Comments by "ElephantInTheRoom " (@elephantintheroom5678) on "Judith Butler: "October 7 was an act of armed resistance"" video.

Let's ALL call it "armed resistance" in our comments from now on. I will.
105
Well put.
9
@nasher112 Even in Israel it is known that NO babies were beheaded, in fact only ONE baby was killed, accidentally, in its mother's womb, when she was shot in crossfire. Stop repeating disinformation, thank-you.
4
Nonsense. You don't understand her logic at all. For the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be "armed resistance" Japan must needs have illegally occupied the USA for decades.
4
@maxb9315 Argument from a relevant authority is not a logical fallacy. It is only appeal to an irrelevant authority that is a logical fallacy. It is obvious you don't have a university education.
3
@ChristopherGray00 Yeah, I know you people do your best to get us banned. But we're STILL HERE.
2
@johnblack6819 I suggest people google IRGUN, LEHI, THE PALMACH, and the terrorist attacks on Count Bernadotte, and the King David Hotel, for just an introduction to the reality. 🤣
2
@ChristopherGray00 You people keep trying, but we're still here! Freedom of speech is a beautiful thing😁. We don't get put in prison for saying Palestinian's are people, here, either.
2
@maxb9315 Well tell me why every university I know of requires intensive citation to make any believable argument whatsoever. If indeed you have a university education it certainly isn't in one that required you to write arguments.
2
@maxb9315 You totally misunderstand the reason academics cite works, it isn't simply to acknowledge the authors they have used to build their arguments, it is because if they didn't build their work on the authorities in their field their arguments wouldn't be taken seriously. With every comment you've made you have proven you don't understand what you are talking about. Your complete misquoting and misunderstanding of the appeal to IRrelevant authority argumental fallacy, to the reason why academics cite works only proves at every turn that you have a superficial understanding of academia, and the building of arguments. Try and fool someone else, because there is absolutely no way you can convince me that you know what you're talking about.
2
@maxb9315 On top of all the other problems you have with understanding how logical arguments are built, you also appear to have trouble with comprehension: at no point did I state or imply that there was "just one reason for the use of citations." That's a straw man argument, and it's amusing coming from someone who claims to know about logical fallacies.
2
@maxb9315 Maybe you are a "deluded ideologue" if you can't see that Israel killing 40 times as many people than Hamas did by running over them with tanks while they are sleeping, snipers shooting old women in churches, and starving 2.2 million people by cutting off all food and water to the "human animals"( as Yoav Gallant put it) isn't "gratuitous violence."
2
@johnblack6819 According to UN figures, between 2002-2022 Israelis killed 22 TIMES MORE Palestinian civilians than Palestinians killed Israeli civilians in the same 20 year period BEFORE Oct. 7. So perhaps, to be consistent and honest, you should have a good think about who the actual terrorists are; and call terrorism terrorism.
1
@maxb9315 Appeal to Authority CAN be a logical fallacy, but it depends upon whether the testimony of authority is strong or weak. "Thus, the way to differentiate between a legitimate and a fallacious appeal to authority is by evaluating the nature and strength of who is giving the testimony." The different types of the Appeal to Authority are: " *Legitimate Appeal to Authority. *Appeal to Unqualified Authority. *Appeal to Anonymous Authority. Legitimate Appeal to Authority. Legitimate appeals to authority involves testimony from individuals who are truly experts in their fields and are giving advice that is in the realm of their expertise. Not every reliance upon the testimony of an authority figure is fallacious. We often rely upon such testimony, and we can do so for a very good reason. Their talent, training and experience put them in a position to evaluate and report upon evidence not readily available to everyone else. But we must keep in mind that for such an appeal to be justified certain standards must be met: 1. The authority is a (legitimate) expert in the area of knowledge under consideration. 2. The statement of the authority concerns his or her area of mastery. 3. There is (widespread) agreement among experts in the area of knowledge under consideration." Furthermore, it must be possible to verify the claim of the qualified authority using the usual tools and methods, "even though that may take a long time (which is usually why an Appeal to Authority is made in the first place." Your quotation appears to be referring to the fact that even if these conditions are met, there is no Guarantee of Truth. "We are looking at inductive arguments here, and "inductive arguments do not have guaranteed true conclusions, even when the premises are true. Instead we have conclusions which are PROBABLY TRUE." Hopefully this clears up for you that an Appeal to Authority is NOT a logical fallacy if the authority is a qualified authority in the area in question, there is widespread agreement by other authorities in the field on the question, and it could conceivably be verified whether the claim was true by other means such as seeking original facts and data (although that may take a very long time). * This explanation of the Appeal to Authority is taken from thoughtco.com/logical-fallacies-appeal-to-authority-250336
