3 ms·
You’re talking about the logical fallacy as described by the page. I’m talking about the fallacy the page is poorly describing. The example quoted by the OP is
by cgriswald 6y ago
You’re talking about the logical fallacy as described by the page. I’m talking about the fallacy the page is poorly describing. The example quoted by the OP is an example of neither.
- glenstein 6y agoI was directly responding to your claims that (1) the example provided on the page supposedly "does not contain a logical inconsistency" and that (2) there is a "second part" that is making a claim that you believe is in error. I don't know how responding to your own claims could possibly put me on the wrong side of a distinction between the fallacy itself and the fallacy the page is describing unless you were also on the wrong side of it, too. I suppose you're saying my response addresses itself to the idea of the fallacy and not to your criticisms of the way it's illustrated on the page - but I find that to be quite obviously wrong, because I am talking about what's on the page. Perhaps there's an argument than I'm not seeing, but you're being too cryptic and difficult to interpret for me to figure out what that argument is supposed to be.