SC - smoking-OOP-OT

[grizly at mindspring.com]

sca-cooks at ansteorra.org wrote:
> > > This is flat out unreasonable. You are comparing the> > atmospheric contamination caused by SMOKE to that caused by the
> > wearing of _ANY_ perfume. 
> Once again, we see that something is "unreasonable"
> when it pertains to a prohibition against something
> the speaker favors, but perfectly reasonable when it
> is against something they dislike...

Yup, I'm in favor of comparing apples to oranges all right, and I dislike people who make illogical comparisons.  >>>>>

Thre syllogism actually is parallel, if you look at it.  I have followed this and find (in my personal estimation) the change of 'smoke' to 'perfume' within logic parameters.  One can and shouldchallenge a logical construct by placing absurd items in place of the syllogistic structure.  The more absurd the result, the more illustrative the example.  As long as the structures are parallel . . . and sometimes that is hard to amintain.

niccolo difrancesco
(modus ponens is your friend)