No evidence in this E-longated discussion has been put forth to refute my statement
That's because we can't prove a negative. The onus is on you to prove your assertion. We can only demonstrate to you the flaws in your assertion.
I was asked to provide an example.
It's not an adequate example. Yes, it vaguely leans in your direction, but the example is of a child, which is different and which the link acknowledges is different suggesting another option, that a child can be rehabilitated. So we now have death, life without parole, release to kill again, and rehabilitation. Your example is also one example from one "liberal" organization, which is hardly adequate to support your broad accusation about liberals, in general.
In the event that answer wouldn't count, you chose B, which was death
Any sane person, when pushed into that tight a corner would choose B. That includes liberals. That includes AI. Asserting otherwise is demonizing them. The fact is that there are other options that reasonable people can and do choose.
In preference testing, subclasses do not necessarily have to be related, and thus it does not satisfy the elements of a false dichotomy.
May I suggest that, if what you're trying to do is to make a point by forcing an artificial choice, that you frame your point that way--"if you (of the typical liberal) had to choose between x and y,..."--rather than as a charge against a class of people. |
