Terrorism Prevention Program for Homeland Security

Terrorism Prevention Program for Homeland Security Jacob Malone The Department of Homeland Securitys vision is a homeland that is safe, secure, and resilient against terrorism and other hazards, where American interests, aspirations, and way of life can thrive. In order to accomplish this, according to Chip Fulghum (2016), DHS employs over 225,000 people in jobs from border security to cybersecurity analysis and must work together to combat a wide range of threats. With a wide array of job duties it is clear that their main goal is to keep America safe. According to Roger Kemp (2012), The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) formally came into being as a standalone, Gabinet-level, department to further coordinate the unify national homeland security efforts, opening its doors on March 1,2003 (p. 28). DHS primary mission is to prevent terrorism and enhance security. Stopping and preventing terrorism is the keystone of DHS. The threat of terrorism to the nation has advanced over the years since the last quadrennial review in 2010. It remains real and even harder to detect. An example of this evolution is the Boston Marathon bombing. We are facing more lone wolf attackers that are inspired and encouraged by fanatical ideologies to radicalize to violence and commit deadly terrorist acts towards Americans. These independent acts are the hardest to detect and DHS will remain vigilant in identifying and countering these threats. DHS Priorities to Secure Against the Evolving Terrorism Threat Identify, Investigate, and Interdict Threats as Early as Possible Shrink the Haystack: Expand Risk Based Security Focus on Countering Violent Extremism and Helping to Prevent Complex Mass Casualty Attacks Reduce Vulnerabilities: Deny Resources, Deny Targets Uncover Patterns and Faint Signals: Enhance Data Integration and Analysis Table 1 Identify, Investigate, and Interdict Threats as Early as Possible Due to the present and development of potential attacks and threats, a prime concern is that these vicious fanatical can move undetected across boarders within conflict zones. An example would be the conflicts in Syria and Yemen where they can train other like-minded people in tactics, skills, and weapons for the use of terrorism. In addition to, many other nations are incapable of securing their own borders and prevent illegitimate movement of people and goods and the inability to collect customs revenues to support governance. As a result, they are on the verge of state failure. DHS and the Departments of State, Defense, and Justice will address the vulnerabilities and improve the safe and protected movement of people and goods by prioritizing support to foreign partners to increase their border supervision, customs integrity, and the capacities and capabilities of their law enforcement. In addition, it is vital to use the information we receive in advance to screen abroad based on risk instead of waiting to screen upon the arrival of the United States. Shrink the Haystack: Expand Risk-Based Security Due to the decentralized nature of the present threat makes it important that we migrate away from a one-size-fits-all type of security approach and move in the direction of risk informed and intelligence-driven. With this new mindset, DHS will focus more on identifying lower risk travelers and cargo in order to spend more time and resources on the people we know less about or pose a higher threat. According to DHS, Trusted traveler and shipper programs such as Global Entry, TSA Preà ¢Ã…“â€Å"à ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚ ¢, and the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism advance these objectives and show that effective security and the expedited flow of goods and people can be achieved together (DHS, 2017). They will use several ways to identify lower risk travelers. For example, they will use background check and recognize foreign partner trusted traveler programs. Focus On Countering Violent Extremism and Helping to Prevent Complex Mass Casualty Attacks DHS does not focus on just one form of one particular ideology or protected First Amendment activities, but rather all forms all forms of fanaticism when it comes to countering violent extremism within the U.S. Their efforts to opposing vicious extremism highlight the power of local communities and the premise that well-informed and well-equipped families and communities represent the best defense against these violent acts. DHS supports community based problem solving and local law enforcement programs in order to disrupt and deter recruitment to radicalized violence. According to DHS, DHS jointly develops with federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial partners training for frontline law enforcement officers on behaviors that may be indicative of violent extremist activity (DHS, 2017). Comparable research into non-ideologically motivated violence provides enhanced understanding into pre-incident behavioral indicators that are linked to mass violence. This give DHS the ability to equip partners with the best tools to identify and mitigate an array of violent attacks. Reduce Vulnerabilities: Deny Resources, Deny Targets Violent extremists will tend to seek out and attack symbolic venues, mass gathering, and critical infrastructure. The best way to protect against these targets is to adopt approaches that are intelligence-led, analytical driven, and pursued in close collaboration with federal, state, local, and private sector partners in addition