(May 26, 2013 at 9:51 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:(May 23, 2013 at 3:50 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: That’s not always the case, for example if the argument is concerning the verdict in a trial and someone makes an appeal to the jury's ruling, that’s not a fallacious appeal to authority because the jury has the proper authority or credentials to be the one determining the verdict of the trial.
So I guess O.J. Simpson didn't kill his wife because the jury said so? Truth is truth, not a highly qualified opinion. No matter how much authority or credentials someone has it doesn't make them a standard bearer for truth.
No, it is true that O.J. was found not guilty because the jury said so. "Not guilty" in U.S. jurisprudence does not equal "did not kill his wife". It simply means that the jury acquitted because the prosecutor failed to bring a case that compelled the jury.
Nonetheless, the jury is the ultimate arbiter of the verdict in the case.
Wow, seriously, did I just defend Statler? Time to go a lottery ticket, folks.