• Rodeo
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Do you have anything that refutes her points? Or are you just resorting to the ad hominem fallacy?

    • Greg Clarke
      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
        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
          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
            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
              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
                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
                  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
                    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.