Rhetorical Analysis Of Thank God For The Atomic Bomb

Thank God for the Atom Bomb Rhetorical Analysis
Fussell dismisses with contempt those who disagree with him. Locate some examples. How do you respond to them? Would you use Fussell’s strategies to dismiss those who disagree with you? Explain.
Fussell dismisses those who disagree with him with the logical fallacy of Ad hominem in many examples, such as:
“I don’t demand that he experience having his ass shot off. I merely note that he didn’t”
“Michael sherry was safe at home. Indeed, when the bombs were dropped he was going on eight months old, in danger only of falling out of his pram.”
“It’s not hard to guess which side each chose once you know that Alsop experienced capture by the Japanese at Hong Kong early in 1942, while Joravsky came into no deadly contact with the Japanese: a young combat-innocent soldier, he was on his way to the Pacific when the war ended.”
“Glenn Gray was not in a rifle company, or even just behind one.”
Though he effectively uses these statements, and while at first glance, they appear as sound arguments, when you takes apart each of his examples, you find that you’re left with only one: that people who have no experienced war are not qualified to make conclusions and general statements about them. However, he does manage to add on additional support to his base arguments, though they are weakened by the use of Ad hominem. If I needed to dismiss those who disagreed with me, I would opt for a more effective approach and attack their arguments. I believe that when one does this, it strengthens one’s arguments and they become more difficult to refute, as the opposing side can’t simply state that you’re using Ad hominem. To be frank, it is my opinion that though Ad hominem can be used effectively, as soon as it is pointed out in an argument, everything previously said, and that will be said is significantly weakened.