Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist
You're wilfully trying to change the argument here and and make the situation suit your view. He didn't make a false dilemma nor compare the two problems.
He compared the "economy" defense (not his false dilemma, he did not make it), and did not suggest the problems are equivocal. At all. You see what you want to I guess, but flat out making things up now. Who made the false dilemma here?
|
You did!
Then you suggested that was his premise!
Then you asked if I disagreed with it!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist
Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist View Post
Do you disagree with the premise? That something more important than economy is at stake so the defense is weak
|
WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM ME STREET PHARMACIST I WAS JUST TRYING TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION
In seriousness I guess I mischaracterized it as a false dilemma on its face. It's just a bad argument whose conclusion doesn't follow... But it seems to me that Brad Wall just said, look, whatever we're doing, we need to take into account the economic impact and try to avoid further job losses:
Quote:
|
Brad Wall: “Whatever it is we agree to going into Paris, whatever we agree to as a country, we need to make sure we understand what impact that’s going to have on jobs. What additional impact will that have on the energy sector, which is already suffering massive layoffs in our country?”
|
Suzuki then effectively says that focusing on the economy sounds like a slaver's mentality, which to me, sure does sound like a false dilemma, as if we can't take steps forward on environmental issues
while considering economic impacts. It's not one or the other, it can't be.