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 may want to actually take a college-level course in Logic. Hell man, you could even Google it.

Yes, the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority is only a fallacy if the person is not an actual authority.

Otherwise, complete morons who know absolutely nothing about what they're arguing about could simply say in response to an expert who is correcting them "you are Appealing to Authority, so even though I have no freakin' clue what I'm saying, I'm right and you're wrong".

As such, you never had any credibility, and remain unable to discredit me without some actual facts or subject matter expertise.

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.

0
0

[–] GhostshipResearch ago 

I request that you read and follow the rules for posting in this thread.

Assertions require supporting documentation.

Speculation, submitted as such, require consideration and are either dismissed as unfounded or non-relevant unless facts can be found to support it.

If you have no facts and dismiss the contribution of those who demonstrate the submission's irrelevancy, it's not helpful. Thus "thought experiments" that have no basis in fact detract from the pizzagate investigate, while doing nothing to advance it.