Why am I not surprised that the response is mainly about who makes the argument, rather than the argument that's being made.
If the heritage foundation told you the sky was blue would you doubt them?
Obviously you wouldn't accept them as an authority that you would defer to, I wouldn't either, but I wasn't presenting an argument from authority.
Funded by Koch
Message 26790939
Message 26793659
However the Heritage Foundation represents entrenched interests, not the public interest.
I'd mostly disagree, but analyzing positions they hold (at least for most of their positions, the ones that don't deal with communications and technology) would be very off topic here, so for the sake of argument lets say they don't generally represent the public interest.
Assuming that, doesn't mean they are wrong here. Biased, even evil people or organizations can be correct. If they make an argument the argument stands or falls by itself, it isn't wrong, or right, because of the person or organization making it. I agree with a lot of what Heritage says, but I also post good arguments by groups or individuals that I disagree with. The point is the argument not the arguer. Asserting that an argument is wrong, or that it should be completely or near completely discounted, because of the person making the argument is commonly known as the ad-hominem fallacy.
Ad-hominem reactions are so common that I often think about presenting arguments other people make, without providing any links or attribution, but that would be plagiarism. |
