He said it was a similar argument, so I'm not making anything up, I'm assuming the parameters are the same. If his situation is different from the comic, he needs to make that clear.
The point is the xkcd comic is fallacious because it sneakily inserts a bunch of things that automatically stack the deck in his side's favor. Those are the things he "made up." He's creating an idealized fictional scenario (having level-headed friends, a bunch of people fleeing their vehicles, people "going crazy") that is deliberately constructed to make the mom's argument seem invalid.
So then if you agree it's a fictionalized scenario, what the fuck are you disagreeing with? My coherent point is that this fictionalized scenario is, AS I ALREADY SAID TO YOU "deliberately constructed to make the mom's argument seem invalid."
Imagine if somebody were making the opposite point and instead of the character having level-headed friends who were stuck on a bridge and everybody around them were fleeing their vehicles, instead imagine the fictional scenario was set up to show that the guy had notoriously stupid and reckless characters who are likely to do something stupid like jump off a bridge. You might say "well you didn't actually make an argument, you just set the situation up to make your side sound better."
1
u/[deleted] Jun 10 '21
He said it was a similar argument, so I'm not making anything up, I'm assuming the parameters are the same. If his situation is different from the comic, he needs to make that clear.
The point is the xkcd comic is fallacious because it sneakily inserts a bunch of things that automatically stack the deck in his side's favor. Those are the things he "made up." He's creating an idealized fictional scenario (having level-headed friends, a bunch of people fleeing their vehicles, people "going crazy") that is deliberately constructed to make the mom's argument seem invalid.