Just a little information on the source from http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...

anamax · on Dec 23, 2010

> In 2006 Cato raised approximately $612,000 from the following 26 corporate supporters:

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute "According to its annual report, the Cato Institute had fiscal year 2008 income of $24 million."

In short, the "list of funders" is both ad hominem AND misleading.

dmix · on Dec 23, 2010

You could also look at any big non-profit/think tank and find a similar list of corporate donations.

specialist · on Dec 23, 2010

Huh?

I'm pretty sure ad hominem doesn't mean what you think it means.

And I'm quite certain that his listing of funders could be easily verified. So unless you have information to the contrary, I'd characterize that list as "fact based" vs "misleading".

anamax · on Dec 23, 2010

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), also known as argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.

The accuracy of the list doesn't stop it from being ad hominem.

The misleading part is suggesting that $612k of donations is decisive in a budget of over $24M.

Bud · on Dec 23, 2010

Uh, isn't quoting the wiki page on "ad hominem" ONCE in a thread enough? Why do it twice? And do you just run around posting "ad hominem" 100 times a day and downvoting opinions you disagree with?

You need to get it straight. If you say something nasty about Cato and I attack YOU personally, that's ad hominem. If you say something about Cato and I attack Cato or some of its supporters and explain why, that's not ad hominem, and no matter how many times you post a wikipedia page, that doesn't change.

anamax · on Dec 23, 2010

> If you say something about Cato and I attack Cato or some of its supporters and explain why, that's not ad hominem

It depends on the explanation, specifically whether the attack goes to the substance of their position or, as in this case, "they're bad companies", which makes it ad hominem.

> And do you just run around posting "ad hominem" 100 times a day and downvoting opinions you disagree with?

It's easy enough to see that I haven't. I also haven't killed any puppies this week.

Any other questions?

detcader · on Dec 23, 2010

I understood that; but the fact that these are the type of entities that supported this enterprise is telling enough.

anamax · on Dec 23, 2010

> I understood that;

You understood that you were making an ad hominem argument that was misleading?

> but the fact that these are the type of entities that supported this enterprise is telling enough.

I note that you didn't bother to tell us who supported the other side....

Wouldn't that also be "telling enough"?

protomyth · on Dec 23, 2010

So, where do I verify sourcewatch's creditability and neutrality?

miked · on Dec 23, 2010

>> Comcast Corporation

Comcast is or soon will be, the owner of the left-wing station MSNBC. Does that mean that we can safely disregard everything said on there?

And libertarians are NOT pro-business, they are pro-LIBERTY. In a world where so many Hollywood movies feature a corporation (not HW studios, though) as the source of all evil, and the Dems bash businesses while receiving most of the 2008 Wall Street campaign money, they only seem pro-business.

ubernostrum · on Dec 23, 2010

Libertarians aren't YOUR definition that conveniently makes your point for you, they're MY definition which conveniently makes my point for me!