Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackEleven
Marshall McLuhan was speaking about technological mediums, not advocating argumentum ad hominem.
|
I'm aware of that, yes. That does not mean that the statement can not be true beyond the technological sphere.
Quote:
|
The message may be lost on some, but only because it is easier to attack the man and effectively change the subject than to attack the argument itself.
|
As we see every time PETA does anything, the intended message is lost because they are such a circus side-show that one cannot help but to focus on PETA themselves rather than the message that, in theory, is trying to be pushed.
Suzuki acts in much the same vein. Certainly not to remotely the same degree of extremism, but his statements and arguments are worded specifically to draw headlines to himself. As a result, the topic of ubran sprawl becomes David Suzuki's views on urban sprawl.
Ad hominem or not, when David Suzuki attaches his name to a statement, he becomes at as important as the statement itself. David Suzuki is perhaps the finest attention whore Canada has ever produced. Regardless of whether the message has merit when presented by a less fanatical individual, Suzuki himself has cultivated the response he gets.
"Look at me! I'm saving the world! LOOOOK AAAATT MEEEEEE!!!!!"