3 ms·
Being appointed by a former president makes her unqualified to comment on the subject how? If you want to disagree with her commentary, do so on its merits. Di
by hackyhacky 1y ago
Being appointed by a former president makes her unqualified to comment on the subject how?
If you want to disagree with her commentary, do so on its merits. Dismissing her arguments because of who is making them is ad hominem fallacy.
You're using a person's associations as an excuse to avoid engaging with their ideas.
- WillPostForFood 1y agoThat's the exact argument that I was responding to! The parent post's claim that the current President's lawyer is unqualified, because? Surely you looked into the arguments, and judge them without bias, and didn't jump to a conclusion based on his associations. They are both political appointees, you like one and don't like the other is just political bias.
- hackyhacky 1y ago> They are both political appointees, you like one and don't like the other is just political bias. No: one was appointed legally, the other was illegally installed in an unconstitutional power grab. That's all that matters.
- const_cast 1y ago> The parent post's claim that the current President's lawyer is unqualified, because? Because so far every appointee by Trump has been, objectively, less qualified than the people they replace? There's no bias in that, it's just looking at credentials. We have people in public health who have never worked in healthcare. We have people leading the DOD where their only battle thus far has been alcoholism. We have a surgeon general who can't even practice medicine. I mean... what pattern are we noticing here? Are we just supposed to play stupid forever, in pursuit of some "fairness"? We're not blind, we're not deaf, we can understand what's going on.
- anigbrowl 1y agoTechnically it's a genetic fallacy /nitpick