|
|
Post by booley on May 31, 2011 17:38:10 GMT -5
Again appeal to authority. Not a good argument. So if I cite the consensus opinion on the Theory of Evolution, am I appealing to authority fallaciously? Depends. IF you say that since a majority of scientists support the theory of evolution so now the rest of us have to accept that blindly, then yes. IF you say that the majority of scientists support evolution because the evidence supports it and that's why it's a majority opinion (with the caveat that the opposing argument does not have such strong proof) then NO. It probably doesn't help that the way legal and scientific debates are settled are completely different. No that's an appeal to false authority. The whole point of this being that while an expert is less likely to be wrong about a subject in his field, that doesn't mean he can't ever be wrong. So for instance... Funny story . Stan Lee once bragged that he had introduced the very first gay comic book char. However it turned out that he had gotten confused about a char who was flamboyant (and English!!) but definitely heterosexual. Lee later admitted to the mistake. So Stan Lee is a good authority on comic books but even he can be wrong. Even about comics he himself wrote. This is why "I'm an expert" does not end a debate. Yes. But not all interpretations are valid. Also with the constitution, there will be logical outcomes to any interpretations made precedent. Which gives even the details a gravitas that most other subjects do not have. I never said they weren't a valid authority. What I said was they were wrong and this set up a loop hole that could and would be exploited. This would not be the first time. ANd I view it as wrong and even dangerous to accept something merely because an authority said so. Or think of it this way. I do accept one person of authority on this issue. I accept that Ginsburg is an authority on the constitution and made the better argument And so far no one has been able to explain why she didn't. At least not without creating straw men and twisting the facts of the case. Which opens the possibility that at least some here agreed with the majority opinion not because they think it's a good argument but because it came from an authority they accepted and that was it. Everything after was rationalization. Hence my frustration. Few if anyone has argued what I said. Only what they thought I said. www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#authoritywww.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#falseauth |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on May 31, 2011 20:50:58 GMT -5
So, wait a minute. This conversation is valid in your opinion, then.
Person 1: Three strikes and you are out.
Person 2: Oh really? Citation needed.
Person 1: Yeah, the people who wrote the rules >_>
Person 2: APPEAL TO AUTHORITY!
|
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on May 31, 2011 21:26:30 GMT -5
This is honestly getting stupid
I'd love to see a defendant claim appeal to authority when the law decides he was wrong
|
|
|
|
Post by Bluefinger on Jun 1, 2011 1:58:02 GMT -5
Booley, the cops had probably cause because they saw the criminal run into a corridor of which there were only two options as to where he would have went. Since the chase began in public, the cops were entitled to continue their attempt to arrest the suspect, and seeing that they simply went for the door with what they thought was the most likely one to have the criminal behind, that was their probable cause.
You've made arguments and comments about how this would lead to a police state. This is a paranoid statement. You've made the argument to either accept more limits on police or accept a police state. This is a fallacious argument. As for what I have used, I was going by what has been posted on this thread, particularly the paper that was posted on the Supreme Court ruling. Numerous arguments have been made, but the ones that actually make sense have not been yours. So claiming that I've been not making a factual argument just stinks of you huffing and puffing about not getting your way, and also claiming no one has met your 'intellectual criteria'. It so much easier to paint everyone else as inferior or outright wrong than to accept you might not be entirely correct on this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haseen on Jun 1, 2011 4:54:05 GMT -5
I changed my mind, if only because the ruling could apply to more serious crimes. I don't know what the exact rules of evidence are, but I'd hate to see something like a dead body tossed out under the same rules as something as trivial as drug evidence. Anyways, I saw an article about it (I forget the URL) that said the scope of the case was limited to what should be automatically thrown out as police caused exigency, not about the exact events of that individual case. Essentially, they said the lower court can't automatically throw out the evidence just because of a police knock, and tossed it back down for them to reconsider. They may very well toss it out (or keep it) on other grounds.
At least I hope that's a good explanation. IANAL.
What doesn't sit well with me that anyone would say "SCOTUS decided this, so it's absolutely right, no further discussion". That would have made the Dred Scott decision correct, at least for the time. Maybe as in "technically, the law is what people have decided it is, and not just in the text itself", but that doesn't make it right in the broader sense of the word. The fact that SCOTUS made a decision shouldn't be used as a debate killer.
(This is also why I could never stomach being a lawyer -- my personal opinions would interfere far too much.)
|
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Jun 1, 2011 6:51:11 GMT -5
What doesn't sit well with me that anyone would say "SCOTUS decided this, so it's absolutely right, no further discussion". That would have made the Dred Scott decision correct, at least for the time. Maybe as in "technically, the law is what people have decided it is, and not just in the text itself", but that doesn't make it right in the broader sense of the word. The fact that SCOTUS made a decision shouldn't be used as a debate killer. While I understand your problem with this, sadly, that is the way our court system is set up. The courts (not just the USSC, all courts) interpret the law. The check on that power is if the legislature does not like a court's interpretation, they can pass a law clarifying what they (the legislature) really meant in the original law. No, the courts are not perfect. They make bad decisions. (Dred Scott being an example.) If someone does not like a decision, the way around it is to find a different situation with just enough differences from an existing holding, then argue "in XYZ, the Court said this. But the cause before us today is different from XYZ because ABC, so therefore, the holding of XYZ should not be used." The other way is to wait for society to change. As society changes, court holdings change. Over the past decade, several state supreme courts have held there is no bar to same-sex marriage in their state constitution; can you imagine such holdings 100 years ago? |
|
