There is growing concern about the harmful impact of pesticides on human health, agriculture and biodiversity, prompting calls from researchers to reduce their prevalence.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@Greg @Rodeo
The first burden of proof is on the pesticide manufacturers/nation users who have put forth the request to raise limits through their lobbyists.
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.
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.
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
From the Wikipedia page for ad hominem:
What a “ridiculous idea” lmao
Righto, get a lawyer to fly your plane 🤣 Qualifications and knowledge of science are obviously relative here
Being a lawyer doesn’t preclude knowledge of science.
You’re just wrong pal, be a man and take the loss.
Obviously! I never said being a lawyer precludes knowledge of science. Your comment is a ludicrous straw man 😂
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.
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.