Whenever I stumble across Argumentation ethics, the abuse of 'logic' makes me die a little inside. Argumentation Ethics Advocates (abbreviated: AEAs) demonstrate a borderline fetish with facade of 'logic', while doing little more than abusing something that looks like logic to the casual observer. Why write this? As mentioned in a previous article, I find little value in directly engaging with it's 'true-believers.' Instead this articles is intended for skeptics, and persons who haven't had a chance to take a closer look.
If it Aint Broke…
I hate to pick on an individual, but having specific examples makes this far easier to demonstrate. The level of broken or misleading 'logic' in a single paragraph is so severe that it's difficult to keep up.
One such presupposition is that language is capable of meaning, that is. words have an objective interpretation both parties can recognize. This of course is assumed by anyone who chooses to speak to someone else. Another such presupposition is that objects have distinct boundries. That is, objects have boundaries which can be recognized by both parties. If I hold a ball it is distinct from the air around it. The boundary of the ball is not arbitrary. I can also say you are distinct from me, we are also separateobjects. To deny this presupposition is the say the world is one big moosh. Nothing is distinct. No meaningful discourse can take place. When the following objection is raised, i.e. that the “mouth” is distinct from the body, what objective border is refered? Which specific line separates the mouth from the rest of the body? Such a line must probably dissect an artery at some point, or otherwise simply pass through flesh, blood vessels ext. To say that the “mouth” or the “hand” are distinct from the body, even the speaker’s kidney, is to deny the universe has any meaning at all - (source)