Which logical fallacy is this argument?

Dunno. I'm not an authority on logical fallacies so can't discuss. And neither can you by the sound of it.

I see what you did there.

nice

It does sort of appeal to authority in that it assumes there is an authority that can be appealed to, just not either of you two.
But like you mentioned; little of both without completely being either.

IT'S A HYBRID FALLACY!

Any debatetards or logictards around to enlighten me on this one?

I had a discussion with a coworker that went something like this:

coworker: Yang's tweet that the President and the government needs to better understand technology so the caucus mess wouldn't happen is true

me: Yang is blaming the President? The President's DHS offered to review the caucus voting app, but the DNC refused.

coworker: But it's true that the government and the president should know more about technology.

me: Sure, but that's not the point. Yang is blaming the President and the government for something neither have anything to do with. The DNC even knew about problems with their app as early as last week!

coworker: Democrats are the government, so Yang's tweet is true.

me: The democratic party is not the government. It's a political party. Yang is trying to blame the current administration for the failures of the DNC's app.

coworker: Neither of us are politicians so we don't know enough to debate this.

Incomplete comparison

Argument ad ignorantium?

Your co-worker is a fuckin moron.

Anyone can talk about anything. The thing is if you really are not sure, taking a conclusion and just carry on is stupidity. Example:
None of us know what Mick Jaegger had for dinner last night. I can say I think it was a fish. You can say he had pizza. Is any of us correct? Maybe. Can we both be wrong? Yes. How can we know? With evidence.

In what way is an appeal to authority not an appeal to authority?

A red herring ad hominem? Definitely a hybrid fallacy unless there is one specifically for this type of case I cannot recall

I thought it was this, but I couldn't find any examples of appeal to authority that matched a line of reasoning where one side accuses itself in addition to the other side of not being qualified enough.

Well I don't know what particular logical fallacy that might be OP, but I personally call that mentality; the cult of the expert mentality.

Both the government and the media ingrain it into the masses heads, so they don't question anything and only rely on the opinions of the establishment's vetted and approved "experts".

Strawman

Boom! Nailed it. It's a species of irrelevance ad hominem ~ "argumentum ad ignorantiam" ~ an appeal to ignorance. Poison the well by appealing to the bandwagon while simultaneously discrediting your adversary. A real crowdpleaser amongst politicians.

It's a hybrid for sure..

Appeal to Authority
Appeal to Ignorance
Bandwagon
Ad Hominem

All combined together...

Post hoc ergo proptor hoc.

Or non-sequitir.

Because we are not experts, if follows that we cannot discuss it - which does not follow logically. Why would you not be able to discuss it?

Uh. Dems are responsible for their own debacle.

You can't discuss it, because neither of you are experts?



It is simply illogical.

That's the ol' Democrat cop out.

I don't need no fancy Latin.

Lol appeal to authority

[link to yourlogicalfallacyis.com (secure)]

Derp

That's a straw man.

See what I did there?

Just because the other side offers their ignorance as a fig leaf, it's still an appeal to authority.

It means we have too many commie weasel lawyers running the country.

It's Appeal to Authority with a twist of socialist statism.

You're begging the question in assuming that it is a
"strawman" fallacy.

The bigger logical fallacy is that OPie is discussing politics as work in the first place.

This is basically an appeal to a straw man authority. I just made that up but it works perfectly. You're welcome.

"There is an authority out there we should listen to, but neither of us is it."

But there are innumerable cases where the statement is true.

It's refreshing to actually hear people admit they don't know
everything.

Admitting you don't know everything (or anything) is the beginning of wisdom.

But, we are given a rational mind with which we can use reason and evidence to evaluate claims based upon evidence and learn things that we actually can know.

Arguing that we shouldn't talk because we don't know everything, or



is just as worthless and decrepit as talking to (or being) a know it all.

Last Edited by BoatyMcBoatface on 02/04/2020 09:04 PM