In article .com>,
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

> 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.

The truth is that there are more options than chili or spaghetti --
skipping the meat and eating later, or skipping the meal and eating
earlier.

> 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.