This would be reasonable if statements and actions were unambiguous in their meaning or intent. That never happens.
You cannot debate actions and statements,
These seem contradictory.
you debate thoughts and meanings.
Thoughts of others (and sometimes our own) are always and forever unexaminable. We can only look at their effects. Those effects are actions and statements.
Person X is presented as giving two options based on the bottom line of income, but the narrative also brings into the equation friendship and respect, so there is more happening than two simple options.
But it is explicit in the hypothetical "friendship and respects" are entirely conditional on income alone. They are irrelevant as options here; there is no option to have "friendship" correlate with "no income" in this situation.
Person X has made an implicit claim that it is valid to base friendship and respect on how successful one is at making short term income, without including any mitigating circumstances.
Not necessarily. It is possible that the "friendship" is illusory, a tool used simply to dominate. Or it is a facile method to ingratiate Person X with those from whom he can derive resources, not wasted on those with little to no resources of their own.
That would be an arguable claim.
It would be, if made; infering it is is akin to creating a straw man to argue against. Simply assuming an implied claim is actually made leaves one open for error.
From the narrative Person X is implying:
If you want friendship and respect from me then you have to make money and I will let no other relevant factors affect my choice to verbally abuse you or not.
Person X is using a false dilemma to manipulate the situation.
Not quite; that is what
you are
inferring from hopkins' description of Person X's behaviour. Person X has made no statements, performed no directly observable actions, and
may not even exist. How does a fictional example imply anything?
Further, Person X has not made an explicit offer of "friendship and respect" in exchange for a positive income statement (and any such explicit offer could be disingenuous anyway). It is simply reported that he acts in a friendly manner to people with positive incomes, and acts hostile to those without. The "offer" has been inferred and could be in error, as explained above.
And again, were this offer genuine, this is not a "false" dichotomy; For Person X there
are no "other relevant factors". His "friendship and respect" is conditional on only
one factor, income.
Further, as explained, fallacies relate to logical arguments, and logical arguments are attempts to persuade. There is no attempt to persuade here.
