Really? I mean really? Of course it changes the value of the article- articles written by unreliable sources are less valuable than those written by reliable ones. Or does it not matter as long as you like the message? If the CIA/NSA comes out and says "Oh it's ok y'all should totally get stoned" does that mean you trust them all of a sudden?
It's no wonder every decent novel about a dystopean society has some type or psychoactive available-everybody trusts their dealer I guess.
If it's truly an unreliable or incorrect source then you should be able to find your argument against what he's saying from his words and not from his person. It's a logical fallacy[0] for a reason.
To expand on your analogy, it seems to me he's saying that someone who embezzles money and goes to jail for it shouldn't be able to get a job handling money when he's released from jail. And I'd agree with that sentiment.
...well, it makes me question the particular style of the article given previous allegations against the author. This breezy style of journalism is sometimes too entertaining to be rigorous.
Like the quote attributed to an attendee of the Eleusinian Mysteries? that you felt “new, astonishing, irrational to rational cognition.” Where did that quote come from?
Its like nobody can ever improve themselves without being reminded that they were once 'bad'. This, I believe, is the crux for why progress is never made in society until someone gets up and says "enough is enough". We have no perfect martyrs.
