little HIV+ felcher Ron wrote:
> In article .com>,
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
> > little HIV+ felcher 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

Irrelevant. This is not about what you might *do*.

You STILL are misusing the word dilemma. The food choice isn't a
dilemma at all, it's just a food choice.