Fatso
Wednesday, July 18, 2007 at 04:06PM 
From Ask Figaro:
Dear Figaro,
Thank you for an excellent website and book! I have a rhetorical news item for you. I’ve read at least three articles about Michael Moore’s “Sicko” that all say more or less the same thing: “Moore wants universal health care. But Moore is a fat, unhealthy slob — folks like him would suck the system dry. Therefore, Moore is wrong.” Isn’t this a classic ad hominem attack? That is, the rhetorical uberfallacy (note bound morpheme) that I learned about in 7th grade?
Ty
Dear Ty,
First of all, is “Clever” your middle name? (And is your last name “Byhalf”? ) To answer your question: Yes, Michael Moore is a fat slob.
Oh, wait. That wasn’t your question. Calling Mr. Fahrenheit 911 fat is like calling Paris Hilton an airhead; it’s true enough almost to dwell beyond the realm of ad hominem. Besides, the character attack lies within rhetorical bounds. Much harm, but no foul. (See page 157 of Figaro’s book.)
The Moore attack does qualify as a far more interesting foul called the Red Herring, aka the “Look! a bird!” fallacy. Its purpose is simply to distract, because it has little relevance to the issue. If Moore got fit, would his accusers then support universal health care? Give that man a Stairmaster, stat! Moore’s opponents may think they’re accusing him of hypocrisy. But he’s a health-care hypocrite only if “Sicko” advocates health. It doesn’t. It advocates health care.
Al Gore, on the other hand, is a hypocrite, because he fails to live like a Hobbit.
Fig.
Got a comment? Click here.
Reader Comments (20)
Besides, the journalist's motto used to be to "afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted," which, because it's a nice chiasmus, we follow rigorously.
What about the opening scene, where a guy without insurance sutures his own knee? Does that have a rhetorical name?
Fig.
Interesting coincidence: the locus classicus for pathos comes from Julius Caesar, where Anthony attempts to rouse the crowd by describing Caesar's wounds:
Look, in this place ran Cassius' dagger through;
See what a rent the envious Casca made;
Through this the well-beloved Brutus stabb'd,
And as he pluck'd his cursed steel away,
Mark how the blood of Caesar followed it,
As rushing out of doors to be resolv'd
If Brutus so unkindly knock'd or no;
For Brutus, as you know, was Caesar's angel.
We're just grateful that Shakespeare didn't let Caesar suture himself.
Fig.
Let's call it the Hobbit Distinction, OK?
Figaro recently wrote a magazine piece titled "Raising Fine Upstanding Hypocrites." He's totally pro hypocrite. Not that he's a hypocrite himself. Which, since he's pro-hypocrite, makes him a hypocrite. Or not.
Going back to Annett's comment - was the Gitmo trip a "red herring" or was it something else entirely (perhaps a non-sequitur) ?
fig.
gonna hafta disagree with you here. Both Red Herring and Ad Hominem (here absusive) are what you might call "fallacies of relevance." Michael Moore's being fat has nothing to do with his arguments about health care. Typically, ad hominem arguments invoke such irrelevant personal characteristics in order to discredit the author. That's clearly the intent in the case of Moore. He has no credibility, they suggest, because he's a tub. The red herring, on the other hand, changes the subject of the argument entirely (and so never circles back to the original argument--for instance, "Moore claims that American Health Care is the pits, but many people are sick because they want to be, something ought to be done about fat people. . . .). That's the key difference. As always, however, it depends on the specific argument being made. They way the letter writer states it, however (with the conclusion being that Moore is wrong because he is fat) makes it clear that this is an ad hominem.
So: tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. That wouldn't have the slightest stench of red herring about it.
Fig.
Fig.
By the way, I just learned of this site from the book, which I came across at work today. (I work in a bookstore. No, not that one. Not that one either. But if you can name one more, you're probably right.) I have a copy of the book on hold until payday.
By coincidence, I posted a Sicko-worthy tale on my own blog earlier this week. If you ask nice I might even add a link to this blog.
you write:
"You're making a bit of an ad hominem attack against ad hominem. If your mother were about to undergo heart surgery, and you discovered the doctor has been sued repeatedly for malpractice, wouldn't you attack his ethos? It's not the ad hominem that makes the Moore attack bad; it's the red-herring aspect of the ethos charge."
Ad hominem and red herring are both fallacies of relevance. An ad hominem argument consists in attacking a person's character (or waist line) when that is irrelevant to the argument the person is making and concluding that the because of the faulty character, the argument is defective. But of course the argument isn't defective for the flawed character. For instance, M.Moore argues that the health care system is flawed. But that conclusion can't be true, because he's fat.
A red herring operates in a similar way, but it changes the subject (and so never circles back to conclude that the original argument was wrong). Example: M.Moore argues that the health care system is flawed, but there are lots of fat people, including Moore, who burden the health care system. Obesity is a huge problem. In this second example, the conclusion is that obesity is the problem. That's certainly related to health care, but it's not related to Moore's orignal argument. Thus the red herring taking it off track.
So back to your observation. Questioning the doctor's competence at his profession (doctoring) is different from questioning whether a fat guy can make reliable arguments. Charges of malpractice are directly relevant to competence at heart surgery; charges of fatness are irrelevant to arguments.
fig.
Fig.
I am off to write a post about Figaro. Give me a day or two to add the link, as I have to remember how to add a link.