dChan
Anonymous ID: a1a66f June 19, 2020, 9:20 p.m. No.9678396   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>9678328

Yes it is, but it is being taken care of. On the other hand, if MOS decided to swat an anti-American communist insurrectionist for reasons of their own, it would be disconcerting but I think I would get over it.

Anonymous ID: a1a66f June 19, 2020, 9:43 p.m. No.9678609   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>8624 >>8646

>>9678579

You are attempting, and doing a poor job of it, to argue from ignorance.

 

Argument from ignorance

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes the possibility that there may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is either true or false.[1] It also does not allow for the possibility that the answer is unknowable, only knowable in the future, or neither completely true nor completely false.[2] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof. In research, low-power experiments are subject to false negatives (there would have been an observable effect if there had been a larger sample size or better experimental design) and false positives (there was an observable effect; however, this was a coincidence due purely to random chance, or the events correlate, but there is no cause-effect relationship). The term was likely coined by philosopher John Locke in the late 17th century.[3][4]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Anonymous ID: a1a66f June 19, 2020, 9:49 p.m. No.9678685   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>8687

>>9678646

So now you are going to try an argument from authority?

 

Argument from authority

An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of defeasible[1] argument in which the opinion of an authority on a topic is used as evidence to support an argument. It is well known as a fallacy, though some consider that it is used in a cogent form when all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context.[2][3] Other authors consider it a fallacy to cite an authority on the discussed topic as the primary means of supporting an argument.[4]

 

Fallacious arguments from authority are also frequently the result of citing a non-authority as an authority.[31] The philosophers Irving Copi and Carl Cohen characterized it as a fallacy "when the appeal is made to parties having no legitimate claim to authority in the matter at hand".[32]

 

An example of the fallacy of appealing to an authority in an unrelated field would be citing Albert Einstein as an authority for a determination on religion when his primary expertise was in physics.[31]

 

It is also a fallacious ad hominem argument to argue that a person presenting statements lacks authority and thus their arguments do not need to be considered.[33] As appeals to a perceived lack of authority, these types of argument are fallacious for much the same reasons as an appeal to authority.[citation needed]

 

Other related fallacious arguments assume that a person without status or authority is inherently reliable. For instance, the appeal to poverty is the fallacy of thinking that someone is more likely to be correct because they are poor.[34] When an argument holds that a conclusion is likely to be true precisely because the one who holds or is presenting it lacks authority, it is a fallacious appeal to the common man.[35]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority