Michael H. Standart
Member
>>I never agreed with Bob Ballards idea of look but dont touch.<<
Well, one of the beefs that Dr. Ballard's critics have mooted was that this was not his original stance and that his current anti-salvage stance is little more then sour grapes and hypocrisy on his part because he was barred from claiming the wreck or salvage rights.
The problem with that is even if the "sour grapes hypocrit" charge is true, that doesn't mean his current stand is wrong. (Doesn't mean it's right either.) What it is, is an opinion on a highly subjective moral issue. My objection is that rather then discuss the merits of either side, partisans in the debate prefer to attack the person offering the opinion, as if somehow his/her personal morality somehow makes the opinion wrong when it really has nothing to do with it.
A non-sequiter and ad hominum fallacy all in one.
Well, one of the beefs that Dr. Ballard's critics have mooted was that this was not his original stance and that his current anti-salvage stance is little more then sour grapes and hypocrisy on his part because he was barred from claiming the wreck or salvage rights.
The problem with that is even if the "sour grapes hypocrit" charge is true, that doesn't mean his current stand is wrong. (Doesn't mean it's right either.) What it is, is an opinion on a highly subjective moral issue. My objection is that rather then discuss the merits of either side, partisans in the debate prefer to attack the person offering the opinion, as if somehow his/her personal morality somehow makes the opinion wrong when it really has nothing to do with it.
A non-sequiter and ad hominum fallacy all in one.