English

Placio....

You keep creating artificial strawmen and then arguing against them instead of proposals actually put forth

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition"

Just as you changed the analogy about a person wanting access to kosher food, into a strawman about why would a kosher person want a cheeseburger, you are doing it again here.

If two people go to a conference and are obliged to pay for meals, then one of two things must happen. a) The site should offer a meal compliant with those dietary restrictions or b) they can not force the kosher adherenmt individual to pay for a meal they can not eat.

As detailed in past posts (i,e. #26) the idea was not to promote "specific examples" but to reinforce the idea that "equivalent but not equal" rewards could be offered while **not** putting any real examples forward. As I said previously, "using something we are familiar with", I created those hybrids tounge in cheek because and only because they were something everyone was familiar with. Each is different but each has its use. I would exchanging ideas, pluses and minuses, but can we stick to ideas actually being proposed and not create artificial strawmen just so that they can be easily shot down ?