# Logical fallacy brain-freeze

There must be a name for this sort of after-the-fact non-argument. Sorry, this is the only way I could find to describe it.

Debbie finds a kitten. Kitten has been burned over half its body, but it's alive.

Debbie says, 'The kitten wants to live!' and takes it to a vet.

Bob says, 'The kitten is suffering and will continue to suffer horribly, the kindest thing would be to euthanize her.'

Debbie refuses; the kitten continues to suffer for months but in the end manages to survive.

Bob says, 'The kitten suffered unnecessarily.'

Debbie then says to Bob, 'The kitten would now be dead had it been up to you. You have no respect for life.'

• I see no logical fallacy here, just two people talking past each other: neither party addresses the premises of the other. Dec 2, 2013 at 19:22
• Please highlight what you consider a fallacy, you seem (though you have in no way made this clear) to be looking for a word that describes a concept. Please edit your question to i) make it a question and ii) explain what exactly you're looking for. As far as I can tell, neither Bob nor Debbie are applying any kind of logic. Dec 2, 2013 at 20:00
• Just explain which part of this you consider an " after-the-fact non-argument" and tell us if you are looking for a word for that, or a phrase, or an analysis of the logic. Dec 2, 2013 at 20:12
• I'm not even entirely clear whether you think Debbie or Bob is committing the fallacy. Dec 2, 2013 at 20:21
• Debbie's implicit premise is that the possibility that the kitten will survive the suffering makes the effort to sustain its life obligatory. Bob's implicit premise is that actual suffering makes that effort intolerable. Neither addresses the other's premise. Dec 2, 2013 at 21:03