Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man):
attacking the person instead of attacking his argument. For example, "Von Daniken's books about ancient astronauts are worthless because he is a convicted forger and embezzler." (Which is true, but that's not why they're worthless.)
More Specifically -> Poisoning the well – a type of ad hominem where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says.
Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem
Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."
Ok. My opinion.
I find it extremely unusual for an employee who has worked for YRC for the past 2 years, to all of a sudden find the urge to post 7 comments in the past 2 days, explaining to us why we need to vote yes on this proposal.
During the last MOU, we had plenty of new YRC "Teamsters" slither out of the woodwork, never to be seen again after approval.
First paragraph. "Honestly. I swear to you, I'm 100% bona fide Teamster." That is the 1st red flag.
Second paragraph. "Feel sorry for me/Show me pity & I'm so lucky to have a job!" 2nd flag.
Third paragraph. "The future of uncertainty and intimidation." 3rd flag.
Here was the sentence you posted originally. Hypocrite!
"You may say you're acting on principle but your just being selfish, bitter, and childish."
Any more educated fancy words such as Ad Hominem?