In Gorilla's Death, Critics Blame Mother, Cincinnati Zoo

[Orrex]

69. Again, that's your problem and not mine

Nowhere did I claim nor imply that only two options exist, and it is incorrect of you to claim otherwise.

Everything in your post that follows from your incorrect claim can be disregarded, but I'll humor you.

There is no real hypothetical when the hypothetical obviously doesn't exist and any reasonably knowledgeable person knows that the hypothetical doesn't exist.

Are you perhaps not familiar with what the term "hypothetical" means?

Putting an "if" in front of it doesn't get you off the hook, since it doesn't change the unreality of that hypothetical.

There's nothing to "get off the hook." Despite your insistence, it's simply not a false dichotomy, full stop.

Also, as a hypothetical, it is inherently speculative and suppositional. Why is that a problem for you? By your reasoning, every hypothetical decision made between two hypothetical options must therefore be a false dichotomy, which obviously isn't the case.

If we're driving on a wet and slippery road, and you're at the wheel, and there are plastic bottles lying in the road, and in order to avoid hitting them you tell me well if I go to the right we'll fall off a cliff and if I go to the left we'll crash into the wall, well, I'd rather crash into the wall, I'd tell you, If I could get the words out of mouth in time " those aren't the only 2 choices! Go straight!!" Putting an "if" in front doesn't change the false dilemma/dichotomy of it all.

Actually, yet it does. Completely. And your example has nothing to do with the current discussion in general nor my own hypothetical in particular.

When you posit a hypothetical, you are free to set the terms of that hypothetical however you see fit. The hypothetical can freely exclude all options except two, even if in reality there are many more options. Because the example is hypothetical, and because it does not purport to represent the whole of reality, the example is absolutely not bound by the constraints of reality. The listener is free to reject the hypothetical, but the listener can't simply say "that's not reality," because no shit. It's a hypothetical. This is fundamental to logic and has been so for thousands of years. The fact that you don't care for it is irrelevant.

But if for pedantry's sake, if you wish me to classify my objection to what you wrote as a "stupid hypothetical" rather than a "false dichotomy", well I'm cool with that.

Again, the listener is free to reject the hypothetical, but the reader has no authority to declare the hypothetical "stupid" without explaining why it is perceived to be so. And in any case a "stupid" hypothetical doesn't necessarily entail a failure of logic, as a false dichotomy does. The listener will be incorrect if he attempts to reject an argument (as you did) on the grounds that the hypothetical is a false dichotomy when it clearly is not. That's not pedantry; it's basic critical thought.

Bottom line: it is unfortunate that the child made it into the enclosure, and it is unfortunate that the keepers opted to shoot the gorilla, but it appears that in the circumstances the keepers made the best decision available to them.