After some thought, and recently wasting time playing definition debacle with another AE advocate.... Lately come to realize that most of my critiques of Argumentation Ethics are not A.E. specific, but rather applicable to a broader category of highly-nuanced philosophies.

Examples

• Example: For example, take "Hume's law" or the "is-ought problem." It's extremely simple, and can practically be explained in mere seconds. It simply points out the illogical nature of attempting to bridge two concepts which exist in different "realms." For example, the problem with the concept "rocks are sad" is not "rocks aren't sad" but rather that "rocks and sadness are incompatible concepts." Perhaps it can't be 'objectively' proven (it doesn't attempt to), but it's the Achilles-Heel of hundreds of philosophies.

• Example2: I find that many of those concepts have an implicit suspension-of-disbelief, whereby they expect their audience to automatically tied to their pet-philosophy, unless one goes to the length of reading, researching, understanding, and arguing from the basis of their pet-philosophy. That's why the concept "burden of proof" exists - not because there is an actual burden of proof - but rather because it's not my responsibility or problem to waste my life debunking the billions of nonsense pet-philosphies and concepts out there that are blatantly broken.

Efficiency

The point being that perhaps it is far more efficient, practical, and logical to critique patterns than & reveal categories of fallacies... rather than focus on singular-subjects, singular-philosophies, and singular-fallacies. Having a background in math (logic's cousin), that's how most math works.

Labels Project

I've started such a project on this page, primarily focusing on labels, definitions, and concepts.... and abuse of such:

http://jamescarlin.wikidot.com/logic:floating-definitions

edit: I found a related article here, which describes the trend of ambiguous and contradictory uses of words by many within "libertarian objective ethics."

http://anarcho-mercantilist.blogspot.com/2009/06/some-distinctive-meanings-of-natural.html[2]