Re:Demonizing Edward Snowden
by dylangs1030 on Tuesday June 25, 2013 @11:10AM
(#5939979)
Small nitpick: I don't agree with media focusing exclusively on the man and not the story.
That being said - it's not ad hominem to open debate about credibility based on a person's history, intelligence, knowledge or expertise.
For example, questioning if Snowden understood the documents he leaked because he does not have a high school diploma or certifiable, checkable expertise (aside from landing the access) in mass surveillance is not ad hominem. It's a reasonable way to express doubt and question someone's ability to be capable as a whistleblower. It's also reasonable because whistleblowers should be both accountable and rigorous.
Character defamation on the other hand is bad. I'm not against Snowden, I just wanted to make it clear that it's not unreasonable to question him.
That being said - it's not ad hominem to open debate about credibility based on a person's history, intelligence, knowledge or expertise.
For example, questioning if Snowden understood the documents he leaked because he does not have a high school diploma or certifiable, checkable expertise (aside from landing the access) in mass surveillance is not ad hominem. It's a reasonable way to express doubt and question someone's ability to be capable as a whistleblower. It's also reasonable because whistleblowers should be both accountable and rigorous.
Character defamation on the other hand is bad. I'm not against Snowden, I just wanted to make it clear that it's not unreasonable to question him.