By opposing Golden Rice, Greenpeace defies its own values – and harms children

[roseBudd]

13. Why calling someone a shill betrays the weakness of your position, and your inability to defend it

http://badskeptic.com/?p=750

Not only is the shill argument empty and sad, it’s one of the most common mistakes made by people in any argument. It’s a logical fallacy, known as an ad hominem. (Against the person.) The crier o’ shill is attacking the person making a statement in an attempt to render that target’s argument invalid, rather than demonstrating any falsehood in the argument through attacking the argument itself.

Of course you would say there’s no scientific proof that GMOs are dangerous! You’re getting paid by Monsanto!

Not only is the crier o’ shill refusing to address any argument their target makes with a statement like this, they are usually doing so, as I said before, on the evidence that the target opposes them, leaving no room whatsoever for the crier o’ shill to be wrong.

The only thing the crier o’ shill proves is that they don’t give a flying fuck about having an actual discussion, about hearing any viewpoint but their own, or about any reality outside of the one they’re already convinced exists. Saying, “I’m right, and that’s that! Neener!” is good enough for them.

But not for anyone who knows better. : )