Ron wrote:
> In article >,
> Derek > wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron > wrote:
> >
> > >In article >,
> > > Derek > wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza >
wrote:
> > >> >Scented Nectar wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Then forced complicity
> > >> >
> > >> >There is no such thing.
> > >>
> > >> Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
> > >> you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
> > >> be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.
> > >
> > >We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice.
> >
> > Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in
> > a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to
> > comply and stand with your arm up your back? A
> > person can be forced to comply with brute force
> > and coercion if applied firmly enough.
>
> Logical fallacy of a false dilemma.

No, not a fallacy; not a dilemma at all.

A dilemma is NOT simply an unpleasant choice, or a choice that you feel
is unfairly constrained to a limited number of options. A dilemma is a
choice between two PROPOSITIONS that are purported to be exhaustive of
the truth.

You continually misidentify dilemmas, and all your claims of "false
dilemma", every single one so far, have been wrong, because you have
not identified logical dilemmas at all.