Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sob
Sorry, you're just flat-out wrong. It's not my fault if you don't understand the concept of "Reductio ad absurdum."
The above would be argumentum ad hominem, another logical fallacy commonly employed when the writer has been proven wrong.
The above would be a "straw man" argument, another logical fallacy.
Game, set, and match.
But thanks for playing!
|
good job on googling all those--too bad you misused them.
as for the first, you needed to prove that your conclusion is false, not merely that it looks false. it simply isn't correct to impute 'american' to driving on any side of a road. so my refusal to drive on the 'correct' side does not falsify the american-ness of my driving habits.
EDIT: actually, I'll rephrase this portion to clarify where you went wrong. you seem to have, either intentionally or not, confused the issue of culture or tradtion with essence. So while we speak of an American way of driving, there isn't any essential characteristic that makes it true.
That does not hold when we speak of the unique case of US rights of citizenship--which are argued to be essential characteristics given by the creator and our constitution by birth. /edit
as for the second, I prefered to think of it as an either-or fallacy when I wrote it. but if you prefer to take it as an attack on your person, realize that it speaks less to whether I felt I had lost an argument and more whether I was exasperated with your examples.
maybe you'd care to demonstrate how the last example is a strawman?
I'm not sitting on a debate panel.