Claire's fat crippled Uncle Cuckold wrote:
> On 27 Jan 2005 09:52:46 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" >
wrote:
> >Pixie Ron wrote:
> >> In article >,
> >> Derek > wrote:
> >>
> >> > Your continued snipping of my posts,
> >>
> >> Ray presented a logical fallacy.
> >
> >Ray did not present a logical fallacy. He did not present a
dilemma,
> >and the logical fallacy you claim he presented is the fallacy of
false
> >dilemma.
>
> You've conceded that the choices offered in the
> scenario were restricted to just the two presented

Yes. They are not a dilemma.

Hence, you lose: no false dilemma, because no dilemma in the first
place.

You stupid fat ****.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Claire's fat crippled Uncle Cuckold wrote:
>> On 27 Jan 2005 09:52:46 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" >
> wrote:
>> >Pixie Ron wrote:
>> >> In article >,
>> >> Derek > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Your continued snipping of my posts,
>> >>
>> >> Ray presented a logical fallacy.
>> >
>> >Ray did not present a logical fallacy. He did not present a
> dilemma,
>> >and the logical fallacy you claim he presented is the fallacy of
> false
>> >dilemma.
>>
>> You've conceded that the choices offered in the
>> scenario were restricted to just the two presented
>
> Yes. They are not a dilemma.
>
> Hence, you lose: no false dilemma, because no dilemma in the first
> place.
>
> You stupid fat ****.

Ray Wrote:

******** ~~Jonnie~~


You are a ****ing stupid ignorant bald headed dwarf. Your only dilemma is
what to call yourself.

One day you will lean the difference between COLLATERAL and ACCIDENTAL.
Don't blame us because you have been proved to be a bed ****ing, ignorant
nymshifting, shirtlifting duffer who makes life difficult for himself in
future postings. You have no argument now, the only thing you know about CDs
is that they give better reproduction than cassette tapes.

Or are you still on the 4 track jobbies? (About your era)

Blow it out of your arse ~~jonnie~~, but not in the direction of the UK.
>

Ron wrote:
> In article . net>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>>In article .com>,
>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Pixie Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article >,
>>>>>Derek > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Your continued snipping of my posts,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Ray presented a logical fallacy.
>>>>
>>>>Ray did not present a logical fallacy. He did not present a dilemma,
>>>>and the logical fallacy you claim he presented is the fallacy of false
>>>>dilemma.
>>>>
>>>>You, however, have repeatedly presented a lie.
>>>
>>>
>>>How much time would you like me to spend on this issue, Rudy?
>>
>>No more time than it takes you to admit that you were
>>completely in error. 15-20 seconds should do it.
>
>
> Anyone who can think

can see that Ray did not posit a false dilemma. So
what's your problem?

In article >,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article . net>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article .com>,
> >>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Pixie Ron wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article >,
> >>>>>Derek > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Your continued snipping of my posts,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Ray presented a logical fallacy.
> >>>>
> >>>>Ray did not present a logical fallacy. He did not present a dilemma,
> >>>>and the logical fallacy you claim he presented is the fallacy of false
> >>>>dilemma.
> >>>>
> >>>>You, however, have repeatedly presented a lie.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>How much time would you like me to spend on this issue, Rudy?
> >>
> >>No more time than it takes you to admit that you were
> >>completely in error. 15-20 seconds should do it.
> >
> >
> > Anyone who can think
>
> can see that Ray did not posit a false dilemma. So
> what's your problem?

We can all argue that this one example was or wasn't a logical fallacy
for weeks, months and years. Obsession and mental health issues abound
here.

Ron wrote:

> In article >,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>>In article . net>,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article .com>,
>>>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Pixie Ron wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article >,
>>>>>>>Derek > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Your continued snipping of my posts,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ray presented a logical fallacy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ray did not present a logical fallacy. He did not present a dilemma,
>>>>>>and the logical fallacy you claim he presented is the fallacy of false
>>>>>>dilemma.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You, however, have repeatedly presented a lie.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>How much time would you like me to spend on this issue, Rudy?
>>>>
>>>>No more time than it takes you to admit that you were
>>>>completely in error. 15-20 seconds should do it.
>>>
>>>
>>>Anyone who can think
>>
>>can see that Ray did not posit a false dilemma. So
>>what's your problem?
>
>
> We can all argue that this one example was or wasn't a logical fallacy
> for weeks, months and years.

Not rationally, "we" can't: there was no dilemma AT
ALL, so there could not have been a "false dilemma".

You, being an irrational sophist/faineant, may wish to
argue.

In article >,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article . net>,
> >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Ron wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article .com>,
> >>>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Pixie Ron wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>In article >,
> >>>>>>>Derek > wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Your continued snipping of my posts,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Ray presented a logical fallacy.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Ray did not present a logical fallacy. He did not present a dilemma,
> >>>>>>and the logical fallacy you claim he presented is the fallacy of false
> >>>>>>dilemma.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>You, however, have repeatedly presented a lie.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>How much time would you like me to spend on this issue, Rudy?
> >>>>
> >>>>No more time than it takes you to admit that you were
> >>>>completely in error. 15-20 seconds should do it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Anyone who can think
> >>
> >>can see that Ray did not posit a false dilemma. So
> >>what's your problem?
> >
> >
> > We can all argue that this one example was or wasn't a logical fallacy
> > for weeks, months and years.
>
> Not rationally, "we" can't: there was no dilemma AT
> ALL, so there could not have been a "false dilemma".
>
> You, being an irrational sophist/faineant, may wish to
> argue.

