[quote=@catchamber]
<Snipped quote by tex>
Isn't that an appeal to accomplishment?
[/quote]

	No, it is not. Rather, it implies the opposite. 

	
[quote]1. Y person claims X is true.
2. Y person has insufficient knowledge on X.
[hr]
∴ X is false.[/quote]

	Of course, in this case, one would have to argue that person Y is in fact lacking knowledge. I can see where your confusion comes up, though. What I am referring to are individuals who automatically assume that their arguments are correct, and criticize others for holding different stances. This is commonly referred to as [i]being a twat.[/i] It's similar to the fallacy that you're referring to, except it's... It doesn't even try to make sense.

	Claiming that an argument on [i]economics for example[/i] holds any ground without presenting an adequate amount of evidence, which [i]requires[/i] one to be sufficiently learned in the complex nature of wealth and how an entire country interacts with it, is a foolish and short-sighted claim to make. But despite this being a very common trend, people assume themselves to be in the right [i]very adamently,[/i] hence the context of my earlier comment. The reason I dismiss most political arguments stems from the fact that I have no interest in the excruciatingly nebulous cluster fuck of conflicting ideas that all seem to hold weight on the political spectrum, and this is made even worse by the slews of morons who think they know [i]anything about anything,[/i] and explicitly assert themselves as trustworthy sources of information.

	People like that are toxic for three reasons.

	1. They are charismatic.
	2. They are often wrong.
	3. [b]People will believe them without thinking twice due to their charisma.[/b]


	When I note a [i]political background [/i]as something that implies a greater knowledge, I am in fact referring to an environment full of individuals who have a history in [i]rigorous study of politics and economics,[/i] not some internet tough guy/girl who works at home-depot and occasionally reads biased news sources/biased articles in his spare time.

	It seems that, most of the time anyways, you cannot trust a [i]seemingly[/i] trustworthy body of knowledge when it often conflicts so heavily with another, especially in social politics. For every ten reasonably thought out theses on one side of an argument, there are ten equally reasonable papers on another side.

	Then again, adamantly taking a 'side' in politics is in fact, outrageously ignorant.