it's funny how people haven't become crazy anti-car freaks the way they have with drugs, since almost everyone knows someone that died in a car accident.
It's not a different thing to people whose line of thinking goes "I know [x number of drug deaths, or particular situ re. drugs" therefore "drugs bad." Those same people are *not* likely to say "I know [x number of car deaths, or particular re. cars" therefore "cars bad." I think the point she's making is that that line of thinking is applied inconsistently, *not* that it's the only line of thinking. For the people who do the logic she outlined, "I know [x number of blow jobs] re. drugs" therefore "drugs bad" is NOT part of their syllogism.
I'm not arguing against the diffs you bring up, but you're skipping the (il)logic she's pointing out in one enthymeme and bringing in a completely different enthymeme. The point is about logic before it's about drugs.
no subject
I'm not arguing against the diffs you bring up, but you're skipping the (il)logic she's pointing out in one enthymeme and bringing in a completely different enthymeme. The point is about logic before it's about drugs.
Or what am I missing?
no subject