This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
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)
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.