4 ms·
> This, uh, looks like a semi-propaganda website. In agreement with im3w1l, simply attacking the website is pure argument ad hominem.
by reedjosh 6y ago
> This, uh, looks like a semi-propaganda website.
In agreement with im3w1l, simply attacking the website is pure argument ad hominem.
- happytoexplain 6y agoNot necessarily. The website does not appear to be a source of legitimate information - that's a reasonable opinion to argue and relevant to the content the website presents. However, it is obviously true that an article being untrustworthy doesn't mean that the events are entirely false. So the GP made an attempt to validate them, and could not. That they failed does not make their post unreasonable, and it seems petty to attack them for it.
- justnotworthit 6y ago> relevant to the content the website presents Depends on your epistemology whether or not it's ad hominem. If you "believe" the content based because of the source's authority, then it is relevant to the content and is not ad hominem. But in this case, we hardly need to pass judgment on the source.