• 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.

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

                    You seem to be a little too focused on the word “attack”.

                    She made specific points and your response to those points was to fault to her expertise. You didn’t respond to her points; you responded to her character.

                    Relevant or not, it is still ad hominem.