5 ms·

It is ironic that you don’t understand the point made given what the topic is about. Your logic is badly flawed. You have not shown that no one with equal or

It is ironic that you don’t understand the point made given what the topic is about. Your logic is badly flawed. You have not shown that no one with equal or more knowledge and expertise than you can give a well reasoned opinion contrary to what you have stated.

rayiner 3y ago
> You have not shown that no one with equal or more knowledge and expertise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
- skhunted 3y ago
  Your reasoning skills are quite lacking. Your response to my so called argument from authority is to...wait for it....appeal to an authority. That is quite ironic! I did not argue form authority but because I was not advancing the idea that abortion is a constitutional right. I was advancing the idea that there are experts who think it is. And experts who think otherwise. But it is not a logical fallacy to use the opinions of an expert in their area of expertise. You know virtually nothing about quantum mechanics and in a discussion about quantum mechanics it is valid to defer to what an expert says on that topic. Indeed, the court system understands the value of expert testimony for good reason. They know that using an expert in their area of expertise is valid and carries weight. Of course that does not mean experts are always right. Just means they know more than you. None of this is germane to the point I made. I was not arguing from authority. I was talking about what I originally wrote versus what you replied with. Read what I originally wrote. Your point made no sense unless you can show that it is universally agreed by judges (or other experts in law) that there is no constitutional basis for a right to an abortion.
  - dctoedt 3y ago
    Friend, your ad hominem comments in this thread are really billboarding your naivete. There are many things that Rayiner and I disagree about, but he's a brilliant lawyer who clerked for a federal circuit-court judge (one of the most-prestigious positions there is for new lawyers) and who has impressive techie credentials from before that. It's painfully obvious that you have little or no idea how judges go about deciding hard cases under American law — what they're required to do; what they're prohibited from doing; what they're given leeway to do if they deem it appropriate.
    - skhunted 3y ago
      Mentioning that he is a brilliant lawyer is, in Rayiner's opinion, a logical fallacy. You are engaging in what he thinks is bad reasoning in support of him. I think it is a fact that courts do sometimes use expert testimony. If that is not the case then strike that portion from my response to rayiner. It isn't needed to make my point which is that relying on expert advice is not an argumentative fallacy. It is strange that a brilliant lawyer and technologist would try to refute the citing of an expert's opinion by referencing a website. You can see the irony in that, right? You do realize that referring to an "authority" is not a valid way to advance the notion that referring to authorities is wrong, right?
      - dctoedt 3y ago
        I turn over my king, sir. </sarcasm>
        skhunted 3y ago
        I think you don't understand the points I made. They could be wrong but not for the reasons anyone here has yet advanced. This is what I wrote: Highly intelligent legal experts in the form of Supreme Court justices determined that states can’t ban abortions. Other equally intelligent legal experts in the form of Supreme Court justices determined otherwise. Both sets of people wrote cogent opinions in support of their position. What is one to make of these facts? The Constitution says what you want it to say and you can write a well written, well reasoned argument supporting what you want it to say. Our Constitution, in reality, is much more than the words written in it. It’s morphed due to judicial precedent over the course of 200 or so years. I'm not advancing the notion that abortion is a right or that it isn't a right. I'm not making any legal arguments whatsoever except to say that legal experts disagree on matters of constitutional law. I'm not making an appeal to authority to advance my argument because I'm not saying that my conclusion: Our Constitution, in reality, is much more than the words written in it. It’s morphed due to judicial precedent over the course of 200 or so years. is supported by anyone with legal expertise. I'm just saying that there is no single objectively true way to decide what is or isn't a constitutional right as I see it. This is an opinion I have and I gave the reasons I have for this opinion. If someone want to refute this conclusion of mine they need to demonstrate that there is a single objectively true way to decide constitutional rights. If I'm wrong please let me know what this single objectively true way is. Referencing appeal to authority has nothing to do with my point. Referencing rayner's legal expertise is not germane to anything I wrote. His reasoning in response to what I wrote is quite bad. It is a fact that referencing an "authority" to advance the notion that referencing authorities is a logical fallacy is bad reasoning.
  - rayiner 3y ago
    Your point about the expert testimony in court is an excellent example of my point. Jurors aren’t required to believe experts. Experts must get on the stand, and persuade the jury. Expert testimony is only as good as its ability to persuade a jury of ordinary people. So saying “experts agree” means nothing if you can’t point to a cogent explanation from an expert.

