Wikipedia, in its article entitled The pot calling the kettle black, states:
As generally understood, the person accusing (the “pot”) is understood to share some quality with the target of their accusation (the “kettle”). The pot is mocking the kettle for a little soot when the pot itself is thoroughly covered with it.
An alternative interpretation, recognized by some, but not all, sources is that the pot is sooty (being placed on a fire), while the kettle is clean and shiny (being placed on coals only), and hence when the pot accuses the kettle of being black, it is the pot’s own sooty reflection that it sees: the pot accuses the kettle of a fault that only the pot has, rather than one that they share.
It goes on to illustrate this with a poem:
“Oho!” said the pot to the kettle;
“You are dirty and ugly and black!
Sure no one would think you were metal,
Except when you’re given a crack.”“Not so! not so!” kettle said to the pot;
“‘Tis your own dirty image you see;
For I am so clean – without blemish or blot –
That your blackness is mirrored in me.”
In Davy’s latest piece, he writes:
One task that the legal guardians of children have is the task of teaching children the art of disagreeing without engaging in personal attacks.
This particular art form is often missing in the comments sections of website articles and blog commentaries.
So, how has this legal guardian of children behaved on this blog? This is now his fifth column on gun control. His very first recent column is entitled Hysteria About Gun Control. In it, he argues that those who oppose the banning of “assault weapons” and magazine capacity limits and who see such bans as leading to a greater ban on firearms are hysterical. The word hysteria is defined thusly:
1. an uncontrollable outburst of emotion or fear, often characterized by irrationality, laughter, weeping, etc.
2. Psychoanalysis. a psychoneurotic disorder characterized by violent emotional outbreaks, disturbances of sensory and motor functions, and various abnormal effects due to autosuggestion.
So, the man who lectures us about personal attacks levels a personal attack in his very first post. Gun-rights advocates, whether you disagree with them or not, have logical, principled reasons for opposing these bans and for concluding that this is a stepping-stone for a greater ban. Instead of informing himself prior to writing about it, he accuses those who disagree with him of being hysterical. Is that “disagreeing without personal attacks”? How is it that the pot can “see” ad hominems while looking at his opponents, but he cannot see his own? David’s opening salvo is a direct insult, but he wants to call a whaaaaaambulance when he gets a predicable reaction. Moreover, if he wasn’t informed of his opponents’ arguments prior to his column, he certainly was informed of them after he published it. Did he change course and withdraw his “hysterical” allegation? Not at all. He continued to repeat himself as if we had said nothing. Physican, heal thyself.
Robertson continues:
The late conservative judicial icon Antonin Scalia said, “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
So, Americans of all political persuasions are wanting lawmakers to come up with legislation that would be effective in hindering the ability of individuals to engage in mass shootings regardless of their motivation for doing so.
The general question to be answered is this: What would be effective?
Robertson took Justice Scalia’s remark out of context, and that was explained multiple times in a recent thread. Instead of addressing that objection, he repeats Scalia out of context as if it has logical force. When a writer repeats a point that has been substantively answered, he further insults his opponents by implicitly accusing them of not having an answer to said point. Such a tactic is dishonest because it deliberately misrepresents the opposition’s position. This is further reinforced with David’s following remarks:
In order to get an answer, other specific questions are being asked, such as, “Would banning further retail sales of the AR-15 and like firearms work?” and “Would limiting the capacity of gun magazines work?”
Those latter two questions are an example of public brainstorming.
Some Americans (such as myself) really don’t know the answers. They have seen some evidence of the lethality of such things, and, thus, they are questioning the need for them.
There may be legitimate reasons for not banning further retail sales of the AR-15 and like firearms.
There may be legitimate reasons for not limiting the capacity of gun magazines.
Those who know such legitimate reasons can explain them without attacking the people who ponder about such things.
Instead, the latter are often subjected to this:
Robertson followed that up with a picture of an angry man accusing his opponents of believing the same thing as Hitler. David dishonestly attempts to frame a question objectively when everybody on this blog knows that his questions have been thoroughly answered by posts authored by yours truly and by various contributors in the comments section of each thread. He not only refuses to argue in good faith, he continues to malign his opponents as being short on logical arguments and long on ad hominems. Doesn’t he realize that such a tactic is directly and personally insulting? If so, then who in the world does he think he is to complain about insulting remarks? It’s okay for him and for those who think like him to insult us, but we’re behaving like children when we question his integrity over his refusal to address our counterarguments.
By the way, a personal insult isn’t what an ad hominem fallacy is. An ad hominem fallacy is an attempt to refute a person’s claim by attacking the person instead of the argument. David’s been insulted, but his argument has been thoroughly refuted by by crime statistics and basic logic. Instead of addressing our arguments, he attempts to discredit them by attacking us. Irony, anybody?
He doesn’t stop there—
Those who engage in such ad hominem often do so within the cloak of Internet anonymity. Such anonymity tends to bring out the worst in people. Having one’s actual identity revealed tends to keep one’s behavior in check. (For that reason, I use my real name while writing, instead of hiding behind a pseudonym.)
Disagreeing without personal attacks is what convinces people to change their minds about subjects. Using ad hominem simply causes people to put up their defenses.
