"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

And many others, but there is no dilemma, just an either/or choice.

>> 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.