On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 19:24:10 +0000, Derek
wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 17:54:54 +0000, Greg Hennessy wrote:
>>On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 17:13:26 +0000, Derek wrote:
>>
>>>>You were shown the fallacious nature of the BS youre peddling in
>>>>
>>>>Message-ID:
>>>>
>>>>Are you going to run away again this time ?
>>>
>>>You didnt show that I had committed any fallacies there,
>>>so why dont you try again and show it here.
>>
>>Incorrect, Ive detailed them at length and supplied references to where I
>>did so, your self documenting cognitive dissonance is not the fault of the
>>audience.
>
>No, you did not, and your efforts were easily cast aside by
>my pointing out that, since both animal and human rights have
>been violated to perfect our meds,#
Incorrect, you have not shown that human rights have been
violated to perfect our meds
Youve produced a handful of isolated exceptional cases and attempted to
portray them as being equivalent to animal testing.
Therefore your whole premise is arrant nonsense.
[nonsense binned]
>>>>Its a fallacy of distraction. You are posing a patently false dilemma.
>>>>Human rights have *not* been violated to perfect *all* medical treatments.
>>>
>>>There is no fallacy of distraction,
>>
>>ROTFL! you clearly have no idea what the term means now do you.
>
>Its a fallacy related to argumentum ad ignorantiam: argument
>from ignorance
Ive told you what the fallacy is
You are posing a patently false dilemma
Which was
Have you foresworn all medical treatments on the grounds
that human rights have and are being violated to perfect
them?
>So tell me how my position commits this fallacy, especially
>when bearing in mind that Im not arguing that any particular
>assertion is right, based on the fact that it cannot be proven
>false. Its clear that youve misused the term.
What part of
Human rights have *not* been violated to perfect *all* medical
treatments.
Are you have having a problem with ?
Youre the one making claiming that it applies to all medical treatments.
Such a position is worthy of the finest tin foil hat
>>Or youre being willfully disingenuous given the snippage, or both.
>
>If you look to the post youve just responded to youll see that
>its you whos done all the snipping. The part where I ruin your
>argument by showing both rights violations are analogous is a
>good example in this case. Why did you snip it all away?
Because its fallacious drivel.
It clearly cannot be analogous because what is being compared are
dissimilar.
You cannot show that human rights have been violated w.r.t. the production
of even a tiny fraction of drugs available for human consumption today.
>>> since both animal and human
>>>rights have been violated to perfect our meds,
>>
>>Its a false dilemma
>
>Ipse dixit and false. You havent shown that it is a false
>dilemma,
I dont have to, the onus is on *YOU* to show that *all* drugs in use today
only exist as a consequence of human rights violations (your premise ) thus
making it analogous to animal testing.
> let alone that fallacy of distraction you misused.
Oh but I have, youre ignoring it in the vain hope that itll go away.
[fallacious drivel binned]
greg
--
Theres fighting on the left and marching on the right
Dont look up in the sky, youre gonna die of fright
Here comes the razors edge
Login
Search
Posted: 2004-11-20 22:54:29
![New posts [ Popular ]](images/topic_unread_hot.gif "New posts [ Popular ]"){kind=small}
![No new posts [ Popular ]](images/topic_read_hot.gif "No new posts [ Popular ]"){kind=small}
![New posts [ Locked ]](images/topic_unread_locked.gif "New posts [ Locked ]"){kind=small}
![No new posts [ Locked ]](images/topic_read_locked.gif "No new posts [ Locked ]"){kind=small}
