[maverick_iceman]

So we're to believe the government without any evidence? That's the classic case of argument from authority.

[matt4077]

Just because "argument from authority" was put on some internet list of biases doesn't mean it can not, at times, serve as a useful heuristic.

There's also a difference between "argument from authority" and "argument from a position of known knowledge". Example: radio ad says "Buy milk! We need milk". Will you give it the same credence as your spouse saying the same thing?

[youdounderstand]

"the government" is made up of a shit ton of people. I don't think there's some grand conspiracy involving the intelligence agencies, the Obama administration, and even Republican Senators to make all this up.

[pessimizer]

You're right. There must be WMD in Iraq.

[youdounderstand]

You're being intellectually dishonest. You have no way of knowing about correct reports that the intelligence community provides the military on a constant basis.

[3131s]

Intellectually dishonest? You're the one who started this comment chain with the false dichotomy that anyone asking for concrete evidence is either a Russian shill or Trump supporter.

[jessaustin]

It's "intellectually dishonest" to doubt the existence and alleged content of material we'll never see? That's Orwellian.