3 ms·
Please read my comment closely. I said neither are "damning", because ad hominem shouldn't be considered a reason to "damn" ideas in an unrelated policy debate.
by drak0n1c 8y ago
Please read my comment closely. I said neither are "damning", because ad hominem shouldn't be considered a reason to "damn" ideas in an unrelated policy debate. Especially unsubstantiated allegations about a second or third degree connection.
- fzeroracer 8y agoI have more than substantiated my allegations and I would easily argue this goes beyond a second or third degree connection.
- longerthoughts 8y agoI agree that ad hominem attacks are overwhelmingly used to evade the responsibility of substantive debate. The problem is that policy debates are not purely objective and in reality people weigh presented perspectives and evidence according to the perceived credibility of a given source. As a result, information that speaks to the soundness of a person's judgement has a place in policy debate as a means of drawing conclusions in the absence of indisputable facts. We're all placing faith in something that determines what we call truth and what we call lies or ignorance.