[rektide]

In this case I think there is some pretty significant examples linked showing exactly what kind of faith this group has. I think it's up to the reader to decide for themselves whether this group deserves positive, neutral or negative bias against them.

I have significant reservations about my statements on when ad-hominem is ok or not. I think there's more than the logic of debate that is important: that I re-affirm. But how & when & where the things beyond the logic happen is still a big question for me. In this case, I think this is pretty core & vital context that everyone is going to have to parse & interpret for themselves.

Running into an article like this online & not knowing the context isn't good. The meat of the top post here, to me, set some basics about who this group is & linked some wikipedia articles. This is obvious public benefit. The top post & I both have additional editorial things to say, that these people are actively detrimental to society for their own good & we should be careful reading this. That's a bit of an attack, but neither of us have said to reject the article or disbelieve it; we have not put to the audience logical conclusions; there is context (who the carrier is), and (designated opinioned) caution/hazard about the meta-message being delivered.

[jeegsy]

On this particular topic, I don't think it really matters who the source is, especially since the problems brought up in the article are generally accepted to be true at least from the comments I have read. Even a broken clock is right twice a day as the saying goes.

[philosopher1234]

I don’t think their affiliation means they’re completely wrong. Just that their ideas should be expected to bias in a particular direction.