false dilemma ?

[Piscivore]

That clears things up. Thanks

Sure. Good luck with the situation.

 

[Careyp74]

Person X is presented as giving two options based on the bottom line of income, but the narrative also brings into the equation friendship and respect, so there is more happening than two simple options.

If you are the one to assume that the other person is only offering two choices, when the other person isn't even saying anything, there are no fallacies being committed by that person. YOU might be committing that fallacy, but that isn't what the OP is asking.

He starts off with assuming

"Person B: You mind your own business, don't give me any free advice. Did I told you to change something about yourself ? Then why are you telling me to change !!!"

means

"you would be good person if you don't give me advice or tell me to change and you will be bad if you tell me to change."

and also assumes that the person is only offering those two choices.

Bottom line: Either you live, or die. This is not a false dilemma. There are no other options available.

Either you do your homework, or you will not watch TV tonight. Again, no false dilemma, you are only given two choices to follow.

Pay taxes, or go to jail. Here is the false dilemma, because there is a third outcome, not being caught.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Fallacies are, first and foremost, an error in reasoning, not rhetoric (though there are a few exceptions). We can commit fallacies within the privacy of our own minds.

Second, a false dichotomy is an informal fallacy. As such, it does not require an actual argument. For example, the following statement, all on its own, is a false dichotomy: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." (George W. Bush, Sep 20, 2001)

Further, a false dichotomy is most simply defined as the unfair exclusion of a third option. Some true dichotomies do exist. You either do have one (or more) bank accounts, or you do not. There is no middle ground there.

I don't think the false dichotomy fallacy applies to any of the examples or sample statements presented by the OP. There is a possibility, but what is being addressed here is not some definitive, objective fact about the world, but the manner in which one man is prioritizing his values, and the standards by which he assesses those around him. It's a tangled mess, and there's really no use in attempting to strictly define it.

The guy seems like a jerk. I hope that clears things up.

 

[Careyp74]

Second, a false dichotomy is an informal fallacy. As such, it does not require an actual argument. For example, the following statement, all on its own, is a false dichotomy: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." (George W. Bush, Sep 20, 2001)

Mea Culpa. I knew that, too.

 

[Piscivore]

Fallacies are, first and foremost, an error in reasoning, not rhetoric (though there are a few exceptions). We can commit fallacies within the privacy of our own minds.

Sure, but no one else can "know" definitively that we have.

Second, a false dichotomy is an informal fallacy. As such, it does not require an actual argument. For example, the following statement, all on its own, is a false dichotomy: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." (George W. Bush, Sep 20, 2001)

That is an argument. It is an attempt to persuade the general public of the need to side ideologically with the speaker.

Further, a false dichotomy is most simply defined as the unfair exclusion of a third option. Some true dichotomies do exist. You either do have one (or more) bank accounts, or you do not. There is no middle ground there.

I don't think the false dichotomy fallacy applies to any of the examples or sample statements presented by the OP. There is a possibility, but what is being addressed here is not some definitive, objective fact about the world, but the manner in which one man is prioritizing his values, and the standards by which he assesses those around him. It's a tangled mess, and there's really no use in attempting to strictly define it.

The guy seems like a jerk.

Agreed.

 

[Careyp74]

That is an argument. It is an attempt to persuade the general public of the need to side ideologically with the speaker.

I took "Actual argument" to mean syllogism.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Second, a false dichotomy is an informal fallacy. As such, it does not require an actual argument.

It's more accurate to say that it doesn't require a formal argument. It does require at least that there is a question the two parties agree is the question.

In this example, Person A is arguing about a question something like, "What is the best way to improve Person B?" while Person B is dealing with a question such as, "Should Person A try to improve me?"

I think the best description of this conversation is that they're speaking at cross purposes.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

That is an argument. It is an attempt to persuade the general public of the need to side ideologically with the speaker.

That's sort of what I'm getting at. But it's not really a debate since the two aren't addressing the same question.

At most, you could say the discussion is over what the question is, in which case Person B's statement is at least more relevant.

 

[Careyp74]

That's sort of what I'm getting at. But it's not really a debate since the two aren't addressing the same question.

At most, you could say the discussion is over what the question is, in which case Person B's statement is at least more relevant.

I think the OP is just looking for an argumentive response for when people say to mind your own business.