• 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.

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

                  She noted issues with the accuracy and relevance of the data used by the government in its assessment process.

                  She made this specific point. Her expertise is relevant to her statement as no evidence is offered. I’m making no judgement on her character by pointing out her expertise.

                  If a cop pulls you over for speeding and asks for your drivers license, it’s not an ad hominem attack. Context is important and there is nuance to labeling arguments as ad hominem.

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

                    So you’re not disputing her point at all then? If you’ve nothing to dispute, then how is expertise even relevant?