|
 |
And lo on Sat, 02 Feb 2008 00:26:55 -0000, John VanSickle
<evi### [at] hotmail com> did spake, saying:
> Phil Cook wrote:
>> I'm trying to think of the term used to describe a particular fallacy -
>> 'If you do it for X (greater) you have to do it for Y (lesser)'
>
> Technically this would be called a non sequitur (Latin for "does not
> follow"); it refers to any argument of "if A, then B" for which the
> relationship between A and B does not itself necessitate that A implies
> B.
>
> The implied middle term in this case is "all situations must be treated
> equally." Since this middle term is the real bone of contention, it
> should not be accepted without conclusive support.
A nonsense quitter, that's the puppy thank you.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
