zlacker

> Uhh, I don't want to be Amazon defender,

This should give you a hint about this person's intention. Their argument is a classic appeal to authority.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

>>atomi+(OP)
Could you elaborate?

I think I either misunderstand this type of argument or you meant to use a different link. If you look at my history, I am hardly a proponent of all things Amazon. I recognize their strengths and their weaknesses. It is important to clear eyes about all this.

>>atomi+(OP)
I don't agree with the parent comment at all, but this is not an argument from authority. If anything, it's an instance of the is-ought fallacy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

>>A4ET8a+d1
When you appeal an argument to a higher authority, in your case the law, it's an attempt to shutdown further discussion. In other words, it's not an argument as to the merits of the points being made. You're just not addressing the points at all and appealing to "a higher authority."

>>atomi+S6
Ok. I think understand your point now. I believe you have your argument type mixed up. You are probably looking for appeal to the law ( though it is still a stretch ). I am not dura lex sed lex guy, but I think it is necessary to point out current condition before we get too wound up over what the reality ought to be.

edit: corrected fallacy to argument

>>atomi+(OP)
It looks to me like you may be poisoning the well.

Separately, there is no "appeal to authority fallacy" in the post.