If I reply, “And humans will develop compassion for robots who have been designed to mimic a few of our human traits” would this refute your refutation?
No it wouldn’t. Because it is irrelevant.
Thus your reply: Adds a distinction to which I must agree—but my argument still stands.
If I reply, “And humans will develop compassion for robots who have been designed to mimic a few of our human traits” would this refute your refutation?
No it wouldn’t. Because it is irrelevant.
Thus your reply: Adds a distinction to which I must agree—but my argument still stands.
Let’s call it the Pars Pro Toto fallacy....