0
0

[–] Infopractical ago 

You begin by setting yourself up as the One True Expert, and perhaps you are. But then you never go on to address the point that I raise, which is that the NCMEC, whether run by well meaning people who sometimes do good, could be (intentionally or not) supplying criminals with information they can use to be better criminals.

I would think an expert would understand how to address such a reasonable thought experiment in some way other than appeal to authority.

Look, I hope you're right, but you should understand that there will be investigation, regardless. Too much has been hidden in the past. As an investigator, don't you understand that?

0
0

[–] GhostshipResearch ago 

And I forgot to address your other point: argumentum ad verecundiam is only fallacious if the authority is not an expert.

The problem here is the majority of contributors are not authorities and are either unable or unwilling to acknowledge actual expertise. As such, the very people guilty of committing the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority are the ones accusing the experts of it. Priceless.

0
0

[–] Infopractical ago 

You really just said that appeal to authority is only fallacious if the authority itself is false?

Okay, you just lost all credibility as an educated person of any kind.

Thanks and have a nice day.

0
0

[–] GhostshipResearch ago 

You remain challenged to provide data or a source to support your assertion.

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children receives advertisements with the very least amount of case information possible.

How, then, could they be supplying criminals with anything?

The children are already missing. The public is asked to call the police if they see these children.

The only one's that could possibly be aided by this are the missing children.

I'm not the "One True Expert"; there are a great many like me. You just aren't one of them. No big deal. If you want to "investigate" without the benefit of the knowledge subject matter experts have, you can attempt that as well. Although that's like attempting to diagnose and repair a car's engine without the benefit of a mechanic or a manual.

But if you're going to criticize and cast aspersions on a system that exists to save lives every day, your accusations should at least make sense, if not also be supported by independently verifiable sources of fact.

0
0

[–] Infopractical ago 

"You remain challenged to provide data or a source to support your assertion."

My assertion was a thought experiment, not a data claim.

You seem very vested in your claim. I expect that you will continue to write walls and walls of words about it. Good work so far.