In response to both SM and CC
Oh, sorry, it has to be a best seller? OK, then my source is Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone, which has gay characters living peacefully and happily.
Sorry, I should be ignoring you but you're just too damn easy of a target!
Read my books! http://michaelaventrella.com
I have only argued its discrimination which it is and my morals have nothing to do with that. In america i clealry understand my morals are not yours nor would i force mine on you and my morals would never be the basis or argument and never were.
Thanks take care, good day sir
bzzt. You misapplied the fallacy.The relativist fallacy, also known as the subjectivist fallacy, is committed, roughly speaking, when one person claims that something may be true for one person but not true for someone else. The fallacy is supposed to rest on the law of non-contradiction. The fallacy, it is said, applies only to objective facts, or what are alleged to be objective facts, rather than to facts about personal tastes or subjective experiences, and only to facts regarded in the same sense and at the same time. On this formulation, the very name "relativist fallacy" begs the question against anyone who earnestly (however mistakenly or not) holds that there are no "objective facts." So some more work has to be done, in a non-question-begging way, to make it clear wherein, exactly, the fallacy lies.
There are at least two ways to interpret "the relativist fallacy": either as identical to relativism (generally), or as the ad hoc adoption of a relativist stance purely to defend a controversial position.
On the one hand, those discussions of the relativist fallacy which make the fallacy out to be identical to relativism (e.g., linguistic relativism or cultural relativism) are themselves committing a commonly-identified fallacy of informal logic, namely, begging the question against an earnest, intelligent, logically-competent relativist. It is itself a fallacy to describe a controversial view as a "fallacy"--not, at least, without arguing that it is a fallacy. In any event, it will not do to argue as follows:
Last edited by tacomancer; 06-05-10 at 06:38 PM.