Happy cake day! And that's a brilliant idea

I suppose a nuclear ICBM could be considered a long range EMP burst emitter. And a nuclear ICBM would be effective at disabling a robot cops but it's probably overkill.

We have many problems to solve now and in the future but some perspective is useful.

From my original comment ^

Don't straw man. Obviously we have problems today. I'm not arguing that things are fine today. I arguing that from a historic perspective, today is a good day. Nostalgia for the past is such a bullshit privileged belief from non marginalized people. Study history so we don't make the same stupid mistakes again.

Your original post sounds like you think millennials are the first generation to have problems when in reality, our generation's problems are trivial in comparison to past generations.

You aspects of Reddit's toxic culture have you observed on Lemmy?

You initially claimed that mentioning expertise was an ad hominem fallacy. That's what we've been discussing. Can you now appreciate that mentioning expertise in this case is not an ad hominem fallacy?

I'm not talking about the validity of an argument as no argument is made in either statement. So maybe validity was a poor choice of wording. Which statement would you trust more?

Would you concede that in cases where no evidence is provided, a climate expert saying "climate change will affect x" has more validity than a non climate expert saying "climate change will not affect x"?

Can you expand on that idea? I'm not sure I understand.

Also, as a side note, I appreciate this debate and having my arguments challenged. Lemmy is great for more constructive conversations.

If Mary Lou McDonald was a toxicology expert her statement about the accuracy of the data would have more relevance. If Mary Lou McDonald had outlined the actual issues with the accuracy of the data her statement would have more relevance.

She is not offering details about issues with the data, so her expertise is important context.

The argument that expertise is part of character, therefore any mention of expertise is a fallacious ad hominem argument ignores the importance of expertise in giving context to a statement. A statement about health obviously has more relevance coming from a doctor than an influencer (assuming they're not also a doctor).

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.

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.

3% is a good start but...