On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:00:55 +0000, Greg Hennessy wrote:
>On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 12:09:54 +0000, Derek wrote:
>>On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 11:31:12 +0000, Greg Hennessy wrote:
>>>On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 10:14:01 +0000, Derek wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Personally, I believe forcing a child to eat a rotting corpse
>>>>>> is more akin to child abuse that feeding it with healthy
>>>>>> vegetable matter.
>>>>>
>>>>>Generally children need more forcing to eat vegetables than meat or fish.
>>>>
>>>>Ipse dixit and false. A child will more readily pick up and
>>>>eat a piece of fruit than a lump of rotting flesh.
>>>
>>>That sentence is both a fallacy of distraction and an inductive fallacy.
>>
>>Once again youve merely announced I invoked a fallacy
>>without describing it fully.
>
>One rarely has to state the bleeding obvious.
Thats a dodge. Explain the fallacy youre referring to
and describe how it concerns my statement.
>Its not the fault of the audience that your limited intellect cannot grasp
>this.
>
>Ill explain one of the two, as homework you can figure out the other one
>if you can.
>
>The fallacy of distraction, which in this case is an unequivocally false
>dilemma.
Nonsense. The false dilemma has nothing to do with my
statement on children preferring fruit to rotting flesh.
[False Dilemma
Type: Informal Fallacy
Exposure:
The Black-or-White Fallacy, like Begging the Question,
is a validating form of argument. For example, some
instances have the validating form:
Simple Constructive Dilemma:
Either p or q.
If p then r.
If q then r.
Therefore, r.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/eitheror.html
You havent a clue about what youre writing about. You
announce that every other sentence from your opponent
invokes a fallacy, and when asked what that fallacy might
be you then go on to describe something which has nothing
to do with the argument or statement in front of you. Youre
a joke.
>1. A parent is *not* going to feed a child rotting flesh (sic).
>2. A Parent is *not* going to *force* a child to eat a rotting corpse
>(sic)
>3. Giving a child meat to eat is *not* akin to child abuse.
Whats that nonsense supposed to prove? In not a valid
form of argument in the least.