idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Again, I am in no way required to give you a primary document for my position, and you arguing for one is a logical fallacy (details above).
If you're demanding it of me to support my position, then it's valid to test if one is needed by checking of such primary support exists for any other position. If it doesn't, then it's an unfair demand.
Why? Because I'm not making an argument, I'm just critiquing yours.
Except you are. Assuming we agree that there must be a reason why those benefits were created, then just saying "you're wrong" isn't a sufficient counter argument. You must provide an alternative explanation.
If you assume you are right because I can't hand you a document that says you are wrong, then you are a fool.
That's not what I'm doing. I'm saying that I'm not wrong because I can't hand you a document that says I'm right. I'm illustrating this by showing that no one else can either.
Especially since you are making an argument from inference. That REQUIRES substantial evidence to be anything other than a joke.
An argument from inference requires only that one look at the facts which are available and infer
some conclusion. In my case, I'm looking at the set of benefits, looking at the historical criteria for those benefits, and inferring a reason one might grant those benefits to that set of people.
It's a perfectly legitimate logical process to use, isn't it? It's no different than looking at the intentional grounding rule in football, then noting rules regarding ball position after a sack versus an incomplete pass, and inferring that the rule exists to prevent quarterbacks from easily avoiding a sack (and the attendant yardage loss). You can infer that without once finding a primary source saying that's why the rule exists, right? And you'd be right.
More to the point, if one person was arguing that that's why the rule exists and someone else just kept saying "you're wrong", wouldn't our first response be "Ok, then why do you think the rule exists"? And if he could not or would not provide an alternative explanation, we'd stick with the one that fits the facts, right? Same deal here. As I said, it's a perfectly legitimate methodology to use in this case.