Judging an argument wrong because of a groups agenda is ad-hominem. Logical arguments stand and fall on their own two feet. Even a biased idiot could stubmle in to solid logic with a correct conclusion, and even a wise, smart, careful, diligent person can use faulty logic and come up with bad conclusions. The agenda of the person doesn't determine or show that their logic or conclusions are wrong, and it is unreasonable to suggest otherwise.
Which doesn't mean that its wrong to pay any attention to agendas. For one thing there is more information and arguments available than any person could possible pay attention to. You have to filter out things, and one filter could be "this organization is highly biased for a particular agenda", and I don't care for their bias so I won't pay attention to them. In particular when a source isn't providing any logic (which can easily be examined by anyone with a decent understanding of logic), but rather is just asserting facts and putting itself as an authority for these facts, you might want to look carefully at biases, agendas, and past history.
But not thinking some group is worth your time listening to, or not accepting them as an authority for claimed facts, isn't proof of, or even an argument for, the claim that they are wrong. |