I have other choices that I am making.

Ron wrote:

> In article >,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article . net>,
>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article .com>,
>>>>>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Pixie Ron wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In article >,
>>>>>>>>>Derek > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Your continued snipping of my posts,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Ray presented a logical fallacy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Ray did not present a logical fallacy. He did not present a dilemma,
>>>>>>>>and the logical fallacy you claim he presented is the fallacy of false
>>>>>>>>dilemma.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You, however, have repeatedly presented a lie.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>How much time would you like me to spend on this issue, Rudy?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No more time than it takes you to admit that you were
>>>>>>completely in error. 15-20 seconds should do it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Anyone who can think
>>>>
>>>>can see that Ray did not posit a false dilemma. So
>>>>what's your problem?
>>>
>>>
>>>We can all argue that this one example was or wasn't a logical fallacy
>>>for weeks, months and years.
>>
>>Not rationally, "we" can't: there was no dilemma AT
>>ALL, so there could not have been a "false dilemma".
>>
>>You, being an irrational sophist/faineant, may wish to
>>argue.
>
>
> I have other choices that I am making.

You chose the option I predicted you would choose.

Dutch wrote:

> "Derek" > wrote
>
>>Definition:
>>A limited number of options (usually two) is given, while
>>in reality there are more options."
>>http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/fd.htm
>
>
> Which do you prefer, spaghetti or chili? (blones or brunettes, classical or
> rock, etc..) Or as Ray said, bullet in the head or throat cut?
>
> According to you that is a false dilemma, when in fact it simply is a
> request for you to express a preference between two options.
>
> "You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists" -GW Bush
>
> That is a false dilemma because it places the listener in the position of
> either being in agreement with US government policies or being branded a
> supporter of El Queda, when in fact many people are neither.

Right. You have used dilemma correctly, while homo
felcher Ron and fat crippled dog-beater cuckold Dreck
have used it incorrectly.

The logical fallacy of false dilemma refers to a much
narrower and more technical use of the word dilemma.
Dog-beater and felcher are using it in its colloquial
sense of "an unpleasant choice to make". That has
nothing to do with the meaning of "dilemma" in
propositional logic.

"Ron" > wrote

> Ray presented a logical fallacy.

He did not.

Given the choice which do you prefer, rice pudding or chocolate cake?

You can reply that you prefer one or the other, or that you like or dislike
them both equally. There's no dilemma, much less a false one, no fallacy.

If I had proposed "Either you like chocolate cake or you are an idiot", that
would present a false dilemma.

Clearly one can dislike chocolate cake and not be an idiot.

Clearly you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
>
> > Ray presented a logical fallacy.
>
> He did not.
>
> Given the choice which do you prefer, rice pudding or chocolate cake?

I prefer neither. You did create a false dilemma.

> You can reply that you prefer one or the other, or that you like or dislike
> them both equally. There's no dilemma, much less a false one, no fallacy.

I can also dislike them to varying degrees and prefer neither of them.

> If I had proposed "Either you like chocolate cake or you are an idiot", that
> would present a false dilemma.

I can't wait for your logical explanation of how one is a dilemma and
the other isn't.

> Clearly one can dislike chocolate cake and not be an idiot.
>
> Clearly you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.

little homo felcher Ron wrote:
> In article >, "Dutch"
>
> wrote:
>
> > "Ron" > wrote
> >
> > > Ray presented a logical fallacy.
> >
> > He did not.
> >
> > Given the choice which do you prefer, rice pudding or chocolate
cake?
>
> I prefer neither. You did create a false dilemma.

No, he didn't. An unpleasant choice isn't a dilemma per se.

You are using dilemma to mean simply an unpleasant choice, and the
logical fallacy of false dilemma doesn't apply.


> > You can reply that you prefer one or the other, or that you like or
dislike
> > them both equally. There's no dilemma, much less a false one, no
fallacy.
>
> I can also dislike them to varying degrees and prefer neither of
them.

That's nice. You STILL aren't confronted with a logical dilemma; only
a choice you don't like.

>
> > If I had proposed "Either you like chocolate cake or you are an
idiot", that
> > would present a false dilemma.
>
> I can't wait for your logical explanation of how one is a dilemma and

> the other isn't.

Because the first is not a presentation of two PROPOSITIONS from which
to choose; the second is. In logic, dilemma refers to two competing
PROPOSITIONS, of which only one can be true, and which taken together
are represented as exhausting all possible options that might be true.

In vernacular speech, the word dilemma has come to mean merely an
unpleasant choice. That is not the same thing as a logical dilemma.

