Yesterday, I published an insightful commentary on an anti-circumcision/Mike Gatto attack article written by some dumb douche named Tony. Today, I discovered that Tony posted a cowardly pingback rather than an actual comment on my critique, then did the digital equivalent of hiding behind his mommy by running back to his own stupid website to thump his chest amid the supportive grunting of his fellow anti-circumcision wackos.
It’s funny — no wait, it’s hilarious — to hear you throw around terms like “ad hominem” when it’s crystal clear that you lack even a basic understanding of sound logic and reasoning. Consider the following statement from your original post, which is without doubt the single dumbest one amid a burgeoning torrent of stupidity:
“To understand what these politicians have failed to grasp, imagine a male. He is an adult. He is intact. He is healthy. He tells his parents that he has unprotected sex with HIV-positive women. What rights do his parents have to deal with this? Under the illogic of Assemblyman Gatto and his colleagues, his parents may force him to be circumcised.”
To anyone with even a sixth-grade education, the utter ridiculousness of that statement is so self-explanatory that it pretty much immediately negates any need for further critique. But since Tony is so convinced that his assumed position atop Mount Logic justifies the imperious eye he casts down on the lowly subjects of Circumcision Valley, I will elaborate.
Let’s begin by reviewing the textbook definition of a false analogy. A false analogy occurs when two objects (A and B) are purported to be similar because they share a certain property (P), when in reality they do not share said property. Tony’s argument claims that circumcising an infant is the same as an adult male’s parents forcing him to have a circumcision for having unprotected sex with HIV-positive women. That’s not just logically unsound; it’s borderline disturbing.
Next, let’s talk about the masked man fallacy. This fallacy occurs when identical designators are substituted within an argument to create a false conclusion. Tony’s laughable argument substitutes the designator “an adult male’s parents have the right to force him to have a circumcision for having unprotected sex with HIV-positive women” for “an infant male’s parents have the right to choose whether or not to circumcise their newborn child.” The false conclusion Tony feels justified in drawing from his stupid bullshit argument is that Mike Gatto is not a sweet dude, when in fact Mike Gatto is the sweetest dude in the world.
How’s the view from your castle atop Mount Logic, Tony? Or is it too hard to see the valley with all the false analogies and masked men in your way?
Another word out of you and you’re going on the enemies list. You’ve been warned.
(Daulton Gatto is no relation to Mike Gatto. Thankfully, he is also no relation to Tony, and is able to enjoy sex with hot chicks because he has a magnificent circumcised wiener.)