birdog1960

apparently you read none of the references I linked re the definition of argument to authority. but go ahead. make up your own definitions and argue based on them. it's what you do. too bad you're not good at it. alternatively, you could link to a respected source of a definition for that fallacy that disagrees with the one I linked. oh, but wait. it would take an authority to make a definition. and you can't have that. because you're the only vaild authority, right? if a definition is not based on expert and consensus opinion, what is it based on?

ah, so solely on his disagreement with you and despite his many accomplishments and acknowledgements in the field, he cannot be an expert. got it...perhaps we can now argue about the meaning of the word expert? I suspect somehow your definition will be crafted to include you in that group. you guys are pathetic.

no, I don't see. and since you brought it up. perhaps you should check the author's list of documentaries and publications. you'll find that you are, once again, incorrect.

I posted it, in part, because he says this: even if the statue at Oxford were to be removed, and even if that were the only demand of the campaign, it would still not amount to the burying of history. That’s because statues and memorials are not the mechanism through which we learn or remember history: books, museums, memorial days, heritage attractions and television documentaries, among others, perform that task. Statues are how we memorialise and commemorate. They are how we lament tragedies, celebrate victories and lionise the exploits of men – and they almost always are men – whom we’ve decided were heroes. A tiny fraction of historical events and a tiny number of historical figures ever make it to bronze or marble. The question in 2016 therefore is not should Rhodes be remembered – he will be, no matter what happens at Oxford – but should his achievements be celebrated with statues and plaques that ignore his crimes? I fully agree with him. it holds for the confederates, cecil Rhodes and the myriad other evil figures that somehow managed to con people to make statues and monuments to them. in the same piece, he says this: For example, few people in Britain would find it difficult to see why the flag of the pro-slavery Confederacy is an insensitive symbol to fly in a country that is home to 42 million black people. But it was only after the church shooting in Charleston, South Carolina, last June that Carolinians – a third of whom are the descendants of slaves – and their legislators found it possible to hold a proper discussion over whether it is really right that the flag should fly above their statehouse, or if African Americans should be expected to live under the shadows of statues to slave-owning, Confederate commanders or the founders of the Ku Klux Klan – two groups that often overlap like a Venn diagram. again, I fully agree. the death camps are in no way analogous, they are not monuments to the evil oppressors. they commemorate those who died at their hands and continue to indict the evil doers. very different purposes from what the confederate monuments were erected for.

you are truly an idiot and a intellectually dishonest one at that.

Is what happens when you cut and paste from wikipedia without reading or understanding. "Less likely to be shallow because he is an expert in the field" is EXACTLY the type of statistical syllogism that makes your "argument" an appeal to authority I think we missed a teachable moment here. you see, the statement cut and pasted from wiki is footnoted. it's something you seem wholly unfamiliar with. that number "2" after the statement refers to this book: ^ Salmon, Merrilee (2012). Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking (6th ed.). Boston: Wadsworth Publishing. pp. 118–121. ISBN 1133049753. which is also thoroughly footnoted. in this way, the authors of the piece and the book are building on previous work and knowledge while acknowledging said works. it's something you might try. we can also use this opportunity to better understand the fallacy of appeal to authority: "Contemporary interest in fallacies was reinvigorated with the publication in 1970 of C. L. Hamblin's Fallacies. Hamblin challenged standard treatment of fallacies as dogmatic and unmoored from contemporary logic.[9] As a result, scholars such as Douglas Walton in Appeal to Expert Opinion and Ralph Johnson and J. Anthony Blair in Logical Self-Defense[10] developed more rigorous accounts of how and when arguments from authority are fallacious. Logic textbooks also shifted to a less blanket approach to these arguments, now referring to the fallacy as the "Argument from Unqualified Authority"[11] or the "Argument from Ureliable Authority,"[12] identifying the fallacy as being due to the misuse rather than just the use of authority in argument." this is also thoroughly referenced as a point of illustration and simple fact.

