3 ms·

> Uhh, I don't want to be Amazon defender, This should give you a hint about this person's intention. Their argument is a classic appeal to authority. https:/

• A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
  Could you elaborate? I think I either misunderstand this type of argument or you meant to use a different link. If you look at my history, I am hardly a proponent of all things Amazon. I recognize their strengths and their weaknesses. It is important to clear eyes about all this.
  • atomi 7y ago
    When you appeal an argument to a higher authority, in your case the law, it's an attempt to shutdown further discussion. In other words, it's not an argument as to the merits of the points being made. You're just not addressing the points at all and appealing to "a higher authority."
    • A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
      Ok. I think understand your point now. I believe you have your argument type mixed up. You are probably looking for appeal to the law ( though it is still a stretch ). I am not dura lex sed lex guy, but I think it is necessary to point out current condition before we get too wound up over what the reality ought to be. edit: corrected fallacy to argument
• Tainnor 7y ago
  I don't agree with the parent comment at all, but this is not an argument from authority. If anything, it's an instance of the is-ought fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
• jshevek 7y ago
  It looks to me like you may be poisoning the well. Separately, there is no "appeal to authority fallacy" in the post.