• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pentagon: No Plans to Change 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Policy After Court Ruling

Boo Radley said:
Pay close attention, I'm arguing the court laid out the legal grounds...
Click to expand...
Look..
I can only post this so many times. At some point it is up to you to read it and -try- to understand it:
Logical Fallacies» Appeal to Authority

When you base your arguments on false standards and logical fallcies, as you have, you and they are destined to fail. As you have.

At this point, I have to wonder if you aren't deliberatly refusing to understand you have fallen back on a logical fallacy in order to simply not have to admit you're wrong. It certainly seems to be the case as you continue to repeat the same fallacy over and over, no matter hoe many different ways you are told that because you are hanging your argument on a fallacy, your argument is unsound.

If that's the case -- well, silly me for wasting so much time on you.
 
Is Goobiemen really arguing that Supreme Court precedent is just an appeal to authority?

I hope not, because if he lacks that much understanding of Constitutional Law, he is embarrassing himself.
 
CriticalThought said:
Is Goobiemen really arguing that Supreme Court precedent is just an appeal to authority?
Click to expand...
A court decision is in no way necessarily logically sound - its nothing more than a majority of a small group of people agreeing with a certain position. Even a minscule amount of critical thought leads one to easily understand how this creates a logical fallacy.
 
Goobieman said:
Look..
I can only post this so many times. At some point it is up to you to read it and -try- to understand it:
Logical Fallacies» Appeal to Authority

When you base your arguments on false standards and logical fallcies, as you have, you and they are destined to fail. As you have.

At this point, I have to wonder if you aren't deliberatly refusing to understand you have fallen back on a logical fallacy in order to simply not have to admit you're wrong. It certainly seems to be the case as you continue to repeat the same fallacy over and over, no matter hoe many different ways you are told that because you are hanging your argument on a fallacy, your argument is unsound.

If that's the case -- well, silly me for wasting so much time on you.
Click to expand...

I know something about fallacies and you have it wrong. not only do you not know when such is a fallacy, you're not even rightly interpreting what is being said to you here. Appeal to authority doesn't mean you can't ever look at an authority, for god forbid anyone seek insight from those who know. I never said you were wrong because the court disagrees, though they do know more than you do. I said it was the place to start the discussion.

However, let's get back to your misunderstanding of the fallacy:

On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.

Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, once again, you're either lack reasonable knowledge, or you're simply pretending in order to avoid answering.
 
Goobieman said:
A court decision is in no way necessarily logically sound - its nothing more than a majority of a small group of people agreeing with a certain position. Even a minscule amount of critical thought leads one to easily understand how this creates a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

But, to dispute them, you have to start by showing their error in law. You can't just say you believe differently so you must be right.
 
Boo Radley said:
So, once again, you're either lack reasonable knowledge, or you're simply pretending in order to avoid answering.
Click to expand...
Sigh. I tried. You simply cannot be helped.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom