I felt a swelling of Dutch/European pride listening to Geert Wilder's Speech to Turkey

appeal to authority

You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.

It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. However it is, entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not.

 

Except I would only be using that falacy if I were saying:
You are WRONG because THOSE PEOPLE SAID YOU WERE WRONG and they KNOW ALL about it.

however that is not what I am doing, I am saying;
In review the support for the claims brought forth by @Astamir so far outclass the ones by @newsbuff in terms of believability of their expertise in the subject.

this was an open door for you to bring more support for your claims to the table, however instead you decided to try and pin a fallacy on me in the flimsiest way possible.

 

My claims are indisputable and I am unstumpable, just like my Great President.

 

instead of trying to handwave it with falacies similar to the one you tried to pin on me maybe try an appology. it would hurt your believability less.

 

We made competing claims.

I lazily copy+pasted my favorite author.

Asstamer even more lazily claims there's a professor somewhere who supports his claims.

You parade around claiming that asstamer wins because his supposed professor has more authority than my author, thus winning the prize for yourself for the most intellectually lazy of all.

zzzZZzzZ BORING!

 

I did no such thing.
but you sure are doing it.

you forget he named a name and a university. so verify or dispute that. and it is not the authority but the expertise which wins out here.

 

I claimed to be unfamiliar with the specifics of the subject.
but I am capable of judging which sources are better than others.

why do you resort to personal attacks against me? why are you not bringing up more support? Is the writings of a cold war era objectivist the scope of support you can muster for your claim? is that the problem here?

 

my evidence that capitalism > socialism?

i guess the last 100 years of socialist republics starving and mass-murdering their citizens, versus the explosive prosperity of capitalist countries.

 

Your evidence that:

unregulated capitalism = best ever > evil social programs and regulation.

don't misrepresent your case.

 

• don't trust humans
• give a human coercive power (force)/authority they will eventually abuse it
• centralize that power and abuse on even larger scales occur
• as a principle, minimize proliferation and centralization of coercive power

F|_|CK THE GOVERNMENT

 

I just wish we could have a replay of east/west germany or north/south korea so that burn, geress, and ass can all starve in their socialist utopia while im chillin out maxin relaxin all cool in my capitalist trump tower

 

Those are not socialist.

North Korea is Juche based on WW2 nationalistic superiority ideology
east germany was a stalinist puppet.

funny how you have these ideas about an undercontrolled goverment getting too much power but ignore the same when it comes to money.

 

and then he attacked me for pointing it out.

I am owed an apology and I do not think we should forget that I do.

 

i cited history and reality

also, do you even know who you're dealing with? this is my leg, lol:

Spoiler

 

what on earth makes you think i am seeking the approval of communists on the internet

 

Newsbuff does not understand nuance. it is black or white for him.

 

the second time you've supposedly blocked me

 

It makes all the difference for that clown.

 

I mean, I'm not sure I would call what's going on in this thread "discussion"...