SwimExpert
Gold Member
- Nov 26, 2013
- 16,247
- 1,679
Why can't you explain what is illogical or non-sensible about my argument? You don't know do you?
Mainly because you are intentionally structuring your argument in a rhetorical manner that purposely abandons logical function in favor of "sounding good." But if you want to do some research look up "moving the goal post fallacy" and categorical syllogisms. Might also do you some good to do some reading on necessary and sufficient causes.
Your argument started with "primary cause" and then shifted to "contributing factor" and back to "primary cause." You are using these as if they were interchangeable (which reminds me, you should also look up fallacy of equivocation). A "contributing factor" can be one of a great many things, none of which are necessarily a "primary cause." For example, a primary cause for John Doe's death could be cardiac arrest subsequent to a strong electric shock. A contributing factor could be a lifetime of malnutrition that caused vein weakness which led to arterial hemorrhage during resuscitation attempts. Another example is a forest fire that begins with an unattended camp fire. The camp fire could be the primary cause. But strong winds could become a contributing factor. Contributing factors can often be entirely separate from primary causes, and may in fact be continually present and otherwise innocuous phenomena. Logically speaking, a "contributing factor" is typically a necessary cause not a sufficient cause of an end result. And the sufficient cause catalyst event that instantiates an occurrence may have several present necessary causes, none of which may actually be related to said catalyst and may only contribute incidentally after the sufficient cause occurs.