FYI, that episode of P&T is like seven years old, and PETA has moderated their policy on pet ownership within the last five years, probably in part because they were called out on it (no, not by P&T specifically).
Oh, I didn't know that. Thanks
1. Isn't it Ad Hominem to dismiss a perspective for who it's from?
2. I think they just expected it to be obvious.
3. It was at the time.
1. If I understand the trope corectly, yes, it'd be Ad Hominem to dismiss a perspective
based on who it's from, but that's not what I was doing. My point isn't that P&T's beliefs
wrong because they're based on CCF's claims or that CCF is automatically wrong because they're CCF. Rather, I'm saying that if you're going to form your opinion based on objective evidence, it might be a good idea to make sure your info about the evidence comes from a trustworthy source.
For example, most of us would presumably agree that it's better to believe a claim about any given politician if it comes from Factcheck.org or some other non-partisan political fact-checking site than if it comes from one of that politician's political opponents. Is that Ad Hominem? If someone decides that it's probably a better idea to believe Snopes' conclusions about an alien abduction story than the National Enquirer's, is that Ad Hominem? If a study by National Public Radio says a certain video game is not
likely to be dangerous, is it Ad Hominem to believe them
instead of Jack Thompson
Clearly, some sources of info are just more likely than others to be telling the truth, and a group that lobbies for the meat industry hardly seems like the most impartial source on weather or not PETA supports the ALF. That's why I asked if there are better sources documenting that and similar claims made in the episode.
2. It didn't seem obvious to me, but then I don't know much about tax records. How would one go about finding PETA's tax records, then?
3. Ah, I didn't realize that.
edited 19th Sep '11 7:25:09 PM by 411314