4 ms·

If you are young, this might help you https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Authority https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallac

If you are young, this might help you https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Authority https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-... If you are old, I have nothing at my disposal. You are on your own. This is pretty basic. One learns this early on if he has actually built something. > regarding the brain, is there a reason your words should be trusted over those of a brain surgeon? You thought I had made a claim about the brain. That's interesting.

thin_carapace 7d ago
i have no idea whether the initial commentor is actually a neurosurgeon. applying good faith, he is a neurosurgeon, he saves lives and is deserving of respect. you're completely correct that an appeal to authority is fallacious in an argumentative context. you're also behaving like a dick to somebody who saves lives. don't care who is right or wrong here, made my comment to suggest that you're behaving disrespectfully. if I was unintentionally doing the same, I would appreciate being informed that the same point could have been made in a more respectful manner. although, if you're also at neurosurgeon calibre, then I am incorrect and this comment is redundant.
- elendilm 6d ago
  The original comment was disrespectful to any freethinker and dismissed the author's work with a "no" providing zero substance. So he deserved the blunt callout and had it coming to him. I have nothing but respect for people who save lives. Many ordinary people on the street also save lives. If you are a neurosurgeon and save lives as a profession, all the more respect to you. I am not a neurosurgeon, and still have saved some lives and many have saved mine. Granted good faith, neither the neurosurgeon's arguments, nor mine, nor anyone else's for that matter should be taken on authority. Professional merit does not grant immunity from basic logic. We can respect an individual and still demand their arguments to conform to the same standard. And no, you were not disrespectful. You gave your reasons, you attempted to substantiate your arguments. That is genuine and something I deeply appreciate. Hope this clarifies.
  - thin_carapace 5d ago
    I can't stop you from interpreting questions as arguments requiring substantiation. my intention was to respectfully elicit your viewpoint in a non accusatory fashion, by asking you about it. people prefer being asked over being told; one who justifies commanding lifesavers instead of listening to them could maybe benefit from learning this, as I did. putting morality aside, you have behaved perfectly logically consistent, while making no clear impact upon the person you addressed. was your goal to be logically consistent, or to make an impact?
    - elendilm 5d ago
      Calling out the bad faith was the impact. Logic was the weapon. Getting exposed was the result. Bad character should be called out. The door was left open for him to demonstrate good faith. He did not. It revealed his character and work ethic. He doesn't want to put in the work. If he really is a neurosurgeon, I wouldn't want him to do surgery on me. He doesn't want to put in the work for his own argument, how can you trust him to put in the work to save your life. Your framing of neurosurgeons as life savers is rejected. If so, then most ordinary folk are also life savers. Unless you speak of truck drivers, pilots, grocery shopkeepers and others the same way as life savers, you will get bluntly called out. Virtue signaling does you no good. I notice you can read things that aren't there. This second time, you saw "commanding" where no commanding existed. It keeps getting interesting.
      - thin_carapace 5d ago
        please keep responding to me calling out all my arguments in the fashions you've been doing so far, I'm really interested in hearing more of your writing style
        elendilm 5d ago
        Gladly. I have all the time in the world :).

thin_carapace 7d ago

i have no idea whether the initial commentor is actually a neurosurgeon. applying good faith, he is a neurosurgeon, he saves lives and is deserving of respect. you're completely correct that an appeal to authority is fallacious in an argumentative context. you're also behaving like a dick to somebody who saves lives. don't care who is right or wrong here, made my comment to suggest that you're behaving disrespectfully. if I was unintentionally doing the same, I would appreciate being informed that the same point could have been made in a more respectful manner. although, if you're also at neurosurgeon calibre, then I am incorrect and this comment is redundant.

elendilm 6d ago
The original comment was disrespectful to any freethinker and dismissed the author's work with a "no" providing zero substance. So he deserved the blunt callout and had it coming to him. I have nothing but respect for people who save lives. Many ordinary people on the street also save lives. If you are a neurosurgeon and save lives as a profession, all the more respect to you. I am not a neurosurgeon, and still have saved some lives and many have saved mine. Granted good faith, neither the neurosurgeon's arguments, nor mine, nor anyone else's for that matter should be taken on authority. Professional merit does not grant immunity from basic logic. We can respect an individual and still demand their arguments to conform to the same standard. And no, you were not disrespectful. You gave your reasons, you attempted to substantiate your arguments. That is genuine and something I deeply appreciate. Hope this clarifies.
- thin_carapace 5d ago
  I can't stop you from interpreting questions as arguments requiring substantiation. my intention was to respectfully elicit your viewpoint in a non accusatory fashion, by asking you about it. people prefer being asked over being told; one who justifies commanding lifesavers instead of listening to them could maybe benefit from learning this, as I did. putting morality aside, you have behaved perfectly logically consistent, while making no clear impact upon the person you addressed. was your goal to be logically consistent, or to make an impact?
  - elendilm 5d ago
    Calling out the bad faith was the impact. Logic was the weapon. Getting exposed was the result. Bad character should be called out. The door was left open for him to demonstrate good faith. He did not. It revealed his character and work ethic. He doesn't want to put in the work. If he really is a neurosurgeon, I wouldn't want him to do surgery on me. He doesn't want to put in the work for his own argument, how can you trust him to put in the work to save your life. Your framing of neurosurgeons as life savers is rejected. If so, then most ordinary folk are also life savers. Unless you speak of truck drivers, pilots, grocery shopkeepers and others the same way as life savers, you will get bluntly called out. Virtue signaling does you no good. I notice you can read things that aren't there. This second time, you saw "commanding" where no commanding existed. It keeps getting interesting.
    - thin_carapace 5d ago
      please keep responding to me calling out all my arguments in the fashions you've been doing so far, I'm really interested in hearing more of your writing style
      - elendilm 5d ago
        Gladly. I have all the time in the world :).