Ray A wrote:keithb wrote:If I had, for example, tried to debunk Chopra's claims by saying that he is an adulterer, you might have a point.
Then you don't understand what poisoning the well is. It is any adverse information (which might be true or false) intended to discredit what a person says.
Honestly, I am not sure that you understand what "poisoning the well" is. From Wikipedia (the source of all knowledge in the universe):
Wikipedia wrote:"Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a logical fallacy where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say."
First off, I don't think that I presented the evidence "pre-emptively", although it's hard to affix a definite chronological order to statement on a message board, due to the fact that people can read the posts out of order, if they wish. Also, my intent was not do discredit "everything" the man said. Rather, I was trying to put his statements into the context that he might hold his views to further his direct financial gain, which may tend to color his arguments in favor of one view and not another. His viewpoint still may or may not be valid, either in whole or in part.
But, if you still want to claim "well-poisoning" on my part, I won't argue the point any further.