• 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.

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

                  Again, what is expertise if not part of one’s character?

                  You’re really having a hard time with this one eh?

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

                    I think this is where we disagree, I don’t believe that clarifying someone’s expertise is an attack on their character. I don’t accept medical advice from people who have no expertise in medicine. It’s not a judgment on their character, is a matter of relevant expertise.