Chris Zell <chrisz...@wetmtv.com> wrote:
> Categoring their malevolent influence as ad hominem is a fallacy, indeed. > I did not say ad hominem. That is a different fallacy. I said "circumstantial ad hominem." That is, dismissing a claim because it is in the best interest of the claimant that the claim be true. That is a fallacy even if everyone knows the claimant is evil. You can say "claim X is incorrect for [various technical reasons]" and from that you can assert that "because it would be in the best interests of claimant for claim X to be true, I suspect that Y is lying." That is the reverse logic. You start by showing the claim is wrong and from that you impugn the motives of the claimant. That is logical. What is not logical is to say that because the claimant is known to be immoral, that in itself disproves the claim. - Jed
