Page 197 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 197
the political discourse on croatia’s eu accession 197
Examples such as the above show that the abusive argumentum ad hom-
inem occurs with some frequency in the speeches of Europhobes. Dis-
crediting politicians who support the EU appears to be the main argu-
mentative strategy. However, they are rarely attacking their opponent’s
expertise and political competence (this holds especially for the new-
ly elected government). As mentioned above, supporting and opposing
the EU has ideological grounds in the Croatian political discourse. The
source of this dispute is the 1990s war between Serbia (more precisely,
the Yugoslav communist army) and Croatia. Thus, history and a per-
son’s ethnic origin are the main bases for abusive versions of the argu-
mentum ad hominem.
Apart from an appeal to fear and the abusive argumentum ad hom-
inem, the other most common form of argumentation used by Euro-
phobes is based on an appeal to pity. Aggressive presentation and appeal
to pity often go hand in hand. Walton (1997: 135) writes:
[T]he problem is that in many cases appeals to pity are weak and poorly sub-
stantiated as logical inferences, yet pressed forward in an aggressive and
emotionally powerful presentation that is designed to overwhelm the criti-
cal judgment of the respondent.
As mentioned earlier, in their speeches Europhobes often refer to
the war in Croatia in the 1990s, to Croatian generals who are charged
at the The Hague court, and to injustice during their prosecution, to
the city of Vukovar and to the thousands of Croatian citizens who lost
their lives during the war. The Europhobes hold that in this context, the
European Union is to blame for war (“The EU was on the Chetnik’s
side during the war” – N. Kovačević, representative of civil organization
“Justice”), the EU is responsible for bringing the generals to The Hague,
where the Croatian government abandoned them and, in the opinion of
the Europhobes, gave independence to the “godless creation called EU
which wants to turn us into the slaves” (Europhobes protest on the Za-
greb’s main square, January 12th 2012 reported on all Croatian nation-
al televisions).
In general, Europhobes offered very weak argumentation. Some-
times it was even absurd, including many contradictions, and appeals to
emotions. A good example of such absurd claims, weak argumentation
and an aggressive presentation is provided by Davor Pavuna, a Croatian
scientist and Europhobe. In the political discussion presented on Croa-
tian television, he claimed that Croatia has no chance for prosperity in
the EU because it has a population of only 5 million people (his oppo-
Examples such as the above show that the abusive argumentum ad hom-
inem occurs with some frequency in the speeches of Europhobes. Dis-
crediting politicians who support the EU appears to be the main argu-
mentative strategy. However, they are rarely attacking their opponent’s
expertise and political competence (this holds especially for the new-
ly elected government). As mentioned above, supporting and opposing
the EU has ideological grounds in the Croatian political discourse. The
source of this dispute is the 1990s war between Serbia (more precisely,
the Yugoslav communist army) and Croatia. Thus, history and a per-
son’s ethnic origin are the main bases for abusive versions of the argu-
mentum ad hominem.
Apart from an appeal to fear and the abusive argumentum ad hom-
inem, the other most common form of argumentation used by Euro-
phobes is based on an appeal to pity. Aggressive presentation and appeal
to pity often go hand in hand. Walton (1997: 135) writes:
[T]he problem is that in many cases appeals to pity are weak and poorly sub-
stantiated as logical inferences, yet pressed forward in an aggressive and
emotionally powerful presentation that is designed to overwhelm the criti-
cal judgment of the respondent.
As mentioned earlier, in their speeches Europhobes often refer to
the war in Croatia in the 1990s, to Croatian generals who are charged
at the The Hague court, and to injustice during their prosecution, to
the city of Vukovar and to the thousands of Croatian citizens who lost
their lives during the war. The Europhobes hold that in this context, the
European Union is to blame for war (“The EU was on the Chetnik’s
side during the war” – N. Kovačević, representative of civil organization
“Justice”), the EU is responsible for bringing the generals to The Hague,
where the Croatian government abandoned them and, in the opinion of
the Europhobes, gave independence to the “godless creation called EU
which wants to turn us into the slaves” (Europhobes protest on the Za-
greb’s main square, January 12th 2012 reported on all Croatian nation-
al televisions).
In general, Europhobes offered very weak argumentation. Some-
times it was even absurd, including many contradictions, and appeals to
emotions. A good example of such absurd claims, weak argumentation
and an aggressive presentation is provided by Davor Pavuna, a Croatian
scientist and Europhobe. In the political discussion presented on Croa-
tian television, he claimed that Croatia has no chance for prosperity in
the EU because it has a population of only 5 million people (his oppo-
