Julie, over at Happy Catholic received some pretty nasty remarks this week.
Being a veteran of ad hominem attacks myself, they have come to fascinate me. Ad hominem attacks are considered a form of logical fallacy. That is they serve no purpose in advancing the argument and they lack logic. I thought for fun, I would dissect this comment for illustrative purposes.
Julie, you just proved yourself to be not only a huge hypocrite but a gigantic coward, as well.
We’ll call that the thesis statement.
For purposes of argument and discusion, it may or may not be true. The burden to prove that Julie is a “huge hypocrite” and or a “gigantic coward” now falls on the party that made the comment. I think it is worthy to note that whether or not the statement is true, (it’s not. Remember, this is a scholarly approach to the anatomy of an ad hominem attack – please bear with me!) the statement could have been made in a more civil way that would make it more approachable and lest confrontational. For example.
“Julie, I believe there is a huge discrepancy in your post. If your argument was credible you would not have to be afraid to say so.” or something like that.
You get the idea. The nasty way doesn’t exactly lend itself to further discussion. The aggressiveness of the style in fact does just the opposite. If there was a good point coming, it’s likely that it would not even have been read because this thesis statement is too confrontational. Take it down a notch or 20.
So, now we are ready for the commenter to prove her thesis statement. But instead we a reiteration of the original point.
You are so dishonest
That’s redundant. The commenter already said Julie was a hypocrite. That usually goes along with dishonesty. This doesn’t really prove the thesis, merely reiterates it.
and so mean-spirited and so rotten to the core, it’s unbelievable.
The commenter is just hypothesizing. It is possible that in this case Julie is mean-spirited. It’s also possible that she’s not. What does that have to do with being a hypocritical coward? Not all hypocrites or all cowards are “rotten to the core.” This statement is simply adding more adjectives but not really addressing or supporting the thesis statement.
Go to hell, bitch. Go to f***ing hell. There aren’t enough bad things that can happen to you.
At this point, I think it becomes clear that the commenter either CAN’T, WON’t or is unable to support the thesis statement. It reminds me of a two year old having a temper tantrum because she can’t express herself with any clarity or eloquence.
BTW, my girlfriend’s two kids are at the university your daughter will be attending in the fall.
OK, now that we’re pretty clear that the thesis statement is a distant thought and that the commenter has absolutely no intention of revisiting it. However, we see an interesting development called the cyber threat. And folks, it’s illegal. It’s also stupid for a number of reasons. Basically this commenter (even though posting anonymously) just left her IP identification attached to a cyber threat. It’s like breaking the law and being sure to leave fingerprints!
Wonder how you’ll feel about mean, nasty gossip when she’s the target, eh?
See you in hell, whore.
Well alrighty then!! It’s clear the commenter never had any trump to begin with.
Julie has the link to this particular Jersey girl’s internet provider at comcast
Interestingly the lady that gave me grief last month is also from New Jersey and a comcast subscriber! What are the chances!? Is it the same person, or is there something wrong with New Jersey? Or is comcast just incredibly unlucky?
Technorati Tags: adhominems
Please browse my eBay items!