Talk:Denying the correlative

Is 3 really an example of this fallacy? It seems that it is a perfectly valid (although unusual) viewpoint, and arguments about definitions are usually separate to incorrect logic. LordK 19:49, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes. The author is trying to persuade the reader by calling the parties "priest" and "cynic", inspiring us to believe that the "cynic" is actually out to prove that, according to accepted definitions of selfishness, i.e. "bad" selfishness, even mother Theresa was "badly" selfish. This fails to acknowledge the possibility that the cynic is actually trying to define selfishness with his statements, and that is not directly related to logic.
In fact, I've taken the liberty of rewriting the article with this proviso in mind. I'm no student of logic, though, so if anyone thinks this is irrelevant or badly worded and you can improve on it, do so. 82.92.119.11 20:17, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How does this fallacy relate to middle ground fallacy?--Ezadarque 17:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the one example given (at this time) needs more work. I don't understand how you can steal money that does not exist. 78.150.250.58 (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the word "or" is critical: either he stole it, or he didn't. If there was no money to steal then he didn't steal the money. there is nothing wrong with these statements.

You can't say he didn't steal the money if "the money" doesn't exist. It's not there to not steal.82.24.11.87 (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

there are actually two fallacies that this article is driving at.

1. false dilemma 2. fallacy of complex question —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.29.209 (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]