-
If you replace the group in the sentence with another and it means the same it is a logical fallacy you stupid fucking cunt face.
So you are suggesting that
"That is exactly one cyclist being damned for the actions of another, even if they've never met them."
means the same as
"That is exactly one motorist being damned for the actions of another, even if they've never met them."
I'm pretty sure that they don't mean the same. "I am a motorist" does not mean the same as "I am a cyclist". Even if they did mean the same, what logical fallacy would that be? The point (one of the many that you have missed) is that cyclists are held responsible for the actions of other cyclists, whereas motorists are not held responsible for the actions of other motorists.
Also, if you actually bother to point out where I've taken you out of context I'll happily clarify.
You are reading a single comment by @ffm and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
ffm
cookiesdonniedarko
If you replace the group in the sentence with another and it means the same it is a logical fallacy you stupid fucking cunt face.
Clue-train btw, that is exactly what I fucking did by suggesting you replace cyclist with motorist.