Ad Hominem

How strange people are.

A long time ago, in another lifetime, a decision was made to come and live here in Malaysia. Many of my friends, family and colleagues said that I should remain where I was. This would be the best choice, they suggested.
At length the comment, "If I were you," occurred.
But that is the whole point. You are not me.
You are giving me advice based on what you want, on what you need, on what you expect from life - not me.

People are wrapped up in themselves but, in some point of boredom, they will wish to run your life for you.
No doubt much of this proffered advice is well meant, it is entirely possible that some of this advice is worth listening to especially if you are in trouble and incapable of coherent thought.
A lot of it will be useless perhaps, even, contemptible.

There have been a couple of occasions in which this effect has been promoted in the media and on social networking sites just recently.
Let us look at a couple.

There is a young lady in her early thirties who is extremely attractive. She is young and vivacious, anxious to continue with a life that contains love, affection, good times.
In addressing this she has taken up with, and married, a young man who is a 'Worship Pastor' (whatever that might be) who is undoubtedly a fine fellow that has given the young lady the happiness that she needs.
Sadly, her husband died two years previously in a car accident. They had two children together after a marriage of some four years. A terrible blow to her and her hopes for a happy, contented life. Marrying this Worship Pastor was her attempt to regain that satisfaction and lifestyle that she wanted in her life.
Plaudits to her.
Not everyone would have chosen that route but choose it she did. It is her and this new young man's lives that are important here. Nobody else's life comes into this frame. Does it?
Oh! So many people have jumped up and hurled abuse at her for marrying another man after only two years have passed since her first husband's death. Clearly, they say, she did not love her first husband. Clearly, they appeal to us, she is a loose woman with no moral values.
How can they say that? What evidence do they have to suggest that this is true? Of what value is their opinion to anyone else?
Primarily, what right do they have to sit in judgement on this girl and her life?
How has this young lady affected their life?
Should we not be happy for her? She has overcome a dreadful trauma in order to accept another man whom she trusts to take care of her and her children with love.
We should, right now, be getting a warm feeling in our hearts and a little dampness around the eyes.

Just in case that wasn't enough for you what about a model who has been castigated by public opinion for having hairy legs?
No? Disbelief, is it?
Well, let me inform you that a Swedish model and artist is starring in a new campaign for 'Adidas Originals' wearing a short skirt and exposing her shapely legs. Hairy legs.
Words were flung at her. Words like:
'Disgusting'
'F***ing gross'
'Bloody ugly'
'Feminazi'
Afte all the hateful comments which, as we all know, are only too common on social media - especially from those with limited cerebral ability, came the rape threats. Rape? Really? Unbelievable.
All because of a little body hair with which she was comfortable, Adidas was obviously comfortable, the photographer was comfortable and the marketing people were comfortable.
What was the point in those dreadful comments?
Probably to make themselves, the haters, feel better.
The young lady did say that she also has received a lot of support from people. People with more intelligent views of the World who praised her for her confidence and not 'conforming to the standards set by society'.

Nice Shoes, Adidas

On the other hand, a young lady in Australia, from Sydney, took a quick dip in a rock pool at a place called Cronulla. Pleasant enough, you may think.
Then she noticed a shark, a reasonably large specimen, sharing the rock pool with her.
Answer?
Pick it up "like a baby" and fling it over the rocks into the ocean beyond.
You can't make this stuff up!

Where are all the haters? What about the damage she could have inflicted on that poor defenceless shark? Why did she have to disturb it? Why could she have not left it in the rock pool and got out herself? There is no evidence that the shark was in any danger or, even, suffering in any way. There is no evidence that it posed a danger to her.

It seems that being happy and getting married is a bad thing as is a woman having hairy legs but flinging large shark around is acceptable.

Why the title 'ad hominem'? Because these haters are attacking the person. They are not presenting reasonable arguments to support their views, ideas or opinions.
Why?
Because they have no reasonable ideas, views or opinions of their own so they attack the person - that is what is called an 'ad hominem' argument.
It is spiteful, it is demeaning for both parties and it is unnecessary.

You will see it all the time on social media. It is depressing.