to the public. The DHS Security Strategy for Mass Transit and Passenger Rail dives further into detail into how they have employed this approach to improve the security of our infrastructure. According to DHS, They will continue to increase an emphasis on deterrence, including enhancing efforts to publicly communicate tailored descriptions of homeland security capabilities to influence the perception, risk calculations, and behaviors of adversaries (DHS, 2017). Uncover Patterns and Faint Signals: Enhance Data Integration and Analysis DHS and its partners must continue and constantly maintain situational awareness. In addition, DHS is dedicated to integrating its data sources, including federating vetting operations. Homeland Security will adopt big data management solutions that will give the investigators and analysts the ability to identify relationships that were once difficult to distinguish. It allows them to identify harmful activity earlier and to intervene or stop these attacks from ever happening. A vital source of data is the Suspicious Activity Reporting from stat, local, and private sector partners that are members of the Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative. Another source with a critical role is the If You See Something, Say Something campaign. This campaign encourages citizens to report any suspicious activity to local law enforcement. These efforts will help protect our privacy, civil liberties, and civil rights and allow the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force to quickly view information and share with other FBI Field Intelligence Groups for further analysis. DHS will prioritize and swiftly distribute local or regional joint products through the National Network of Fusion Center and other mechanisms. According to DHS, These joint products, produced collaboratively by federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial partners, support operations and provide detailed insight on emerging community or region-specific threats (DHS, 2017). In conclusion, DHS has an enormous responsibility in keeping our nation safe, secure, and resilient against all enemies and other hazards. In order to accomplish this DHS employs over 240,000 people in jobs from border security to cybersecurity analysis. In order to protect us they came up with five priorities in order to secure against the evolving terrorism threat: identify, investigate, and interdict threats as early as possible, shrink the haystack: expand risk based security, focus on countering violent extremism and helping to prevent complex mass casualty attacks, reduce vulnerabilities: deny resources, deny targets, and uncover patterns and faint signals by enhancing data integration and analysis. References DHS. (2014). Fiscal Years 2014-2018 Strategic Plan . Retrieved March 21, 2017, from https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/FY14-18%20Strategic%20Plan_0_0.PDF DHS. (2014). The 2014 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review. Retrieved March 21, 2017, from https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/2014-qhsr-final-508.pdf Fulghum, C. (2016). Securing the resources that secure the homeland. Armed Forces Comptroller, 61(3), 6-9. Kahan, J. H. (2013). Whats in a name? the meaning of homeland security. Journal of Homeland Security Education, 2(1), 18. Kemp, R. L. (2012). Homeland security in america past, present, and future. World Future Review, 4(1), 28-33.

Why Australians Should Welcome Refugees

Why Australians should welcome refugees The Australian Government and the people of our communities must allow more refugees into our country. They have no choice but to leave their countries and unlike us they can't Just get on a plane to another country. So why won't we help them? Refugees are often treated badly by Australians but why? Refugees offer a lot to the community, they are hardworking and respectful and they will also do Jobs a lot of Australians will not, it Just sickens me to think that people think they shouldn't be allowed Into Australia.Firstly Australia needs to let many more refugees Into the entry. Compared to other countries Like the UK and the USA, Australia lets hardly any refugees in and we have so much room. How would you feel If you were living In a corrupt, third world country dominated by call wars and terrorism and, finally, after saving up for your whole life could afford to get a ticket on a rickety boat with no guarantee of survival to a country that you have heard so many great things about, where you have rights and freedom and when you arrived you were put In a detention center?This is what happens to them, they get put in there for years and some of them never even get out. Detention centers are like prisons and we need to get rid of mandatory detention centers, a lot of refugees kill themselves in there because their family is gone and they are left there not sure of whether they are going to get out. In some cases it is finally the day when you are let free and you have all these great expectations but you experience racism and you are looked down upon by the people around you. Is that fair? Secondly it's not their choice as to whether they flee their country or stay living there.The reasons they have to move often include; there may be civil wars there, their human rights aren't being expected, they are under threat of prosecution because of their religious beliefs or their life is under threat. You think they Just get on a boat to come to Australia with no guarantee of survival because they feel like