1
@maxb9315 Funny that you are appealing to an authority in order to argue that appeals to authority are logical fallacies!😂 However, I'll play along. Your quotation appears to be referring to the fact that there is No Guarantee of Truth when we make an appeal to authority to support an argument, as we are looking at inductive arguments (rather than supporting our proposition with original facts and data) here, and "inductive arguments do not have guaranteed true conclusions even if the premises are true. Instead, we have conclusions which are PROBABLY true." "The truth of the matter is we can't verify every single thing ourselves, and thus will always have to make use of the testimony of experts." "Types of Appeal to Authority. 1. Legitimate Appeal to Authority. 2. Appeal to Unqualified Authority. 3. Appeal to Anonymous Authority. Legitimate Appeal to Authority. Legitimate appeals to authority involves testimony from individuals who are truly experts in their fields and are giving advice that is within the realm of their expertise." Explanation Not every reliance upon the testimony of authority figures is fallacious. We often rely upon such testimony, and we can do so for very good reason. Their talent, training and experience put them in a position to EVALUATE and report on evidence not readily available to everyone else. But we must keep in mind that for such an appeal to be justified, certain standards must be met: 1. The authority is an (actual) expert in the area of knowledge under consideration. 2. The statement of the authority concerns his or her area of mastery. 3. There is (widespread) agreement among experts in the area of knowledge under consideration." Furthermore, it must be conceivably possible to verify the evidence of the authority (or authorities) cited. "Such verification may be time consuming, but that is usually why an appeal to authority is made in the first place." In conclusion, "...the way to differentiate between a legitimate and a fallacious appeal to authority is by evaluating the nature and strength of who is giving the testimony." * All quotations given are taken from thoughtco. com > humanities> philosophy Logical Fallacies.
1
@washaa I'm commenting here because @maxb9315 seems to have blocked further argument from me, and other people may read my reply to him here. I hope you don't mind. I pointed out to him that the different types of Appeal to Authority are: "1. Appeal to Legitimate Authority. 2. Appeal to Unqualified Authority. 3. Appeal to Anonymous Authority. Not every reliance upon the testimony of an authority is fallacious. It depends upon whether certain standards have been met: 1. The authority is an (actual) expert in the area of knowledge under consideration. 2. The statement of the authority concerns his or her area of mastery. 3. There is (widespread) agreement among experts in the area of knowledge under consideration." Also, even agreement among experts does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion, "instead we have conclusions which are probably true." To make a watertight argument it should be possible to independently verify and evaluate the conclusions of said experts with empirical phenomena. For maxb9315 to proclaim that an argument from authority is a logical fallacy is incorrect, as the fallaciousness, or not, of the argument's logic when appealing to an authority depends upon whether these standards have been met. Furthermore, his statement that Valkyri3Z was making an argument from authority is irrelevant, because as far as I can tell, Valkyrie wasn't making an argument at all, but merely voicing an opinion that something "means" a lot, which could simple be voicing a feeling that it meant a lot personally that a prominent Jewish intellectual was taking a stance that argued for honest terminology in the debate about the Palestinian and Israeli conflict.
1
@mateopribyl9218 So you must also think that the Israeli Occupation Force are also terrorists, am I right?
1
@alizakessler It's armed resistance.
1
@maxb9315 You are lying to yourself or you are a raging racist if you think Israel killing nearly 40 times more people than Hamas did on Oct. 7 is not "gratuitous barbarism." Especially when they do things like snipers shooting old Christian ladies in churches, running tanks over sleeping people in refugee tents, and starving 2.2 million people !
1