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

[Stargleamer]

87. Well, okay then, it’s a preference expressed (disguised?) in a hypothetical format. . .

But it’s still problematic.

If I use another example, say for example that you were to state that “I prefer habitual drug users/dealers to be incarcerated rather than executed” (or hypothetically, “if dealing with drug offenders there is the choice of execution and incarceration and I think incarceration is to be preferred”), and I counter, like one does in false dichotomy/false choices situations (leaving aside whether this is one or not) by saying “WTF?? These aren’t the only 2 options! One could try Substance-Abuse treatment for example!” And you then reply/retreat by saying “I never said they were only 2! I was merely expressing an opinion/preference, and therefore immune to the charge of false choice/false dichotomy.” Well okay then, but can’t you see that just like in false dichotomy/false choice situations, how insubstantial and--to use another word rather than “stupid/disingenuous/specious” (not saying though that those don’t apply, but leaving that aside as well)—trite (especially in this case) your initial remarks then are? Using the above example, It’s like “Duh” that incarceration is [to be] preferred to execution for drug offenders, and going back to your original remarks it’s also like “Duh!” that being in a zoo is to be preferred to being butchered. And one reason (maybe not the only one) it’s trite in both examples is because when making such remarks other (perhaps more reasonable) options, (such as just letting animals be left alone in freedom), are ignored/not considered (just like they aren’t in false choice/false dichotomy situations (again leaving aside whether this is one or not)).

Given that your initial remarks don’t rise above the level of being trite, it is ironic in a way that you dismiss Feeling the Bern’s comments as being “silly” and "irrelevant&quot which I note you don’t really explain why (while stating that I should explain why I thought your remarks were “stupid”), unless you think your comment, “So did everyone else” counts as an explanation, in which case I think you should speak for yourself and not for others (I might have heard Orwell’s comment just once or twice before, and only read 1984 and not Animal Farm)).

And although you appear to want me to technically correct when leveling a charge of "false choice" against what you say, and you chide me for making wrong inferences and drawing incorrect conclusions, I note that that level of precision is, in my opinion, quite lacking in what you write to Feeling The Bern and others: To wit: " "You've also imagined that the keepers were eager to kill this animal, which is a ridiculous and baseless accusation (to Feeling the Bern)." How can you draw such an inference based on what he wrote? Murder can still be murder even if carried out reluctantly. Nothing Feeling the Bern wrote indicates that he thought they were eager to kill, that they didn't do so without conflicting emotions. He may bemoan what he feels was the impetuousness of the act, but that is different than eagerness. ""Do you really think that the keepers were eager to kill the gorilla? (to MFM008)." Where does MFM008 express or indicate that they were eager? "Your inability to imagine situations outside of your limited experience speaks volumes" (to Feeling the Bern). Well even if we grant in this instance that Feeling the Bern was not imaging situations outside her/his experience, that doesn't mean indicate that they are unable to do so in other situations or as a whole. "One swallow does not a summer make". (maybe I'll get chided here for referencing Aesop). My guess is that in looking at your posts it wouldn't be hard to find additional examples. Before I get charged with a tu Quoque argument, let me just say that although I question whether or not merely stating a preference always avoids the charge of being a false choice/false dilemma, in light of what you wrote to me I now think that expressing one's preferences might be immune to such objections.