[mac_truck]

As you have failed to demonstrate any necessary connection between your so-called "ethical reasoning" to the independent concept of argumentation's design, it may be dismissed as a non-sequitur.

The connection is a priori . Your reasoning must follow ethical rules, or it is flawed. Regardless of the logical construct around it.

There is no inherent ethical obligation of me or anybody else to expand or apply an argument anywhere beyond its immediate and identified object.

Your lack of morality is so noted.

In short, your doctrine of "fairness" has no inherent nature in what is truly "fair" or what is ethically obliged.

I'll just put you down as someone who doesn't recognize the difference between "right and wrong". There's a medical term that might apply also.

Cheers

[GOPcapitalist]

The connection is a priori . Your reasoning must follow ethical rules, or it is flawed. Regardless of the logical construct around it.

Seeing as you've yet to demonstrate any ethical necessity or even connection in the doctrine you allege, assigning it a priori status is invalid. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

[fortheDeclaration]

GOP doesn't realize that Logic is to be an aid in thinking,

not a substitute for it.