TimF,
I don't think you fully understand the context in which in which I said that.
Bilow refuses to share his logic and continually appeals to authority.
I, on the other hand, go line by line and expose the lies in the authorities he promotes.
Out of context, though, you have a point - that does appear to be an ad hominem attack on Forbes. If I ran away, like Bilow chooses to do, and didn't expose exactly why Forbes is lying to its readers, it would be ad hominem.
BUT I BACK IT UP.
LINE BY LINE.
I'M NOT LIKE BILOW.
I have context. I'm not just attacking Forbes because they are Forbes, I'm attacking them because they are a fraud shilling for multi-nationals that pay their bills.
I shredded their punk article, line by line.
Context is important. Calling out a known liar as a liar when some naive soul puts them out as an authority is not ad hominem, it is pointing out they are known liars.
Having said that, I went line by line along the Forbes article and exposed their lies and their very few relevant points, as well as their omission of the obvious call for better science and research.
Bilow doesn't even read. He avoids the real issues and makes proclamations as though that makes soemthign true.
However, I have made an interesting observation. You do possess the ability to identify logical fallacy (even if incorrectly due to lack of context).
So why don't you identify it in articles when you post them?
Again, do you support long term health studies on GMO foods... why or why not?
Again, how can you know the safety of GMO foods unless you have long term health studies?
Do you believe that a former Monsanto attorney, and future Monsanto vice-president, has crystal ball powers to make GMO safe, absent any long term research, simply by proclaiming it?
Do you believe that Mr. Taylor, our current Food Czar makes the grass grow by proclamation?
|
