Exceptions don't prove rules. They undermine them. That's another commonly accepted bit of anti-logic.
No. My counter was that your argument breaks its own rule. The funny thing is that your rule is overly simplistic, abysmal logic.
The lesson would be to attack an argument on its own merits, as opposed to relying on some unfounded rule of thumb to discredit it. If
@Jackcrevol's argument was untrue, then argue a valid reason why. Like the fact that each supposed "victim" made a choice to snort the drug. He could counter the chemical effects on human brain receptors. You two could have a nuanced discussion on the philosophy of human volition in the argument of drug addictions, and the actions of drug dealers to increase revenue and foster addiction.
Now, that would be a far more interesting and truth-seeking debate than the binary, non-circumspect, non-moderate logical short-cut argument that only moderate and circumspect arguments are to be trusted. You'd probably actually find that
@Jackcrevol offered a fairly moderate and nuanced perspective. Quite often, drug addict deaths are culpable for their actions while also being victims of the drug trade.
My nephew died of a heroin overdose. He was culpable for taking the drugs. But the dealers had been lacing the product with (cheaper and much stronger) fentinol to varying degrees to increase profits and worsen addiction, much like the tobacco companies had been doing throughout their histories. My nephew got a batch of heroin with far too much fentinol in it, and it turned him purple and swelled his brain until they turned the life support off.
He was culpable for shooting it. He was also a victim of a horrible and seedy industry that's willing to kill people for profit.