moving? Some Australians say that they should stay and fight in their own country. This is absolutely ridiculous, if you lived in a corrupt, war torn third world country would you stay and fight for your country being proud of where you live?Finally, in many cases when they arrive in Australia after spending weeks to months on a crowded unsafe boat often being attacked by pirates and then to be sent to a detention center for years before being let out and being looked down upon by the people of your community and being thought of as inferior to them for many reasons. How would that feel? On top of what they have gone through many Australians have the audacity to make racist comments towards them. Refugees offer many things to the community. Refugees are almost always hard working, and appreciative because of where they came from.They are almost always better employees than many Australians because they try much reader and don't take things for granted. Many refugees will also do many Jobs that a lot of Australians believe they are â€Å"too good for†. Many people say refugees are taking all the jobs off of the Australians however the reality Is that they take any opportunity they get to work and will often do Jobs with less pay, plus they are generally better workers so as an employer why wouldn't you employ a refugee as long as they had think that that we shouldn't let refugees in. The good that they bring outweighs the bad by a long way.They have to travel all the way over here for months only to be put onto a detention center. It's not their choice that they have to leave their countries and it disgusts me that some ignorant, inconsiderate people actually think that refugees should stay and fight in their own countries, but in reality they have tried. If they stay in their own countries they may die! Why would anyone want to stay and live in a place like that? Many Aust ralians even stoop low enough to make racist comments and remarks, after all they have been through. Maybe we need to be more educated as to what they have been through and reconsider what they think.

Rien - Idiomatic French Expressions

The French pronoun rien usually means nothing, and is also used in many expressions. Learn how to say for no reason, not a chance, worthless, and more with this list of expressions with rien. Possible Meanings of Rien nothinganythinglove (tennis)nil, zero (sports) le rien - nothingnessun rien - a mere nothingdes riens - trivia Expressions with Rien (faire qqchose) comme un rien(to do something) with no trouble, like nothing at allun coup pour riena free gode rienyoure welcomedeux fois riennext to nothingjamais rien / As-tu jamais rien vu de plus bizarre  ?anything / Have you ever seen anything stranger?ne ___ en rien / Il ne ressemble en rien à   son pà ¨re.not at all, nothing like / He looks nothing like his father.ne... riennothing___ ne risque rien___ will be okay, nothing can happen to ___pour rienfor nothing, for a songpour un rienfor no reason, at the drop of a hatrien à   dà ©clarer (à   la douane)nothing to declare (at customs)rien à   signalernothing to reportrien à   voirnothing to do withrien au mondenothing in the worldrien dautrenothing elseun rien dea splash, touch, hint of somethingrien de gravenothing seriousrien de moinsnothing lessrien de neufnothing newrien de plusnothing else, nothing morerien de plus facile(theres) nothing easier, nothing could be simplerrien de plus, rien de moinsnothing more or l essrien de rien (informal)absolutely nothingrien de tel quenothing likerien du toutnothing at allrien partout (sports)nil all, love allrien queonlyrien que à §a (ironic)thats all, no lessrien qui vaillenothing useful, nothing worthwhile___ sinon rien___ or nothingtrois fois riennext to nothingcomprendre rien à   riento not have a cluenavoir rien à   voir avec/dansto have nothing to do withnavoir rien contre (quelquun)to have nothing against (someone)navoir rien de (quelquun)to having nothing in common with (someone)nà ªtre riento be a nobody/nothing, to be worthlessÇa ne compte pour rien dansThat has nothing to do withÇa ne fait rien.It doesnt matter, Never mind.br/>Ça ne me dit rienI dont feel like itÇa ne risque pas !Not a chance!Ça ne vaut rienIts worthless, its no goodÇa ne veut dire rienThat doesnt mean a thingCela na rien à   voir avec...That has nothing to do with...Cela na rien dimpossible.That is perfectly possible.Cela ne rime à   rienThat mak es no senseCe que tu fais ou rien !Dont bother!Cest à §a ou rienTake it or leave itCest mieux que rienIts better than nothingCest rien de le dire. (informal)Thats an understatement.Cest tout ou rien.Its all or nothing.Cest un(e) rien du toutHe (She) is a nobody, no goodCe nest pas rien.Its not nothing, Its no picnic.Ce nest rien.Its nothing, Never mind.Cà ©tait un coup pour rien.It was all for nothing.Il nen est rien.Its nothing like that, Thats not it at all.Il ny a rien à   faireTheres nothing we can do, Its hopelessJe nai rien à   dire surI have nothing to say about, I cant complain aboutJe ny peux rienTheres nothing I can do about it.Je ny suis pour rienIve got nothing to do with it.br/>On na rien pour rienEverything has a price.Qui ne risque rien na rien (proverb)Nothing ventured, nothing gainedRien à   faire !Its no good!Rien ne dit que ...Theres nothing to say that ...Rien ne va plusNo more betsRien ny faitNothing is any goodTu nas rien à   dire !Youre in no position to comment! You cant complain!La và ©rità ©, rien que la và ©rità ©.The truth and nothing but the truth.Y a-t-il rien de plus ___ ?Is there anything more ____?

