You're viewing a single thread.
edit:
LOL i've never seen such butthurt from a simple link to a logical fallacy, which 100% applies in this casethank you, @SmoothOperator@lemmy.world for the insight:
evidence gathering and following genocide evaluation can be much better performed by organizations with expertise and authority on such matters. Most of the listed organizations are considering expert evidence gatherers and experienced, empowered authorities of genocide evaluation.
expertise. authority. truth.
That’s incorrect, this isn’t talking about what the masses believe but what actual experts and legal scholars and courts are overwhelmingly saying. That fallacy doesn’t apply to a judge’s rulings.
actual experts and legal scholars and courts are overwhelmingly saying.
wow, "overwhelmingly saying" i guess what they say must be true then LOL
No.
Your fallacy would apply to something like
80 percent of Americans believe that ...
But not to
Judges from all over the world came to the conclusion ...
The whole thing this fallacy is trying to explain is that you should ask the experts, not the general population.
lol "judge = expert"
thank you for supporting the infallible not-bullshit authority on all things truth of the honorable judge aileen cannon
fucking /s
Did anyone claim that all judges are correct? No. You’re strawmanning the issue. Going from one incorrect fallacy to another.
And who do YOU think should best be qualified to determine whether a law is broken or not…except a judge? Or the consensus of judges?
if only we held the US government to the same standards as we do randos on lemmy...
I have absolutely no idea what aileen cannon has to to with the fallacy you mentioned. Maybe you posted your reply to the wrong thread.
The majority of zionists believe killing children is a valid way to wage war so it must be true!
If anything, this would be an appeal to authority. It's not like the post is saying half of the American people believe it's genocide and therefore it is. No, the claim is that several relevant organizations like the ICC, ICJ, and Human Rights Watch, etc., are saying that it is genocide. That'd be like claiming that the vast majority of climate scientists believing in global warming is supporting evidence that global warming is likely true. It is. It's not enough evidence on its own, but it is evidence nonetheless.
That's the thing. Not all appeals to authority are fallacious. Supporting a claim with an expert's opinion is a logically sound way to support an argument.
thank you! i'll keep this on deck in case i ever make a fallacious argument
But you did.
This isn’t an argumentum ad populum fallacy because the argument isn’t based solely on the number of people or organizations making the claim; it's based on the authority and credibility of these entities.
Whether you agree or disagree with those entities and question their credibility is a separate matter, but it's not argumentum ad populum. For the same reason the following isn't:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Health Organization, the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, and the National Institutes of Health all claim that smoking causes lung cancer and heart disease, so it must be true.
all those orgs have scientific evidence to back up their claims
And the organizations from the post must have their evidence for making their claims. Otherwise they wouldn't be considered reputable.
But that doesn't matter, because you still misused the fallacy.
considered reputable.
there are people consider fox news to be "reputable" so that point of yours means approximately nothing. facts are what matter, and the israel problem is contentious because no one can back up their own definition of "genocide" with facts
you still misused the fallacy.
i didn't, but whatever.
I like how you completely ignored the part where I said "that doesn't matter" and argued the wrong point anyway.
Whether you consider them reputable or not doesn't matter. Those are THE organizations (some of them, anyway) that decide these things. They are THE experts in the field. If a person were to say "a lot of people/organizations say <some fact in field x>, so it must be true", that would be argumentum ad populum. But since they are saying "a lot of <authorities/experts in the field x> claim <some fact in the field x>, so it must be true", that's not a fallacy, that's a valid appeal to authority.
CDC, WHO, NIH, etc. could all be wrong, they could've interpreted the "scientific evidence" incorrectly and come to the wrong conclusions. But we know that this is an unlikely scenario for so many independent experts in the field to reach a consensus on something that is wrong. Therefore, our best bet is to trust their conclusions.
To reiterate, whether those organizations are right or wrong doesn't matter, because they are not a random majority—they are the organizations you're supposed to rely on in this situation; it's a valid appeal to authority. Hence, it's not a fallacy, let alone argumentum ad populum.
you're right. all that to say: we're sending money, weapons, ammo, and war machines to israel. as we've always done. as we'll always do. but yea. you got me!
lol got'em
Nope!
LOL wow. were you president of the debate club in high school?
Dude, go read the page you linked. Seriously. The "no, you" argument being used to defend Zionism has nothing to do with the page you linked to. Sorry, but, it just doesn't...
Like, for real, you've clearly misremembered your debate terminology. Cause you ain't making any sense here.
Thank you.
I was the captain of the debate team; this guy does not understand what an appeal to popularity actually means. Experts carry weight that general population does not.
you're attributing the "expert" label to people and organizations whose "expertise" is self-proclaimed. this isn't like covid, fauci, and the cdc type expertise that is based on literal verifiable science. why is "expert" even a term that's being used in a conversation about abstract impossible to quantify concepts like foreign relations?
the argument "i'm right, because these people that call themselves 'expert' think so too" in the context of foreign relations is what's known as argumentum ad populum.. please explain how i'm wrong
also, although obviously the herd mentality has made their judgment, i'm going to say it anyway: i'm not "pro-genocide" or "zionist" or any other form of "israel = best most valid everything" unlike the united states government, who will continue to send money, weapons, aircraft carriers, and your kids to defend israel at all costs. forever.
please explain how I'm wrong.
I think the misunderstanding at play is that this isn't a question of foreign relations, but rather about the factual conditions of the conflict and whether they justify the legal and/or moral label of genocide.
Such factual conditions can be investigated through sound, empirical gathering of evidence, and any well defined concept of genocide can then be evaluated in that context.
This evidence gathering and following genocide evaluation can be much better performed by organizations with expertise and authority on such matters. Most of the listed organizations are considering expert evidence gatherers and experienced, empowered authorities of genocide evaluation.
Therefore, the fact that such a list of organizations agree on the evidence supporting the label, must weigh as evidence to those of us who do not have this expertise ourselves. It proves nothing outright, but should weigh heavily in the private opinion-forming of laymen.
fair enough. i see this perspective now, and will no longer criticize the "it's genocide because ________ says it is" argument. thank you for the discussion!
You going to edit this edit?
edit: LOL i’ve never seen such butthurt from a simple link to a logical fallacy, which 100% applies in this case
done
USA will continue to fellate israel no matter what anyone says, until there IS no more USA