That is, unawareness of scale or intentional warping of a thesis via a change in scale of an argument - a la so-called Jesuit argument (?)

Ex: I give you a lousy haircut and and you complain.
You reply, "isn't it fortunate that hair grows?"
I counterthrust, "isn't it fortunate that everything grows?"

It's everywhere.. ad hominem being the final cop-out. Why don't we teach 'debate' to the cheeldrun, no more?

(Me? Guilty as charged.. but at least I know when I'm *cheating* :-\ufffd


A.

It's raining cats and dogs.
Frenchlish: Eeet is raining ze cat and ze dog

that everything he has written is a lie, including the "ands" and "the\ufffds." shouldnt that be that everything he has written is a lie, including the "ands" and THE "the\ufffds."

I'd guess it's a crap shoot as, "the birds and bees / the birds and the bees". Often enough the rhythm of a sequence determines options, though..

(Maybe I'd vote for "the the's" / but it's close)

Notice the common '3' items in such cutesy sentences, though (thought to be the max most homo-saps can retain in memory all at once?) -

"We shall fight them on the beaches.
We shall fight them in the streets.
We shall never surrender!" (Winnie natch)

Much more effective than,

"We shall fight them on the beaches, in the streets and, we shall ..."

No?

Nit above, the apostrophe posse might.. say that the plural of 'the' is 'thes' -- but I think common sense overrules here:
[thes] = huh? [the's] = well it ain't "the property belonging to 'the'" ... but it's clear-er with apostrophe.

My 2 shillings.


A.

..but it'd be evrsomuchmore Interesting than -

Why? Because. But..WHY? Because!







..and just maybe a bit fewer, when asked -
"Whaddayaywanna be?" Might not say, with bright gleams of expectation: Oooh. Ooooh. A consumer!

"Can I major in Consumption, Daddy? Huh huh - Can I?"

(worth a try)