rayiner 3y ago

> You have not shown that no one with equal or more knowledge and expertise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

skhunted 3y ago
Your reasoning skills are quite lacking. Your response to my so called argument from authority is to...wait for it....appeal to an authority. That is quite ironic! I did not argue form authority but because I was not advancing the idea that abortion is a constitutional right. I was advancing the idea that there are experts who think it is. And experts who think otherwise. But it is not a logical fallacy to use the opinions of an expert in their area of expertise. You know virtually nothing about quantum mechanics and in a discussion about quantum mechanics it is valid to defer to what an expert says on that topic. Indeed, the court system understands the value of expert testimony for good reason. They know that using an expert in their area of expertise is valid and carries weight. Of course that does not mean experts are always right. Just means they know more than you. None of this is germane to the point I made. I was not arguing from authority. I was talking about what I originally wrote versus what you replied with. Read what I originally wrote. Your point made no sense unless you can show that it is universally agreed by judges (or other experts in law) that there is no constitutional basis for a right to an abortion.
- dctoedt 3y ago
  Friend, your ad hominem comments in this thread are really billboarding your naivete. There are many things that Rayiner and I disagree about, but he's a brilliant lawyer who clerked for a federal circuit-court judge (one of the most-prestigious positions there is for new lawyers) and who has impressive techie credentials from before that. It's painfully obvious that you have little or no idea how judges go about deciding hard cases under American law — what they're required to do; what they're prohibited from doing; what they're given leeway to do if they deem it appropriate.
  - skhunted 3y ago
    Mentioning that he is a brilliant lawyer is, in Rayiner's opinion, a logical fallacy. You are engaging in what he thinks is bad reasoning in support of him. I think it is a fact that courts do sometimes use expert testimony. If that is not the case then strike that portion from my response to rayiner. It isn't needed to make my point which is that relying on expert advice is not an argumentative fallacy. It is strange that a brilliant lawyer and technologist would try to refute the citing of an expert's opinion by referencing a website. You can see the irony in that, right? You do realize that referring to an "authority" is not a valid way to advance the notion that referring to authorities is wrong, right?
    - dctoedt 3y ago
      I turn over my king, sir. </sarcasm>
      - skhunted 3y ago
        I think you don't understand the points I made. They could be wrong but not for the reasons anyone here has yet advanced. This is what I wrote: Highly intelligent legal experts in the form of Supreme Court justices determined that states can’t ban abortions. Other equally intelligent legal experts in the form of Supreme Court justices determined otherwise. Both sets of people wrote cogent opinions in support of their position. What is one to make of these facts? The Constitution says what you want it to say and you can write a well written, well reasoned argument supporting what you want it to say. Our Constitution, in reality, is much more than the words written in it. It’s morphed due to judicial precedent over the course of 200 or so years. I'm not advancing the notion that abortion is a right or that it isn't a right. I'm not making any legal arguments whatsoever except to say that legal experts disagree on matters of constitutional law. I'm not making an appeal to authority to advance my argument because I'm not saying that my conclusion: Our Constitution, in reality, is much more than the words written in it. It’s morphed due to judicial precedent over the course of 200 or so years. is supported by anyone with legal expertise. I'm just saying that there is no single objectively true way to decide what is or isn't a constitutional right as I see it. This is an opinion I have and I gave the reasons I have for this opinion. If someone want to refute this conclusion of mine they need to demonstrate that there is a single objectively true way to decide constitutional rights. If I'm wrong please let me know what this single objectively true way is. Referencing appeal to authority has nothing to do with my point. Referencing rayner's legal expertise is not germane to anything I wrote. His reasoning in response to what I wrote is quite bad. It is a fact that referencing an "authority" to advance the notion that referencing authorities is a logical fallacy is bad reasoning.
- rayiner 3y ago
  Your point about the expert testimony in court is an excellent example of my point. Jurors aren’t required to believe experts. Experts must get on the stand, and persuade the jury. Expert testimony is only as good as its ability to persuade a jury of ordinary people. So saying “experts agree” means nothing if you can’t point to a cogent explanation from an expert.