"I have (this, that) and you don't"

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
1

What is a good, succinct response to someone who keeps playing the “I have (degree, qualification) and you don’t?” card as a trump card?

Person: “We should revise rules to allow more warrantless searches. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to be afraid of.”
You: “That a really bad slippery slope for society.”
Person: “I have a J.D. and you don’t.”
You: “That has nothing to do with your argument being good or bad.”
Person: “Get back to me when you have a J.D. like I do.”
You: “That’s not relevant to the validity of the argument.”
Person: “Get back to me when you have a J.D. like I do. Until then, your words are nothing but meaningless buzzing in my ears.”*

2

Journalism Degree? Juvenile Delinquency (conviction)? Joking Demeanor?

Firslty, the person in question hasn’t actually made an argument yet. An assertion, yeah.

Anyway, a good, succinct response is, “Stop throwing your credentials around and make an actual argument”. Whether or not to append “you pompous ass” is entirely up to you.

3

[snark]Did you pass the bar? Because otherwise, I don’t taken someone with a J.D seriously[/snark]

I would point out that what you are discussing is a matter of public policy and not law. Most law classes are about why a doctrine evolved, and how it should be interpreted.

4

“A person with (this, that) should be able to make a better argument than, ‘I have (this, that).’”

5

Along similar lines, “from where, a crackerjack box?”

6

“I have the wisdom to know having a JD doesn’t render you immune to being incorrect. If you’re so smart how come that need explaining to you, Mr JD?”

7

JD - Juris Doctor.
[URL=“http://www.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/”]

8

Ask him to explain what a JD is, and then once he’s done, say “great! Doctor, can you tell me why it hurts when I do (this, that)?”

9

My advice, just stop arguing with them. It’s not worth it. I’ve run into this a fair amount, and I’ll usually make a fair effort to point out that their supposed qualification is irrelevant, it’s a logical fallacy, and they’d be better off finding a more solid way to defend their point because it’s not going to convince anyone. Unfortunately, in my experience, most people who argue like that aren’t really interested in discussing the idea, they’re interested in either being seen as more intelligent or just having their opinion validated.

Hell, in my own experience, I’ve had people try to trump my opinion with qualifications, unaware that my qualifications are superior. Unsurprisingly, when they drop theirs and I trump them, there’s not a deference to my opinion, just an argument about either why mine aren’t actually superior or how mine are irrelevant. For instance, one of my favorites was when a coworker still working on his Associates in Information System Management was making ridiculous assertions about programming and had forgotten that I had my Masters and was working on my PhD in Computer Science (not just more advanced, but also more relevant), and when I mentioned that, he started throwing out stuff about how that somehow meant he had more knowledge about it, pretty much by spewing utter nonsense. When it got to that, I pretty much just rolled my eyes, laughed on the inside, and just let it go.

Around the same time, I had someone else questioning me on a topic that was directly related to thesis research, and his qualifications were “I worked with computers for 20 years.” Even direct cites from the patent on the technology in question, were just met with “well, I don’t think it works that way”. So, again, I just let it go.

As I see it, I have an intellectual obligation to point out a fallacy and try to correct ignorance or misinformation, but once it becomes clear that the person I’m talking to is not discussing the topic in good faith, it’s just time to let it go. Sure, they may be able to convince themselves they’ve gotten the better of you, but this is also someone who has an ignorant opinion in other matters and can’t discuss them fairly. So, why should you even care what they might think?

10

That’s a typical appeal to authority - in this case, the authority conferred by having a degree in law.

The correct rebuttal is that, in this case, the particular authority being appealed to isn’t really authoritative. A degree in law doesn’t make any difference to what is, in point of fact, a public policy issue - whether having warrantless searches is good or dangerous for society.

A succinct reply? “You have a JD? That would be great if I was asking you about whether a warrantless search would technically stand up in court, but I’m not. I’m asking you whether having such searches are dangerous for society, and for that issue the opinion of an average person on the street is as good as yours”.

11

Tell him you got a Phd in cock punching?

12

For bonus points, smack him as you say it. :smiley:

13

You know who else had a JD?
Hitler. And he loved warrentless searches, too.
Doesn’t matter what it is or if Hitler had one, it’s Hitler. Maybe Stalin, if you want to change it up a bit. Because, if they’re not actually going to debate honestly, may as well have some fun with it until they go away.

14

Argument From Authority Fallacy.

15

I’d probably go with “fuck you,” but we may have different philosophies on how to debate.

16

Thanks. I guess he wouldn’t think much of anything I had to say, either.

17

It fulfils all the criteria the OP asked for, IMO: succinct, good.

18

Start asking him all kinds of extremely personal questions:

When was the first time you masturbated?
What’s your social security number?
How much money do you make?
What’s your favorite sexual position/act?
What was your GPA in law school/undergrad/high school?

When he starts saying “none of your business,” ask him if he has something hide.

Ask if you can come over to his house tonight and spend an hour digging through his personal effects. When he says no, ask him if he has something to hide.

Finally, remind him that holding a JD does not automatically confer validity/support for any opinion that falls out of his arrogant mouth; if his goal is to convince others of the merits of his position, then he will need to provide reason and logic to back his opinions up rather than appeals to authority.

19

Well I have an owl so you’re wrong.

20

This. And only this.

As Blaster Master wisely says, “… once it becomes clear that the person I’m talking to is not discussing the topic in good faith …” then “Conversation over, ***hole” is how I usually come back.

You won’t make any progress with those sorts of folks. So say something that makes *you *feel good as you walk away shaking your head. How it makes *them *feel is irrelevant.