>Didn't he get fired from King's College for cheating on his wife?

Education institution that fires people based on their personal life choices that don't affect their work? And I thought we were done with this crap in the 21st century.

(1) Adultery is not your average indiscretion. Breaking a marriage contract is illegal in most jurisdictions (though it is rarely enforced).

(2) When you teach at a religious institution, "personal life choices that don't affect their work?" is less of a thing, because you've deliberately related work and religion (i.e. personal choices).

It might not be your cup of tea, but some students want to attend an institution of high moral standards, as well as high academic standards.

>high moral standards, as well as high academic standards

I don't find cheating to be especially immoral, at least not more than lying or withholding information for any other purpose.

You can bring up D'Souza's getting fired for cheating on his wife with the Board of Trustees of King's College. Their address is:

  56 Broadway, New York, NY 10004

Since King's College is an accredited, Christian liberal arts college, I can only assume that they demand the highest moral character from their professors and administration. And stuff.

Why would I? I don't care about their views on morality, and they can decide whatever they like. I wouldn't regard religious schools as a quality education though.

But I'm not sure why extramarital relations are being brought up as a way to discredit someone, when it's of zero relevance.

It's a Catholic college.

And this would be a textbook example of an ad hominem fallacy.

Um, no. An ad hominem argument would be if I were attacking 551199's character which I'm not. Instead, 551199 cited D'Souza as a reliable source and I attacked D'Souza's character. See the difference? Good.

I am however, impeaching D'Souza's credibility as a source.

..based on political views you find odious, rather than directly attacking what you think is right or wrong about the particular (unrelated) statement in question. That is an ad hominem argument.

> ..based on political views you find odious

Well, I didn't know that a felony conviction or cheating on your wife were political views. However, given the current President, perhaps you're right.

Ad hominems are not always fallacious:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Non-fallacious_reas...

Specifically, pointing out the obviously biased nature of a source calls to question the credibility of said source, even before we get to addressing the argument itself.

I agree. Attack the argument not the arguer.

Again, the arguer was+is 551199 and I'm not attacking him. However, he did trot out the odious Dinesh D'Souza and I felt it necessary to put that cretin into his proper context. So I'm not attacking the arguer; I'm attacking his alternate facts.

No, he got paid to speak about the importance of family and the evils of gay marriage.

And this has what to do with the correctness or incorrectness of his analysis?

He makes a living being a partisan Republican. That means he can't be impartial.

Being able to practice what one preaches is a useful heuristic on how authentically one holds that position.

..which is still a poor proxy for correctness or incorrectness.

k, but the people who fired him for it disagree