>
> > Clearly one can dislike chocolate cake and not be an idiot.
> >
> > Clearly you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>>
>> > Ray presented a logical fallacy.
>>
>> He did not.
>>
>> Given the choice which do you prefer, rice pudding or chocolate cake?
>
> I prefer neither.

Fine, question answered.

> You did create a false dilemma.

Where is the dilemma?

>> You can reply that you prefer one or the other, or that you like or
>> dislike
>> them both equally. There's no dilemma, much less a false one, no fallacy.
>
> I can also dislike them to varying degrees and prefer neither of them.

Again, no dilemma.

>> If I had proposed "Either you like chocolate cake or you are an idiot",
>> that
>> would present a false dilemma.
>
> I can't wait for your logical explanation of how one is a dilemma and
> the other isn't.

In "Given the choice which do you prefer, rice pudding or chocolate cake?" I
am simply asking a question, I place no constraints on how you answer, any
answer you wish to give is equally valid. In other words I create no dilemma
for you, I simply am seeking your opinion.

In "Either you like chocolate cake or you are an idiot", I have asserted a
conditional proposition, you either have to aquiese to one of it's
conditions or else declare it to be a false choice. I have not given you the
option of expressing your opinion freely, you either comply or else you must
declare my proposition invalid.

>> Clearly one can dislike chocolate cake and not be an idiot.
>>
>> Clearly you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >>
> >> > Ray presented a logical fallacy.
> >>
> >> He did not.
> >>
> >> Given the choice which do you prefer, rice pudding or chocolate cake?
> >
> > I prefer neither.
>
> Fine, question answered.
>
> > You did create a false dilemma.
>
> Where is the dilemma?
>
> >> You can reply that you prefer one or the other, or that you like or
> >> dislike
> >> them both equally. There's no dilemma, much less a false one, no fallacy.
> >
> > I can also dislike them to varying degrees and prefer neither of them.
>
> Again, no dilemma.
>
> >> If I had proposed "Either you like chocolate cake or you are an idiot",
> >> that
> >> would present a false dilemma.
> >
> > I can't wait for your logical explanation of how one is a dilemma and
> > the other isn't.
>
> In "Given the choice which do you prefer, rice pudding or chocolate cake?" I
> am simply asking a question, I place no constraints on how you answer, any
> answer you wish to give is equally valid. In other words I create no dilemma
> for you, I simply am seeking your opinion.

The question contains the dilemma. A dilemma in the form of a question
is the same as a dilemma in the form of a statement.

Although, if Bush had asked rather than stated, "do you prefer to be
against us, or do you prefer to be with the terrorists" you would then
view this as _not_ a dilemma.

> In "Either you like chocolate cake or you are an idiot", I have asserted a
> conditional proposition, you either have to aquiese to one of it's
> conditions or else declare it to be a false choice. I have not given you the
> option of expressing your opinion freely, you either comply or else you must
> declare my proposition invalid.

You did just that. The question in and of itself limited my choices.
Just as Bush's statement limited our choices.

> >> Clearly one can dislike chocolate cake and not be an idiot.
> >>
> >> Clearly you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.

little HIV+ felcher Ron wrote:
> In article >, "Dutch"
>
> wrote:
>
> > "Ron" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >, "Dutch"
>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> "Ron" > wrote
> > >>
> > >> > Ray presented a logical fallacy.
> > >>
> > >> He did not.
> > >>
> > >> Given the choice which do you prefer, rice pudding or chocolate
cake?
> > >
> > > I prefer neither.
> >
> > Fine, question answered.
> >
> > > You did create a false dilemma.
> >
> > Where is the dilemma?
> >
> > >> You can reply that you prefer one or the other, or that you like
or
> > >> dislike
> > >> them both equally. There's no dilemma, much less a false one, no
fallacy.
> > >
> > > I can also dislike them to varying degrees and prefer neither of
them.
> >
> > Again, no dilemma.
> >
> > >> If I had proposed "Either you like chocolate cake or you are an
idiot",
> > >> that
> > >> would present a false dilemma.
> > >
> > > I can't wait for your logical explanation of how one is a dilemma
and
> > > the other isn't.
> >
> > In "Given the choice which do you prefer, rice pudding or chocolate
cake?" I
> > am simply asking a question, I place no constraints on how you
answer, any
> > answer you wish to give is equally valid. In other words I create
no dilemma
> > for you, I simply am seeking your opinion.
>
> The question contains the dilemma.

There is NO dilemma. A choice is not inherently a dilemma.

You are simply WRONG in your use of the word dilemma.

>
> Although, if Bush had asked rather than stated, "do you prefer to be
> against us, or do you prefer to be with the terrorists" you would
then
> view this as _not_ a dilemma.

Right - it isn't one.

>
> > In "Either you like chocolate cake or you are an idiot", I have
asserted a
> > conditional proposition, you either have to aquiese to one of it's
> > conditions or else declare it to be a false choice. I have not
given you the
> > option of expressing your opinion freely, you either comply or else
you must
> > declare my proposition invalid.
>
> You did just that. The question in and of itself limited my choices.

That is not what a dilemma is. A dilemma is not merely a limitation of
choice.