|
Actually, if you genuinely believe that to be the case (and you're not simply attempting to bait me or deliberately misconstrue my points), I'd highly recommend brushing up a bit on your comprehensive reading and/or deductive reasoning skills. However, if you'd care to provide the specific deductions and/or inferences in question, I'd be happy to clear them up for you.
Precisely my point. Your argument is ethics-based, not rule-based. Ethics-based arguments rarely have any objective quantifiers, which is why they are such quagmires. If you'll re-read my post, you'll note we are in agreement here; my only argument was that since your argument appears to fall back on an ethical point of view, which may or may not be shared and cannot at any rate be rationally assessed with regard to other viewpoints, there is really no way to logically persuade others to the same position.
Finally:
Yes, I believe that excellent site Jazuela pointed out earlier gave a very concise definition of the "bandwagon" fallacy. While it's regrettable his memory has prevented him from giving any specific names, and he's admitted as much, I fail to see how that by definition makes him a liar. It's quite possible that he's acting in good faith, you know. At worst it probably weakens the credibility of his argument, and it should be interpreted accordingly.
|