It isn’t just that he “knew” a sex trafficker, it’s that he tried to help a sex trafficker white-wash his reputation for sex trafficking. It’s not guilt by association, it’s guilt by his specific actions.
I ask you again, of what relevance is that to the topic being discussed? The obvious relevance seems to be that it is a blatant ad hominem. I don’t care if Chompsky is a boy scout or a boy scout rapist, in the context of evaluating his arguments.
It isn’t just that he “knew” a sex trafficker, it’s that he tried to help a sex trafficker white-wash his reputation for sex trafficking. It’s not guilt by association, it’s guilt by his specific actions.
I ask you again, of what relevance is that to the topic being discussed? The obvious relevance seems to be that it is a blatant ad hominem. I don’t care if Chompsky is a boy scout or a boy scout rapist, in the context of evaluating his arguments.