He's really just making the badness of rape an unstated premise. If you grant him that premise, as well as his explicit one, then the only thing wrong with his conclusion is the use of "logical fallacy" in place of "fallacious."
Of course, that's not to say that anyone who accepts the premises would, when presented with the argument, have to accept the conclusion. Instead, he might rethink his support for the premises.
But arguing against something on the basis of a premise the other party doesn't concede, and is entirely opposed to their thesis is...retarded.
Not exactly a logical operative term 
, but still. This is one degree removed from "nihilism sucks because it supports apathy."As plausible as what you're saying sounds, its assumption is wrong. It's simply
not true that a person who maintains
x can't simultaneously hold beliefs that, upon inspection, turn out to flatly contradict
x. None of us have ever carefully sat down and thought through
all of the implications of the various beliefs we hold; and how any set of them may relate to some other belief.
Let me try this on you. Are geometric proofs a waste of time? And if not, why not? Aren't they equally subject to your critique? (Anyone who ever doubted the Pythagorean theorem
must have disagreed with the premises, no?) Indeed, aren't
all logical arguments equally subject to it?
Poll
