Is this a fallacy?

[Cairber]

Hey guys I have a question about a recent argument I got into. There is this author of parenting books named Dr Sears. Apparently he has made anti homosexual comments. So a mom I know told me I should trash his book (which I love).

So this got me wondering about a fallacy question. If you attack someone and argue people should not read their work based on a personal belief that author holds (and that belief isn't reflected in their writing), is that fallacious? Is there any merit to it? I know that attacking the author's argument based on their personal beliefs would be an ad hominem, but this is a little different I guess.

Putting that aside, do you see it as unethical to read/recommend a book by someone who has proven themselves to be a bigot?

[wolveraptor]

I don't think there's anything wrong with discouraging people from holding bigoted beliefs. If someone says they're going to read this book, by all means let them know what a douchebag this guy is. However, don't use that fact to discredit his unrelated assertions about parenting (if they really are completely unrelated, which may not be the case). That would be fallacious.

[Mobiboros]

Putting that aside, do you see it as unethical to read/recommend a book by someone who has proven themselves to be a bigot?

I don't know about in general, but in this specific instance Dr. Sears is a damn good reference for parents. I'd like to see where he made anti-homosexual comments.

In general I wouldn't say it's unethical to recommend them. It's a personal choice, but the guys personal beliefs aren't our concern unless he tries to force them on others. If he says "I don't personally like gay people and think it's wrong but people can live their own lives", then it's not my concern. If he says "I don't like gays and all my works will espouse anti-gay agendas and I will openly discuss this on all my seminar-tours" that's different.

[Batman]

Hey guys I have a question about a recent argument I got into. There is this author of parenting books named Dr Sears. Apparently he has made anti homosexual comments. So a mom I know told me I should trash his book (which I love).
So this got me wondering about a fallacy question. If you attack someone and argue people should not read their work based on a personal belief that author holds (and that belief isn't reflected in their writing), is that fallacious? Is there any merit to it? I know that attacking the author's argument based on their personal beliefs would be an ad hominem, but this is a little different I guess.

I don't see how there's an essential difference. They are still discrediting the author's work over something completely unconnected to it. The book is either worthwhile or it is not. wether or not the guy who wrote it is a scumbag doesn't figure into it. It's still an ad hominem as I see it.

Putting that aside, do you see it as unethical to read/recommend a book by someone who has proven themselves to be a bigot?

Again, no. Even-no, especially for stuff like, say, Mein Kampf, Das Kapital, the bible etc you need to have read it to be able to effectively show what's wrong with them.
As for recommending, you'd be recommending the book, not the author. Again, either the book is worth recommending or it's not regardless of the person who wrote it.

[Cairber]

I have been searching around the net on this and it looks like this accusation is probably true and comes from a passage from an older book On Becoming A Father:

"Some Thoughts on Homosexuality

I want to say right at the outset that in most cases parents do not cause homosexuality. However, fathers should be aware that studies show that in some cases the sex-role functioning of the parents may increase the risk of a child becoming homosexual. And here again, father's role may be more important than mother's.

Inadequate fathering seems to be more of a contributing factor to homosexuality in both boys and girls than inadequate mothering. Boys who have ineffectual or absent fathers and close, restrictive relationships with their mothers seem particularly prone to homosexuality. I feel it is less healthy for a child to have a present but ineffective father than to lose a father through death or divorce."

"I am personally concerned that our society tends to approve of lifestyles such as homosexuality. Society sees this as an "acceptable alternative" (quotes from the text). I can accept a person as a homosexual without having to approve of the morality of homosexuality. Keep the difference between acceptance and approval in mind when you consider the question of homosexuality as it applies to society in general and in relationship to your own family."

(pp 207-208)


None of the books I have read (The Baby Book, The Breastfeeding Book, or The Discipline Book) discuss this issue at all. But I guess some of his writing does...

[Pint0 Xtreme]

If his parenting advice is really that good, then I would read most of his stuff and trash any advice related to homosexuality. I can tell you right now that a parent's reaction or their attitudes towards homosexuality can make a world of difference to a child who is not heterosexual. At least find another source on dealing with that specific matter so in the case that your child is not heterosexual, you can spare him/her the mental anguish most kids experience when coming out.

[Napoleon the Clown]

It's a fallacy. Should the US throw it the Constitution because it contained some pretty racist and sexist ideas? Should the idea of peaceful resistance be done away with because one of its champions (Ghandi) was a racist? Should we stop listening to anything by The Who simply because Townshend got caught with child porn?


This is a case of throwing out the baby with the bath water, really. Just because the person is a bigot in one way doesn't mean everything they do is somehow "tainted".