[ad_1]
That of Abelardo de la Espriella constitutes another manifestation that adds to the voices of concern and rejection of the state of insecurity in Bogotá, which this week was shaken, among other cases, by the murder of Oswaldo Muñoz on a Transmilenio bus, for stealing his cell phone.
But the feeling of insecurity in the capital it is not only palpable by the robberies and murders that are frequently recorded, but by the same manifestations of the officials responsible for preserving the life and integrity of citizens. The Secretary of Security said this Friday: “One feels afraid to go out to the city.”
De la Espriella appeals to the bad character of the Batman cartoon (better known as Joker, one of the most notable criminals of that fictional city) and changes her sex to fit her with Claudia López. Thus, he does not speak of the Joker, but of the “Joker”.
It is not the first time a columnist or a person with influence on public opinion compares the mayor of Bogotá to a fictional character. In Caracol Radio they equated it with the ‘Chimoltrufia’, and Felipe Zuleta assimilated it to Cantinflas, due to the different positions that López assumed in the face of the possible presence of members of the Eln in the protests in Bogotá.
Those comparisons were understood by many as disrespectful, so they were rejected and disqualified. But now the analogy that De la Espriella makes in his column in El Heraldo emerges, much more daring if one considers that it touches on personal aspects of López.
De la Espriella assures, from the outset, that his intention is not to refer to the Joker, who, “full of bitterness and resentment, takes refuge in sowing chaos to avenge his traumas and personal complexes”, but of López, who, “For similar reasons, it has transferred its lack of humanity to the public sphere, affecting us all”.
He also makes claims such as that López is “less important” than the Joker, and that her “main problem” is herself, because, in De la Espriella’s words, she is “a human being, tormented with himself, […] incapable of offering anything good to others “. And he adds: “I am not saying it because of their sexual condition, because the preferences of each person have nothing to do with the fact of being a bad person.”
In his diatribe against the mayor of Bogotá, the controversial lawyer maintains that she “He is part of that group of Colombians who thrive and develop in all areas of national life (from politics, through academia, justice, legal litigation, journalism, business, etc.), which, no matter how much they achieve goals and purposes, will never stop being social resentful, who have, to as it may, to collect their outstanding accounts by passing the respective bills with interest and everything ”.
And then he resorts to a generalization to charge again against the capital’s president: “Colombia is full of ‘jokers’ who are nothing but petty bourgeois who harbor dark feelings in their hearts, for different reasons: because they were rejected by their parents or because of their humble origins full of limitations, or because no one took them into account to some extent ”.
Without taking into account any objective indicator of López’s management, or the explanations that the mayor has given about how she is attending to the situation in the city, De la Espriella prefers personal aspects to confront her. In the logical tradition, well known by lawyers, as it is also part of the legal argument, it is clear that De la Espriella’s strategy is based on ‘ad hominem’ arguments.
“As a fallacy, [este tipo de argumentos] it consists of offending the adversary through personal attacks, instead of questioning the merits of their arguments “, explains Professor Álvaro Díaz in his book ‘Written argumentation’. “With this strategy, the only thing that is intended is to discredit the opponent and reduce credibility to the opinions that that person defends.”
Other sections of De la Espriella’s column rage against the person of López. “There are plenty of reasons for those who are moved by hatred, complexes and revenge. The problem is human, and therefore, a ruler must not only meet technical and professional requirements […]; he also needs to have the sufficient human condition to lead his people […]. The imagination of a leader cannot be limited by his internal conflicts or his petty interests. […] A […] López everything turns out the other way around, (when it comes to governing) because of bad people; because such behavior leads those who suffer it to be erratic, incoherent, ‘tripolar’ and inconsistent “.
It is inevitable to return to the lessons of Professor Díaz: “A form of personal attack widely used when good arguments are scarce, it is carried out through the appeal to derogatory epithets. Labeling the opponent ‘reactionary’, ‘leftist’, ‘opportunist’, ‘retrograde’, ‘stupid’, ‘homosexual’, etc., says nothing as an argument. […] But personal attacks only disqualify the attacker “.
[ad_2]
