Strawman.What drivel. If you think McGuire deserves his predicament then you need to argue *that*. But instead, your feeble argument was "well it's ok because he isn't *really* being harmed is he?"
Yeahhhhh...So my counterargument is "on that exact same basis you can argue that Lumumba also hasn't been harmed".
Yeah, it's a false equivalency.So no. No false equivalency. It's exactly equivalent because I was arguing against precisely your argument. Sorry you got this wrong and sorry you don't understand logic so you just proffer up what you believe to be fallacies (but you don't understand why) but that's just how it is.
My position was 'people have said this'.Oafish or not, it wasn't false. It was exactly analogous. It demonstrated how stupid your position is.
You can repeat it as much as you like, I'd have to have MADE an argument for you to 'take it to its logical conclusion.I'll repeat. Taking your *exact* argument to its logical conclusion in order to demonstrate that it's terrible is not a fallacy. It's a perfectly valid method of debate.
Which is a false equivalency.I don't know where you got the idea you can argue from. But that place is wrong.
I mean, you wrote a whole bunch of drivel but not once did you ever come close to attempting to answer my question.
Listen I will simple it down for you ok because you need it.
You said: McGuire is not being harmed *because* there is no frontyard mob.
That was your argument. I thought such an argument intensely stupid of course (because it is) and to point out why it is intensely stupid I said
"well under that metric Lumumba is unharmed too"
No, I don't. To do so would be to do what people who sprout false equivalencies want - for you to treat them as a respectable position to argue against.Now, you have to explain why a lack of a frontyard mob is a good metric for McGuire but not Lumumba.
Just to reiterate - this is *your* [stupid] metric not mine.
Sweetheart, you are the proverbial pigeon on the chessboard.Now try again.