Originally Posted by
BrunoLawerence
This is, once again, not how this works when presenting an argument. Referring to relevant citations and experts in the field is a way of providing substance for the argument you are making. This is also not something that is really subject for debate. Well, technically it is, but any arguments against this would just be silly. Even people who are experts in one field have have no idea what they are talking about in another. E.g. I don't want my medical advice coming from a lawyer, just as I don't seek out a physician for legal advice. Do you not understand why people seek out experts in fields of study when presenting an argument? Is this a bad thing? If you prefer no facts being presented in an argument and wold prefer to rely on random youtube videos for advice you have certainly come to the right corner of the internet.
Regardless, let's talk about the merits of the specific video we are discussing. Why should I take this man's opinion as sacrosanct? Wouldn't also the posting of such a video itself be an appeal to authority. The ironic thing about the video that was posted was that one of the concerns expressed were in regards to overreaction and panic leading to the stay at home measures effects on the economy. The same type of panic also exists in the folks predicting doom/gloom regarding the economy who state the the economy is never coming back and the tinfoil hat gang who insists that the government wants to lock us in our houses forever. Would they not be panicking, creating dangers to others around them? I didn't realize that if I sat myself in front of a camera and discussed this viewpoint and later posted it on youtube exactly how much more official that viewpoint would be.
Also, why the random bolded words?