Posted on 04/01/2012 4:50:49 PM PDT by Altariel
aybe it's the culture in Los Angeles, but every time I go to a different grocery store, there are so many options for children in the grocery cart, I wonder what's next: A teenager cart equipped with an Xbox? I've seen infant seats, booster seats, plastic cars that fit two toddlers or big kids attached to the front of the cart, and carts that have a traditional seat that fits two kids instead of one.
But even with all of these options, we can never be too safe when it comes to putting our children on top of a shopping cart, where the risk of falling exists. Sadly, a mom in Macon, Georgia learned this lesson in the most tragic way when her baby fell from the top of the shopping cart onto the ground and died.
Clearly all of the above options weren't available at the local Kroger's, as the 3-month-old was in her own car seat seat, balanced on top of the shopping cart. As a friend, and Kroger employee, pushed the cart over a speed bump, the infant seat fell to the ground, killing the newborn. It makes you pause when you think of how many times babies fall off a bed or a changing table, and be thankful this wasn't you.
(Excerpt) Read more at shine.yahoo.com ...
>>Oh, I gave you an answer.<<
No you didn’t. You just fell back on argumentum ad absurdum.
It is a valid forensic approach, but certainly a classic (and humorous) logical fallacy.
Are you shooting for every possible logical fallacy possible? You are a great example for many, so far.
“Mom was too busy what? Lighting up a smoke to carry the kid????”
==
In my generation we lit up the cigarette AND carried the kid.
Safety first!
I was pretty astonished myself.
But you know, I’ve concluded “good parents” as a cultural meme, are very much like “common sense.” I.e. actually pretty fricken rare!
Parents are like entrepreneurs: just because they managed to built a business that was self sustaining (didn’t kill the kid), doesn’t mean they are actually very good at running a business.
Oh, you think so?
You think asking for links to another scenario of the exact same circumstances as the one under consideration, but with a different outcome predicated on the sex of the subject is a reasonable request?
And where do you see an absurdum argument?
You use “logical fallacies” like a kid faking an accent.
Wow. Everybody! Be respectful! We are blessed to have in our company someone so powerful in their faculties that they have never and will never make a mistake of any kind! How lucky we are! We must learn from them their Jedi secrets!
I know parents that do all sorts of negligent things, like letting their kids play outdoors... Play indoors without helmets on... Play together with other kids even... It’s all so frightening out there. What kind of anti-disease masks do you use? Do you get good bulk pricing?
Yes, I'm sure that a law could fix this. People wouldn't be thoughtless if only there were more penalties for it. Since people are intentionally deciding to not think ahead... They would decide to think ahead if only the law made them do it. If the risk to their child isn't enough for people to think more clearly, the the law must be the thing that'll do it. Sheesh. (/s)
Why don't you show me how it's done?
How about logically demonstrating the rationale for giving this negligent mother a pass while justifying prosecution of a father for insufficiently securing his firearms?
Nope, sorry, epic fail on your part.
You mean you think a reasonable parent needs to use a helmet to go through Kroger?
If that makes me a Jedi, you must be Jar jar.
>>And where do you see an absurdum argument?<<
Your argument makes no sense in any way, shape or form. Thus it is an argumentum ad absurdum.
>>You use “logical fallacies” like a kid faking an accent.<<
The fact you don’t understand them, nor can you actually specifically cite a specific link that backs up your contention (actually, now, an assertion), is an indictment on you, not me.
Everyone reading this must note you have not even tried to rebut my specific forensic addressing of your statements.
You analogies fail. Your attempts to misdirect fail. Your ad absurdum and ad hominem fail. I ask a direct question, you cannot answer it.
You fail.
Please quit embarrassing yourself. And FR.
Really.
yeah, I’d like to try locking up a few of these “mothers” that leave their kids in the car while they get mani-pedis.
>>How about logically demonstrating the rationale for giving this negligent mother a pass while justifying prosecution of a father for insufficiently securing his firearms?<<
Why don’t you logically defend the actions of the Bush Administration’s Patriot act while giving a pass to allowing Paula Dean using real butter in her cooking?
It is bad enough you use so many fallacies, but false dichotomy? God, you make it too easy. There are only 3 or 4 left before you exhaust the entire base of fallacies.
I don’t want to create new forensic theory but if you continue on this path I may need to.
(btw: if it wasn’t for the tragic life of a child you want to politicize, this would be a hoot)
I learned never to let kids stand up in a shopping cart.
reductio ad absurdum (redirected from Argumentum ad absurdum)You were saying something about "fail?"[Latin, Reduction to absurdity.] In logic, a method employed to disprove an argument by illustrating how it leads to an absurd consequence.
Methinks you would be better served attending to how YOU look on this thread than worrying about how I look.
How would you know?
Your ignorance of the one fallacy you've referred to has now been proven beyond any dispute.
Do you now get credibility for expanding on your proven ignorance?
>>Methinks you would be better served attending to how YOU look on this thread than worrying about how I look.<<
Note you still haven’t answered my questions. And yes, your responses “illustrate how it leads to an absurd consequence.”
You have been bested in every category. Your forensic knowledge is shallow, your examples absurd, your reasoning illogical. Your entire “thesis” (I am kind in wrapping your rantings into such a cocoon) makes no logical sense and fails many, if not all, of the precepts of logic.
If I was you, I would withdraw. You don’t even have to admit defeat. Just say nothing and after some time you will have salvaged simple defeat from a thrashing.
I very nearly took a nurse apart for doing the same thing while checking my baby’s weight.
Luckily, I reached out and snatched her by the ankle before she hit the ground.
You are thrashing.
You were wrong in the one example you gave. Even so, your broader false dichotomy (If you were wrong on one, you were wrong on all) fails on its face.
Don’t try to argue logic via wikipedia. Either you know it or you do not.
You do not and your increased display of ignorance does you, me and FR no good.
I suspect your stories are... suspect.
Skittles/Heimlich/parental disinterest
Nurse/Drops/you as heroic “catcher”
Very, um, “convenient” to the point of discussion.
>Your ignorance of the one fallacy you’ve referred to has now been proven beyond any dispute.<<
Your misunderstanding of the fallacy at hand doth not make my analysis invalid.
>>Do you now get credibility for expanding on your proven ignorance?<<
You don’t really “get” false dichotomy, do you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.