• Greg Clarke@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Firstly, the burden of proof should be on the person making the claim and Mary Lou McDonald offers no evidence for her claim.

    Secondly, I’m not making an ad hominem fallacy. I’m not attacking Mary Lou McDonald’s character. I’m pointing out that she is not an expert in this field.

    • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s literally an ad hominem fallacy lmao. What is expertise if not part of ones character?

      You are not an expert either, but that doesn’t mean anything you say about it is untrue and should be discarded. If you make a claim the validity of that claim is what should be debated, not whether your credentials are relevant.

      • Greg Clarke@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I made two points above. Mary Lou McDonald offered no evidence AND she’s not a scientist. Mary Lou McDonald didn’t make an argument and provide evidence.

        That’s literally an ad hominem fallacy lmao.

        This is incorrect. Pointing out that someone is not an expert in a technical field they are discussing is not an ad hominem fallacy. That’s a ridiculous idea.

        Protip: don’t get medical advice from lawyers

        • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          From the Wikipedia page for ad hominem:

          Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

          What a “ridiculous idea” lmao

          • Greg Clarke@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Righto, get a lawyer to fly your plane 🤣 Qualifications and knowledge of science are obviously relative here

            • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Being a lawyer doesn’t preclude knowledge of science.

              You’re just wrong pal, be a man and take the loss.

              • Greg Clarke@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Obviously! I never said being a lawyer precludes knowledge of science. Your comment is a ludicrous straw man 😂

                • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  If you recall, we are talking about what constitutes an ad hominem attack. Since being a lawyer does not preclude knowledge of science, pointing out that she is a lawyer constitutes an ad hominem attack.

                  Let me know if you need that spelled out for you yet again.

                  • Greg Clarke@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I never said she doesn’t know anything about science because she’s a lawyer. I’m saying that she’s not a scientist and she works for an anti pesticide organization. Both of those facts are important and not mentioned in the article. I never attacked her character.