In post 10660, karnos wrote: In post 10657, Davsto wrote: In post 10654, karnos wrote:
It absolutely is, against the article. Davsto attacked the character of the source rather than the actual substance of the article.
No, I attacked the substance of the source in general, because it is notoriously unreliable. Pay attention.
You attacked the source, not the argument. Call it "substance" if you want, it's still a fallacy.
Okay, I'll put it in terms that may help you understand it.
Imagine you have someone at your work, let's call him Day Lee. He's a habitual liar, and everyone knows it. Okay, not everything he says is a lie, but he tells lots of tales about times he saved someone from being mugged or his dad dying from cancer twice and lots of other bullcrap. He tells lie after lie after lie, no matter how many times he's caught out, to the point where you don't even know when he's telling the truth.
Additionally, he's really quite racist against black people. You don't like it, but he is. He frequently uses slurs and degrades them.
Now one day, he comes up to you and tells you that, on the way to work, he was beaten up violently by a black man who used lots of anti-white language against him, and that it's an example of just how terrible they all are.
Day Lee, whose past has shown him a habitual liar, comes up to you and tells you a story about something that happened, which also very conveniently happens to fit his exact worldview. Now, call it a personal attack, but is it really so fallacious to assume offhand that his story is probably bollocks?