[aquateen]

That was not an ad hominem. I really hate that phrase thrown about.

Seems full of questions rather than accusations, and I didn't see obscure mentioned anywhere.

[roel_v]

Oh please, for all intents and purposes, the gist of the GP is 'oh it's the Economist, they're a bunch of shills, so they're wrong'. I'm not going to argue nonsensical things like what exactly is an ad hominem, it's crystal clear that the GP intended to dismiss the message of the article by saying that because it's from the Economist, it's automatically wrong; i.e., that it's wrong because of who said it and their ideological background, rather than the substance of what was said. If that's not an ad hominem, I don't know what is.

[aquateen]

No, he's not saying that at all. That's explicit if you just read his last sentence.

[aptwebapps]

Just because the ad hominem attack is cloaked some very lazy relativism does not give it substance.

[aptwebapps]

"Isn't this just a capitalist supporting publication trying to justify that which it supports?"

This is pretty close to ad hominem. No substance, just casting aspersions on the Economist's character.

[aquateen]

Calling The Economist "capitalist" isn't much of an aspersion, even if it was meant that way. And an aspersion isn't an ad hominem.

[aptwebapps]

"And an aspersion isn't an ad hominem."

And a tortilla isn't a burrito. But if you put your Mexican fillings of choice in it and wrap it up it is.

An aspersion is in the eye of the beholder, of course. The poster says, don't trust them - they're capitalist. He then qualifies that by saying, well everyone has biases or agendas anyway. To me that doesn't really change the first part.