4 ms·

Loaded because it was clearly setting the scene for you to engage in reductio ad absurdum, which you promptly did. The contractual clause in your example would

Loaded because it was clearly setting the scene for you to engage in reductio ad absurdum, which you promptly did. The contractual clause in your example would be unenforceable so your point is moot. If you want to debate the matter maturely then I’m all ears, but if you just want to shoe horn my words to make ridiculous non-points then I see little point continuing.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
> Loaded because it was clearly setting the scene for you to engage in reductio ad absurdum, which you promptly did. That's ... not what a loaded question is? A loaded question is a question that presupposes as fact that for which no agreement exists, which is why it is fallacious. Setting up a scenario to support one's own position is exactly the opposite of that: It's the honest thing to do. Also, what exactly is wrong with a reductio ad absurdum? It's certainly not a fallacy!? > The contractual clause in your example would be unenforceable so your point is moot. When someone asks you "do you think that X should/should not be legal", answering "X is/is not legal" is a fallacy known as dodging the question. Ironic given how much you seem to dislike fallacies that aren't even fallacies!? > If you want to debate the matter maturely then I’m all ears, but if you just want to shoe horn my words to make ridiculous non-points then I see little point continuing. "maturely" as in I may only make arguments that agree with your position (because you seem to object to logically valid arguments simply because they contradict your position), while you are free to use fallacies as it suits you (which is what you have done)? I think that's the kind of approach that I would generally use the label "immature" for, but I guess labelling that as "mature" fits right in with you being the one to use all the fallacious arguments?!

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago

> Loaded because it was clearly setting the scene for you to engage in reductio ad absurdum, which you promptly did. That's ... not what a loaded question is? A loaded question is a question that presupposes as fact that for which no agreement exists, which is why it is fallacious. Setting up a scenario to support one's own position is exactly the opposite of that: It's the honest thing to do. Also, what exactly is wrong with a reductio ad absurdum? It's certainly not a fallacy!? > The contractual clause in your example would be unenforceable so your point is moot. When someone asks you "do you think that X should/should not be legal", answering "X is/is not legal" is a fallacy known as dodging the question. Ironic given how much you seem to dislike fallacies that aren't even fallacies!? > If you want to debate the matter maturely then I’m all ears, but if you just want to shoe horn my words to make ridiculous non-points then I see little point continuing. "maturely" as in I may only make arguments that agree with your position (because you seem to object to logically valid arguments simply because they contradict your position), while you are free to use fallacies as it suits you (which is what you have done)? I think that's the kind of approach that I would generally use the label "immature" for, but I guess labelling that as "mature" fits right in with you being the one to use all the fallacious arguments?!