A recent letter to the editor addressed the need for the continued use of plastics, at least in certain circumstances. The argument had valid and telling instances where plastics are vital.
However, the writer lost all credibility with me with their final comment “… and conclude those worried about plastics are ignorant left-wing hacks with no scientific or engineering background.”
This attack on the writer of the original letter is a classic example of an ad hominem argument. I am very certain that the person would not nor could not participate in a honest discussion of the topic. Presenting two sides of a topic without attacking the people giving the arguments is vital to a vibrant and enlightened society.
Quite often I find myself not agreeing with someone’s position on a topic, but it is given in a manner that allows me to understand their point of view. The writer defending the use of plastics would warrant a listen if they had left out the last comment.
Rickie R. Byers
Lynnwood
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.