Logical Fallacies Appeal to Authority

Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of: 1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true. A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact. Now, such testimony might be strong or it might be weak the better the authority, the stronger the testimony will be and the worse the authority, the weaker the testimony will be. Thus, the way to differentiate between a legitimate and a fallacious appeal to authority is by evaluating the nature and strength of who is giving the testimony. Obviously, the best way to avoid making the fallacy is to avoid relying upon testimony as much as possible, and instead to rely upon original facts and data. But the truth of the matter is, this isnt always possible: we cant verify every single thing ourselves, and thus will always have to make use of the testimony of experts. Nevertheless, we must do so carefully and judiciously. The different types of the Appeal to Authority are: Legitimate Appeal to AuthorityAppeal to Unqualified AuthorityAppeal to Anonymous AuthorityAppeal to NumbersAppeal to Tradition  « Logical Fallacies | Legitimate Appeal to Authority  » Fallacy Name:Legitimate Appeal to Authority Alternative Names:None Category:Fallacy of Relevance Appeals to Authority Explanation:Not every reliance upon the testimony of authority figures is fallacious. We often rely upon such testimony, and we can do so for very good reason. Their talent, training and experience put them in a position to evaluate and report on evidence not readily available to everyone else. But we must keep in mind that for such an appeal to be justified, certain standards must be met: 1. The authority is an expert in the area of knowledge under consideration.2. The statement of the authority concerns his or her area of mastery.3. There is agreement among experts in the area of knowledge under consideration. Examples and Discussion:Let’s take a look at this example: 4. My doctor has said that medicine X will help my medical condition. Therefore, it will help me with my medical condition. Is this a legitimate appeal to authority, or a fallacious appeal to authority? First, the doctor has to be a medical doctor — a doctor of philosophy simply won’t do. Second, the doctor has to be treating you for a condition in which she has training — it isn’t enough if the doctor is a dermatologist who is prescribing you something for lung cancer. Finally, there has to be some general agreement among other experts in this field — if your doctor is the only one using this treatment, then the premise does not support the conclusion. Of course, we must keep in mind that even if these conditions are fully met, that does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. We are looking at inductive arguments here, and inductive arguments do not have guaranteed true conclusions, even when the premises are true. Instead, we have conclusions which are probably true. An important issue to consider here how and why anyone might be called an â€Å"expert† in some field. It isn’t enough to simply note that an appeal to authority is not a fallacy when that authority is an expert, because we need to have some way to tell when and how we have a legitimate an expert, or when we just have a fallacy. Let’s look at another example: 5. Channeling the spirits of the dead is real, because John Edward says he can do it and he is an expert. Now, is the above a legitimate appeal to authority, or a fallacious appeal to authority? The answer rests with whether or not it is true that we can call Edward an expert on channeling the spirits of the dead. Let’s do a comparison of the following two examples to see if that helps: 6. Professor Smith, shark expert: Great White Sharks are dangerous.7. John Edward: I can channel the spirit of your dead grandmother. When it comes to the authority of Professor Smith, it isn’t so hard to accept that he might be an authority on sharks. Why? Because the topic that he is an expert on involves empirical phenomena; and more importantly, it is possible for us to check on what he has claimed and verify it for ourselves. Such verification might be time consuming (and, when it comes to sharks, perhaps dangerous!), but that is usually why an appeal to authority is made in the first place. But when it comes to Edward, the same things cannot really be said. We simply do not have the usual tools and methods available to us to verify that he is, indeed, channeling someone’s dead grandmother and thereby getting information from her. Since we have no idea how his claim might be verified, even in theory, it simply isn’t possible to conclude that he is an expert on the subject. Now, that does not mean that there cannot be experts or authorities on the behavior of people who claim to channel the spirits of the dead, or experts on the social phenomena surrounding belief in channeling. This is because the claims made by these so-called experts can be verified and evaluated independently. By the same token, a person might be an expert on theological arguments and the history of theology, but to call them an expert on â€Å"god† would just be begging the question.  « Appeal to Authority — Overview | Appeal to Unqualified Authority  » Name:Appeal to Unqualified Authority Alternative Names:Argumentum ad Verecundiam Category:Fallacies of Relevance Appeals to Authority Explanation:An appeal to an Unqualified Authority looks much like a legitimate appeal to authority, but it violates at least one of the three necessary conditions for such an appeal to be legitimate: 1. The authority is an expert in the area of knowledge under consideration.2. The statement of the authority concerns his or her area of mastery.3. There is agreement among experts in the area of knowledge under consideration. People don’t always bother to think about whether these standards have been met. One reason is that most learn to defer to authorities and are reluctant to challenge them — this is the source of the Latin name for this fallacy, Argumentum ad Verecundiam, which means â€Å"argument appealing to our sense of modesty.† It was coined by John Locke to communicate how people are browbeaten by such arguments into accepting a proposition by the testimony of an authority because they are too modest to base a challenge on their own knowledge. Authorities can be challenged and the place to start is by questioning whether or not the above criteria have been met. To begin with, you can question whether or not the alleged authority really is an authority in this area of knowledge. It isn’t uncommon for people to set themselves up as authorities when they don’t merit such a label. For example, expertise in the fields of science and medicine require many years of study and practical work, but some who claim to have similar expertise by more obscure methods, like self-study. With that, they might claim the authority to challenge everyone else; but even if it turns out that their radical ideas are right, until that is proven, references to their testimony would be a fallacious. Examples and Discussion:An all-too-common example of this is movie stars testifying on important matters before Congress: 4. My favorite actor, who appeared in a movie about AIDS, has testified that the HIV virus doesn’t really cause AIDS and that there has been a cover-up. So, I think that AIDS must be caused by something other than HIV and the drug companies are hiding it so that they can make money from expensive anti-HIV drugs. Although there is little evidence to support the idea, perhaps it is true that AIDS is not caused by HIV; but that is really beside the point. The above argument bases the conclusion on the testimony on an actor, apparently because they appeared in a movie on the topic. This example might seem fanciful but many actors have testified before Congress based on the strength of their movie roles or pet charities. This doesn’t make them any more of an authority on such topics than you or I. They certainly can’t claim the medical and biological expertise to make authoritative testimony on the nature of AIDS. So just why is it that actors are invited to testify before Congress on topics other than acting or art? A second basis for challenge is whether or not the authority in question is making statements in his or her area of expertise. Sometimes, it is obvious when that is not happening. The above example with actors would be a good one - we might accept such a person as an expert on acting or how Hollywood works, but that doesn’t mean they know anything about medicine. There are many examples of this in advertising — indeed, just about every bit of advertising which uses some sort of celebrity is making a subtle (or not-so-subtle) appeal to unqualified authority. Just because someone is a famous baseball player doesn’t make them qualified to say which mortgage company is best, for instance. Often the difference can be much more subtle, with an authority in a related field making statements about an area of knowledge close to their own, but not quite close enough to warrant calling them an expert. So, for example, a dermatologist might be an expert when it comes to skin disease, but that doesn’t mean that they should be accepted as also being an expert when it comes to lung cancer. Finally, we can challenge an appeal to authority based on whether or not the testimony being offered is something which would find widespread agreement among other experts in that field. After all, if this is the only person in the entire field making such claims, the mere fact that they have expertise doesn’t warrant belief in it, especially considering the weight of contrary testimony. There are entire fields, in fact, where there is widespread disagreement on just about everything — psychiatry and economics are good examples of this. When an economist testifies to something, we can be almost guaranteed that we could find other economists to argue differently. Thus, we cannot rely upon them and should look directly at the evidence they are offering.  « Legitimate Appeal to Authority | Appeal to Anonymous Authority  » Fallacy Name:Appeal to Anonymous Authority Alternative Names:HearsayAppeal to Rumor Category:Fallacy of Weak Induction Appeals to Authority Explanation:This fallacy occurs whenever a person claims we should believe a proposition because it is also believed or claimed by some authority figure or figures — but in this case the authority is not named. Instead of identifying who this authority is, we get vague statements about â€Å"experts† or â€Å"scientists† who have â€Å"proven† something to be â€Å"true.† This is a fallacious Appeal to Authority because a valid authority is one who can be checked and whose statements can be verified. An anonymous authority however, cannot be checked and their statements cannot be verified. Examples and Discussion:We often see the Appeal to Anonymous Authority used in arguments where scientific matters are at question: 1. Scientists have found that eating cooked meat causes cancer.2. Most doctors agree that people in America take too many unnecessary drugs. Either of the above propositions may be true — but the support offered is completely inadequate to the task of supporting them. The testimony of â€Å"scientists† and â€Å"most doctors† is only relevant if we know who these people are and can independently evaluate the data which they have used. Sometimes, the Appeal to Anonymous Authority doesn’t even bother to rely upon genuine authorities like â€Å"scientists† or â€Å"doctors† — instead, all we hear about are unidentified â€Å"experts†: 3. According to government experts, the new nuclear storage facility poses no dangers.4. Environmental experts have demonstrated that global warming does not really exist. Here we don’t even know if the so-called â€Å"experts† are qualified authorities in the fields in question — and that is in addition to not knowing who they are so we can check the data and conclusions. For all we know, they have no genuine expertise and/or experience in these matters and have only been cited because they happen to agree with the speaker’s personal beliefs. Sometimes, the Appeal to Anonymous Authority is combined with an insult: 5. Every open-minded historian will agree that the Bible is relatively historically accurate and that Jesus existed. The authority of â€Å"historians† is used as a basis to argue that the listener should believe both that the Bible is historically accurate and that Jesus existed. Nothing is said about who the â€Å"historians† in question are — as a result, we cannot check for ourselves whether or not these â€Å"historians† have a good basis for their position. The insult comes in via the implication that those who believe the claims are â€Å"open-minded† and, therefore, those who don’t believe aren’t open-minded. No one wants to think of herself as being closed-minded, so an inclination to adopt the position described above is created. In addition, all historians who reject the above are automatically excluded from consideration because they are simply â€Å"closed-minded.† This fallacy can also be used in a personal way: 6. I know a chemist who is an expert in his field, and according to him evolution is nonsense. Who is this chemist? What field is he an expert in? Does his expertise have anything at all to do with a field which relates to evolution? Without that information, his opinion about evolution cannot be regarded as any reason to doubt evolutionary theory. Sometimes, we don’t even get the benefit of an appeal to â€Å"experts†: 7. They say that crime is increasing because of a lax court system. This proposition may be true, but who is this â€Å"they† who says so? We don’t know and we cannot evaluate the claim. This example of the Appeal to Anonymous Authority fallacy is particularly bad because it is so vague and vacuous. The Appeal to Anonymous Authority fallacy is sometimes called an Appeal to Rumor and the above example shows why. When â€Å"they† say things, that is just a rumor — it might be true, or it might not be. We cannot accept it as true, however, without evidence and the testimony of â€Å"they† cannot even begin to qualify. Prevention and Treatment:Avoiding this fallacy can be difficult because we all have heard things that have led to our beliefs, but when called upon to defend those beliefs we can’t find all of those reports to use as evidence. Thus, it is very easy and tempting to simply refer to â€Å"scientists† or â€Å"experts.† This isn’t necessarily a problem — provided, of course, that we are willing to make the effort to find that evidence when asked. We should not expect anyone to believe it just because we have cited the so-called authority of unknown and anonymous figures. We also shouldn’t jump on someone when we see them doing the same. Instead, we should remind them that an anonymous authority isn’t sufficient to get us to believe the claims in question and ask them to provide more substantive support.  « Logical Fallacies | Argument from Authority  »