“Trump Defense” & Appeal To Authority

On the fallacy, the etymology of “verecundiam” is interesting here. The word suggests shame (also awe, coyness, modesty). Thus, I have thought about this fallacy as an attempt to shame your opponent into accepting your argument using the awesomeness of a title, position, reputation, etc. You are supposed to be cowed into proper modesty when the authority’s credentials are raised. Like many fallacies, it is an attempt to use emotion to win an argument. Who are YOU to argue X when Y has been argued by [authority], someone much more credentialed than you?

We see this all the time now with appeal to scientific authority. If you are foolish enough to have a debate about COVID on social media, you will get hit with this argument repeatedly. Dr. Fauci says you’re wrong. Dr. Atlas says your wrong. Who are you to argue? Are you an epidemiologist? Where did you go to medical school?

In the case of President Trump and the Capitol riot, then, this fallacy would more apply in the following way (an argument I have heard): “You say the election wasn’t stolen. But the president of the United States, the leader of the free world, who has access to way more information than you or me, says it was. Who should we believe? What do you know about our election security, anyway?”

Or in reverse: “The head of the department of intelligence says this was the most secure election in US history. Don’t you want to shut up now about the possibility voting machines were hacked?”

These arguments may be supportable, but the intent is to get you to feel shame, modesty, coyness — and to cease logical thinking of the sort that might lead you to realize that four years ago, the president was a reality TV star who loved conspiracy theories. Or: The heads of intelligence agencies are the same guys who said Saddam Hussein definitely had weapons of mass destruction and who went on TV and claimed President Trump was compromised by Russia. (Of course, my argument could be construed as an ad verecundiam in reverse. What’s that called? An appeal to reject all authority?)

As to the legal argument and issue you raised, the defense goes beyond “invitation” to suggest that because Trump was the president, his comments that day constituted an order to commit insurrection. In other words, it’s the old “we were just following orders” gambit. Here Alan Dershowitz has made a great point that isn’t obvious at first. The president of the United States is NOT the commander in chief. He’s the commander in chief of the ARMED FORCES. Unless the people in that crowd were on-duty military, his order (whether implied or explicit) means nothing. The president cannot order a civilian to do anything!

A philosopher could probably have a heyday with the Free Will/Determinism aspect here, too.

Is this really a question or to be considered as constructed just to be entertained? 

When it was the people that entered the So-called House of the People are ever trespassing?  

Like so many Americans sleeping on the public street and public parks or publuc bus benches because of the their public  constuction; not to be all a person needs to reast on them latterally so uncomfortably in as a free representing Our Republic decomcracy that we have the hind from the world; except to ourselves looking into a mirror?

Thank you. Trump was the authority  on the various claims of election fraud and malfeasance. He (or his proxies) claimed to know exactly when, where and how they occurred, despite there being no evidence anywhere else. Ergo, his rapt followers could claim that he was the sole authority on the subject of fraud and malfeasance. I’m not defending their argument, just wondering if prosecutors could counter their defense by pointing out the absurdity with the fallacy, other legal arguments notwithstanding.

Thanks for your reply but no, I’m not trolling in the sense you suggest. The “Trump Defense” was suggested by Jacob Chansley’s (AKA Q Shaman) attorney Al Watkins, among others. All other language I used is language regularly used to describe events, though that I feel they’re accurate is not relevant. I asked with genuine, if somewhat ignorant, curiosity RE: the fallacy, “trolling” only for exactly the kinds of clarifications I received. Again, thanks for yours.

The attorney was not presenting a defense. He was asking for a pardon. Major difference. www.kmov.com/news/qanon-s. . .

The attorney offered this as a defense, and requested a pardon, both. https://amp.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article248518380.html

among other articles with Watkins’s quotes. We’ll see the actual defense when it’s presented.

I read the article you linked. I think you are reading more into it than there is. The article says:  "Watkins claimed that his client did not play any part in the violence at the Capitol,.." That is the defense. 

Hard to say with certainty at this point how it will all shake out at trial.

‘Blame Trump' defense from alleged Capitol rioters dovetails with Democrats' impeachment case

I cannot find a "Blame Trump" defense anyplace except your statement. What is your source?

It was a CNN article of that title. Apparently the url did not copy with the headline. All the same, let’s see how it actually plays out in court.