Following with Is what happens when you cut and paste from wikipedia without reading or understanding. "Less likely to be shallow because he is an expert in the field" is EXACTLY the type of statistical syllogism that makes your "argument" an appeal to authority. What's more "Without any basis" only in your own mind. And that's only because you've been paying no attention to anything anyone else says. And "juvenile and ignorant" more accurately describes the blind and uncritical argument to authority you make than an observation that an opinion of such narrow scope and vision is "shallow and dumbass." obfuscation. it's what happens when you or nearly any of the chorus post. it's almost always due to lack of substance. but I won't stoop to your level and hand wave away nearly everything you've ever witten as superficial and facile, even if it is.

read what the citation was in reference to. here's a hint. it wasn't American slavery.

nope. i'm not doing this: The Argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam) also appeal to authority, is a common argument form which can be fallacious, such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise, or when the authority cited is not a true expert.[1] The appeal to authority is a form of argument attempting to establish a statistical syllogism.[2] additionally, i'm not claiming that what olusoga said was in fact true i'm stating that's it's less likely to be shallow because he is an expert in the field. further, i'm stating that dismissal of his piece without any basis is juvenile and ignorant. but hell, lets go farther afield since the whole tangent was precipitated by oc's ridiculous post. if I didn't know better i'd tyhink this obfuscation is organized among the many (or few) con avatars here at ppp.

I can see that you rely solely on personal opinion without any reference or established basis. almost all knowledge is built on preexisting knowledge. you are not immune and certainly not intellectually special. it's clearly more reasonable to seriously consider a piece by someone with impressive accomplishments in the field than to accept the complete, unexplained dismissal of said argument by someone with none.

umm, no I linked an article that addressed a side issue that oc found necessary to interject. with the swipe of a hand, dc (who for all we know has the credentials of cliff clavin) dismissed it as "shallow and dumbass". I chose to refute that unfounded criticism by linking some rather impressive credentials.

how bout you link something more profound then. perhaps some source material or an opinion piece from someone generally respected for their knowledge, unlike you. because , ya know, we actually can discover a wealth of impressive information about mr olusoga http://www.zoominfo.com/p/David-Olusoga/1101764879 but we know of none about you.

we're not discussing removing monuments honoring the men behind all these other despicable acts, now are we? if we were, then i'd agree that removal would be appropriate just as it is for the confederates that are/were honored in new Orleans. start another thread about them and we'll agree. cecil Rhodes anyone? yeah, i'd support removing any positive reference or monument to his name.... http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/07/cecil-rhodes-statue-war-criminal-rhodes-must-fall

The story goes that during a Tonight Show appearance, Arnold Palmer was asked by Johnny Carson if he had any good-luck rituals. The golfer replied, "Yes, my wife kisses my balls." To which Carson supposedly quipped, "I'll bet that flutters your putter."

no. a reasonable suspicion.

so speaketh the chorus.which might well include duplicate voices.

not everyone else. just the cons in the chorus here.

here's a word for your debate skills: pathetic. when all else fails...

the dictionary definition that I posted yesterday hasn't changed.

no, you don't understand. standing down in thatr situation meets the dictionary definition of the term thus it's literal. your argu,ment gets more pathetic by the minute. now you are arguing over the meaning of literal. it's truly pitiful. and I mean that literally.

cruz' statement on the issue is directly applicable and relevant to the thread. what he said, what the phrase means and the context in which he said it are all very important especially since he is on the side that has historically failed to condemn groups like this. this adds clarity not opacity althpough I agree that the water is clearly tinted.

i'll continue to complain about insults used as argument. it's an ignorant and juvenile tactic.

I will but I don't need your permission

because so many posts here have concentrated on these other events and a different perspective was needed.

it's not my argument. it's a writer from al Jazeera. it's well written and easily understood. just presenting a very different perspective. I think there's plenty to discuss while concentrating solely on the events in Oregon without bringing up unrelated events.