It did address the content of the article: it suggested a more reliable source that is saying the same thing.
Questioning the integrity of a source is not an ad adhominem argument. Saying that a conclusion is false because of the speaker would be an ad hominem.
Attacking anything other than the argument itself is fallacious. The core of tenet described in Ad Hominem is that the argument is being diminished because of who is delivering it, if it is a person, a robot, a magazine or parrot doesn't change that the argument itself is being ignored.
That is absolutely untrue. One can comment on the unreliability and inappropriateness of a source without impugning the material, and that's exactly what's been done here. I don't think you are fully reading what was written.
Before you run cover for these guys you should probably know it’s not “muh based anti-American-imperialist” but agitprop in service of Russian and Chinese imperialism.
It did address the content of the article: it suggested a more reliable source that is saying the same thing.
Questioning the integrity of a source is not an ad adhominem argument. Saying that a conclusion is false because of the speaker would be an ad hominem.
Attacking anything other than the argument itself is fallacious. The core of tenet described in Ad Hominem is that the argument is being diminished because of who is delivering it, if it is a person, a robot, a magazine or parrot doesn't change that the argument itself is being ignored.
That is absolutely untrue. One can comment on the unreliability and inappropriateness of a source without impugning the material, and that's exactly what's been done here. I don't think you are fully reading what was written.
1 reply →
Before you run cover for these guys you should probably know it’s not “muh based anti-American-imperialist” but agitprop in service of Russian and Chinese imperialism.
That isn't my point at all. Most good propaganda is true btw.