Express your indignation with dignified language
This Forum and the whole
Bring Sean Home support effort are remarkable, and every participant deserves to be commended. There’s no doubt these efforts have had a profound effect on helping David’s fight to be reunited with his son.
The comments and stories shared have galvanized so many good people to come together and demonstrate the best qualities of human solidarity. We all need to stay focused on the common purpose of this Forum.
I have one suggestion for making the Forum even better, hopefully more effective. These are my opinions based on my experience and I consider myself an average member of this group, so each of you can draw your own conclusions.
I am a friend of David’s having met him a few days after Sean was abducted. I am very angry about what has been done to David and Sean, first with the abduction, court rulings and now with this slanderous media campaign. The sense of outrage is palpable, and I am not suggesting anyone curb their emotions. But I have also seen David conduct himself in a dignified manner, and that is a trait of this man that we all ought to emulate and perpetuate. How can we do so?
Well, regarding the platitude that one should not dignify slanderous allegations by even offering a reply, it might work in a utopian society, but not in this situation. So reply we must, but the language we use is very important. Our emotions cannot be constrained, but our language can be and IMO, should be.
David’s opponents have tried to turn this into a public opinion debate between Brasil and the gringos. Their methods and lies are truly despicable. These unjustified attacks are actually a legal ploy that is well-known and is regarded as a fallacy by legal scholars, judges and honest attorneys. Here is what an experienced divorce lawyer thinks:
Lifted this from http://www.mddivorcelawyers.com/fathersrights/ Website belonging to Thyden Gross and Callahan, LLP
Argumentum Ad HominemDecember 12th, 2008
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the man”, “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject. –
Wickipedia.com… I’ve received two ad hominems this week, one against me and one against a client of mine, from opposing counsel who ought to know better.
The first accuses me of asserting a right without any legal basis and the writer says “as I have come to see your conduct, it does not surprise me.”
The second says “Frankly, it is puzzling that [your client] would fight for custody in light of his apparent disinterest in taking parental responsibility.”
Now you have to be fairly thick-skinned to be a divorce lawyer, and litigation is pretty rough and tumble in the heat of battle, so I don’t lose a lot of sleep over things like this. But there is a Code of Civility in both jurisdictions where I practice, that says lawyers should treat opposing counsel and opposing parties with respect and courtesy.
Both of these ad hominems are unnecessary attempts to say “Shame on you.” If anything they are counterproductive because they only cause the recipient to dig in their heels and redouble their efforts to prove them wrong. So think twice before you hit the send button, reread your letter, and make sure it contains only those matters which move the case forward. OK, so some of you may be saying “We are not attorneys, so this is not applicable to us.”
The arguments from David’s opponents are mostly not legal arguments either; their weapon of choice is the Argumentum Ad Hominem with almost no truth to their allegations. So do we want to go on record as using the same fallacious method, even with truth on our side?
I would paraphrase this Argumentum Ad Hominem ploy as "Those who have neither the LAW nor factual truth on their side resort to attacking their opponents and creating a smoke screen of irrelevant issues to divert attention from the essential matter."
See also
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html for an explanation of why this ploy is fallacious.
We do not have to resort to the same tactics. David, to his credit, has taken the higher road from the start and not resorted to Ad Hominem arguments except to directly answer false allegations. It is so tempting to reply in kind to the slanderous allegations, but I think it is a matter of the tone we use that can maintain the higher road. By choosing our words with caution and restraint we can avoid the inherent fallacy in debating and refuting false allegations. We can state opinions which refute falsehoods without personally attacking the person stating the lies. It takes a lot of restraint to do this, but I have seen it done effectively by many of the posts in this forum and other media blogs. Again, that is not to say we don’t feel the anger and outrage, but we express it with language that is more factual than inflammatory. Patricia Apy's letter and that of Ricardo Zamariola set a good example for us. There is certainly some emotion conveyed in those letters (more so in Ricardo's), but they present facts to refute false allegations rather than impugning the character of the "allegators." The readers are left to draw their own conclusions about who is telling the truth.
IMO this approach will make this Forum a more effective force in helping David’s cause.
For those who have trouble venting their frustrations without using inflammatory language, I do sympathize with you. Maybe it even has to be done, but I don’t think this Forum is the right place for it. Let’s try to stay with David on the higher road. Try to save your venting for other outlets and stay focused on the facts.
