Quote:
Originally Posted by ApK
Maybe we can take a poll, but to me it reads like he's using perfectly valid rhetorical devices and analogies which are being incorrectly labeled by some as logical fallacies. E.g, just because it is possible to make a fallacious reductio ad absurdum argument does not mean that all uses of reductio ad absurdum are fallacious. They are not, and the certainly don't appear to be in ninjalawyer's case. He's not presenting a false dichotomy. He's asking for information on consistency and extent. Similarly, what some are calling a strawman argument reads to me to be an analogy to test rationale.
ApK
|
He's arguing with something nobody actually said. Again.
My premise was that it's possible for someone to reasonably view lookie-loos as being unethical. His response, consistently, has been that I'm wrong because it's possible for such behavior to not be unethical. There is no connection between the two statements. I never said it wasn't possible for it to not be unethical. He's never actually denied that it's possible for it to be unethical.
He's simply not reponding to what I said. He's arguing with what he apparently wishes I'd said instead.