, here's a very articulate argument that a photograph can itself be unfair.
======================================

A related thought....

Some of my readers might ask, what is wrong with the ad hominem style of argument? I suppose if you are having argument about a person's character, then insulting him might just go with the turf. But otherwise, hurling insults is not logically relevant to arguments, and often makes enemies for no good reason. I realize that certain people (the talk show business comes to mind) thrive on making enemies, because that often generates ratings. In blogging, it often means hits, because it invites retaliation. So, it might be in my interest to hurl insults in the hope that offended targets or their supporters will come running. Free speech certainly allows me to insult anyone I want, as long as I do not engage in defamation. I just don't like it, though, and once it starts, there really is no easy way to shut it down. It's ugly, and it turns off the kind of people who think for themselves. Instead, it encourages mob thinking, and bullying. When someone is a victim of a mob, my instinct is to defend that person, because mob thinking is not thinking at all.

For example, I am disinclined to join the mob calling Rush Limbaugh a fat drug addict who deserves imprisonment. I think his position on drugs is cruel, wrong, even outrageous. (And I will never forgive his remarks on Jerry Garcia's death.) But to say that he deserves prison for a drug offense when I am against prison for drug offenses would be one of the most outrageous forms of ad hominem attack I can imagine, because to say that is to say that he deserves prison for his intolerable opinions. Or for hypocrisy (which, though lamentable, should not be criminal). For someone as opposed to drug laws as I to advocate imprisoning anyone for drug "crimes" why, that would be like a death penalty opponent supporting the death penalty in cases where the defendant happened to support capital punishment. That is merely fighting hypocrisy with hypocrisy. It may placate the emotions and satisfy the mob, but emotional satisfaction just doesn't do it for me intellectually.

I'd rather turn off my emotions with OxyContin.

That way, I'd be dead to the world, and dead to the mob.

UPDATE: I just took the "What Would You Go to Jail For" test. Sure enough, it's drugs:

You're goin' down! FOR DOING DRUGS! Please rate if you liked!

groups.msn.com/punkassbitchmutherfckers
visit here if you're a punkassbitchmutherfcker for
funny crap!


What Would You Go to Jail For? (Many outcomes)
brought to you by Quizilla

UPDATE: My blogfather feels differently, and thinks hypocrisy is a factor in aggravation of any criminal charges against Rush. I see his point, although hypocrisy -- while it may be morally relevant -- is legally irrelevant to a drug possession charge. Furthermore, Rush has not been arrested, and it seems increasingly unlikely that he will be. Words tape-recorded by his supplier and printed in the National Enquirer -- even if admitted by Rush -- cannot prove a case where physical possession is the crime. They have to get a warrant, and go find the stuff -- and I'd be willing to bet his place has been sanitized.

So whether the man goes to prison may all be moot. Morally, though, he stands convicted of hypocrisy.