If we knew everything about how all this was conducted, and had time to understand it all, I would agree.
Or alternately, if this were a logical argument that could be completely divorced from who was saying it, it would be an Ad Hominem fallacy.
But as it stands, when it comes to gathering facts, trust and reputation of the people we're hearing the facts from is paramount. As such Ad Hominem, as it were, is valid.
I'm actually right-of-center myself. I'm scrolling through HN comments here to see what critiques people have of the organization, since I heard they are a right-of-center group and this finding is good for the right-of-center case. (So far they seem okay)
Or alternately, if this were a logical argument that could be completely divorced from who was saying it, it would be an Ad Hominem fallacy.
But as it stands, when it comes to gathering facts, trust and reputation of the people we're hearing the facts from is paramount. As such Ad Hominem, as it were, is valid.
I'm actually right-of-center myself. I'm scrolling through HN comments here to see what critiques people have of the organization, since I heard they are a right-of-center group and this finding is good for the right-of-center case. (So far they seem okay)