> That is one of the most blatant statements of a textbook fallacy I've seen in a while. The affiliations and motivations of the arguer do not affect the trueness of facts or the validity of arguments. (baddox)
The affiliations and motivations of the arguer DO affect things when the "facts" he is using can't be independently verified or objectively measured. This especially applies when the arguer is speaking from personal experience, which is intimately colored by his prejudices. The arguer isn't looking to provide a balanced perspective on an issue, they're looking to prove their point through any means necessary. Including the invention of "facts", stretching of the truth, omission of facts which contradict their worldview, etc.
> The affiliations and motivations of the arguer DO affect things when the "facts" he is using can't be independently verified or objectively measured.
Not so. If facts can't be independently verified or objectively measured, then that's case whether they're spoken by a well-known expert in the field or a well-known liar.
The affiliations and motivations of the arguer DO affect things when the "facts" he is using can't be independently verified or objectively measured. This especially applies when the arguer is speaking from personal experience, which is intimately colored by his prejudices. The arguer isn't looking to provide a balanced perspective on an issue, they're looking to prove their point through any means necessary. Including the invention of "facts", stretching of the truth, omission of facts which contradict their worldview, etc.