[To Dr. Richard]

Allow me to help out: The source is CNN, which used the phrase “Blame Trump” in its headline.

Of course, one could ask the question: Is CNN trolling us, distorting the truth with misleading phrases for clicks/profit? And that answer would be: Yes, definitely!

So if ECB3 is guilty of anything, it is accepting a CNN headline as true and accurate without critically evaluating it. We’ve all been victims. And this is something logical thinkers must be very careful about these days. The news is far from objective now and cannot be relied upon as a source of true information.  Indeed, it is much more a source of examples of logical fallacies.

[To Jordan Pine]

Let’s start again: all I asked for were impressions on whether the “Trump Defense” was a legal argument or a fallacy. That’s it. Clearly, that was quite a trigger since the original topic has unfortunately detoured into “fake news”, with media veracity the focus.

I’ve watched the entire rally speech Trump and his entourage gave prior to and during the storming of the Capitol and critical thinking tells me that the gullible mind, of which there were many in the crowd, could easily infer Trump invited them to seditious action. Don’t believe me though, listen to it in their own words:

Three Weeks Inside a Pro-Trump QAnon Chat Room
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/26/opinion/trump-qanon-washington-capitol-hill.html

Whether or not CNN or FoxNews or OANN or any other outlet is biased is not the point of my question. Again, let’s see if 1) they use the “Trump Defense” as an actual defense at trial, and 2) if it works. The HoR has offered a version of it as the basis for impeachment, if that’s any measure, although whether or not it works remains to be seen.

Also, I get it: it’s not necessarily a fallacy of Appeal To Authority. Thank you for that.

[To ECB3]

Whether or not CNN or FoxNews or OANN or any other outlet is biased is not the point of my question.

I know. It was a side point I made when the issue became whether "Blame Trump" was an accurate representation of the case being made. Dr. Richard showed it is not an accurate representation of the defense being used, and he wondered if that phrase was your creation for the purposes of political trolling.

When I defended you by providing the link that shows it was not your creation but CNN's, I was reminded that logical thinkers must be careful when taking media headlines and claims at face value. The media cannot be relied upon to provide accurate information. That is all.

By the way, the New York Times definitely falls into this category, so you are emphasizing my point by sending that link. "Their own words" suggests to me you think the article is a fair, balanced and accurate presentation of QAnon thinking. No chance. I'm not defending QAnon by any means, but reading about them through the highly distorted lens of the Times is not going to give you the information you would need to reason correctly about the merits (or, rather, lack thereof) of their claims.

'Blame Trump' defense from alleged Capitol rioters dovetails with Democrats' impeachment case
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/27/politics/trump-defense-capitol-attack-charges/index.html

 

Appeal to What Authority? 

We don't live in a democracy but a representative republic!

Robert

A

distinction without a difference.

If you ever qoute me again, be sure to qoute it entirely as Robert W. Arrnijo.

Technically, we live in a “federal constitutional representative democracy”:

federal - because power is shared by a central government and state and local governments;

constitutional - because the central, operative document is the Constitution;

representative democracy - because elected officials are empowered to make decisions for the broader public, and they are elected by that public - the People - whom they represent (as opposed to a direct democracy where the people gather to make decisions collectively).

It’s also a “republic” because our democratically elected officials exercise political power. So, there’s little practical purpose in arguing whether “republic” is or is not interchangeable with “representative democracy” since a republic is a form of representative democracy. While the Constitution doesn’t specifically use the word “democracy”, our Founding Fathers and SCOTUS have in describing our system, so it’s just about your preference, although accuracy is important.

More interesting is the logical construction of your statement: 

P1 we don’t live in a democracy 

P2 we live in a representative republic

C ergo, there is no authority upon which to appeal.

which seems like a non-sequitur, at least it’s unclear what you mean, particularly if your premises are contradictory.

I stand on the Federalist Papers -- If all Dems and Reps would have, I am convinced our country would not be as divided as it is today.

As for SCOTUS, I suggest you read "Black Mondays: Worst....".

I thank you for your insight regarding the construction of my arguement. 

Correction: If the Dems and Reps listened to the wisdom of the Federalists Papers there would be no Dems and Reps; no party politics above the best interests of God and country.