> But it is good to question the source of information. Not when it's done in lieu of a rational discussion of the information, which should be the majority of

> But it is good to question the source of information. Not when it's done in lieu of a rational discussion of the information, which should be the majority of the argument. Hitler liking dogs does not invalidate loving dogs even one iota - so what did you gain by attacking the source (when the subject is not the source but what it says)? It's a distraction and a (dark side!) rhetorical method, attempting a shortcut through evoking emotions.