Criminal Justice and Crime
This is a Lemmy.World community for discussions of Criminal Justice and crime.
Rules:
-
This is a community about criminal justice. Posts should relate to criminal justice, crime, policing, courts and litigation, and other related topics. Posts about crime should be about a noteworthy crime, not "run of the mill" crimes.
-
Be civil. You do not need to support criminal justice reform to participate in this community and civil discussions are encouraged.
-
Posts should be news, discussions, or images related to criminal justice. Memes and humor are allowed but should not be excessively posted.
-
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Utilizing such language in your username will also result in a ban.
view the rest of the comments
"Fuck the experts, they're wrong and I'm right"
No, fuck fallacious appeals to authority.
I don't know, this authority seems pretty reliable to me. Surely more reliable than "[email protected]".
Appeals to authority are only fallacious in formal rhetoric. Just because an authority said it doesn't mean it's always right, but it usually is. And that is enough in contexts outside of formal logical argument, such as this one.
By your reasoning, if a professor of epidemiology says, "the best way to prevent the spread of disease is to wash your hands and stay home when you're sick," and I share that statement to convince you to wash your hands, that is equally an appeal to authority. Yet the argument is still correct.
The only fallicious use of appeals to authority is to say "This person is an authority, therefore they are always correct." And it is considered a logical fallacy in formal rhetoric because statements therein are generally absolute. It is not fallicious to say "This person is an authority, therefore their opinions are likely well-reasoned and based in knowledge and experience that most people don't have."
It must be understood that when an argument comes from a reliable authority, while it cannot be said that argument is therefore correct, it can be said that argument is therefore likely to be well-reasoned.
Surely it does not require this many words to say that we should listen to the experts in matters of public policy.
Wow, you're completely missing my point. I'm not saying that the experts' claims are incorrect in a narrow sense; I'm saying that they fail to trace the chain of causes all the way to its beginning.
Take these parts, for instance:
I'm not disputing that mass shooters tend to have suffered trauma due to exposure to domestic abuse. What I'm asking is, what strategies are the researchers suggesting to prevent the domestic abuse before it happens? The answer appears to be fuck-all!
Instead, the experts are suggesting we cruelly let the abuse happen, identity the small subset of victims who decide to retaliate, and only then give them any scrap of help.
And that cruelty is what you're defending with your bullshit fallacies. You should be ashamed of yourself!
Well, that question is easy to answer.
That's because the guy in the article isn't an expert in domestic violence. He's not proposing that nothing be done, he's showing restraint by not talking out of his ass about a subject he's not an expert in.
You ask the statistics guy what solution he's got for the problem and he's going to give you a statistics answer. And maybe you can use that answer to ask other experts follow-up questions, but that's beyond the scope of your conversation with this particular person.
But it sure as Hell is within the scope of an article that purports to consult with multiple experts to arrive at solutions to the problem. So where the fuck is the paragraph about what the DV expert had to say? It isn't there, and that's what I've been complaining about this whole damn time!
The article is shit and deserves to be downvoted because -- as you have just effectively admitted -- it fails to even cite the right experts in the first place. Which means you trying to paint me as wrong for disregarding experts that don't even exist in the article is, again, complete and utter bullshit. Q-E-fucking-D.
Disagree. Not every article has to cover absolutely everything.
It's like talking about problems with drug addiction. There are two facets:
You do not need to present a solution to both in order to present a good solution to 1.
Even if that's true -- and I'm not conceding that point -- that's not the argument you've been making. Instead, you started off this whole thing by trying to ridicule me for strawman nonsense you made up, and haven't even apologized yet. I'm really sick and tired of your blatant bad faith.
decline