A very amusing argument. For the record, 'appealing to authority' is one of the main logical fallacies people fall victim to and this argument is a perfect case in point. I particularly appreciate the logic of 'if you disagree with my completely flawed argument, you just don't understand it.'
- james_tanner1
You're wrong here on numerous points. First off the authority that you appeal to is the perceived authority of analytics. The argument isn't that both Girardi and Orpik don't have weaknesses in their game, it's whether they belong in the NHL or not. The fact that both are playing significant roles on two teams that are in the conference finals is direct and valid evidence that anyone who thinks they don't, is wrong. I made a clear point of the gap between those two positions.
The points the poster made in reply, such as the example of not liking a chef's cooking in a restaurant clearly illustrate that he didn't understand the point.
Lastly, and most importantly, this is a familiar refrain and tactic that you use when someone effectively refutes an opinion you offer in your blogs. You claim illogical fallacies and then when you're called out on a fallacy, you claim that the person doing so doesn't understand fallacies. How laughably ironic.
